Drug testing in public schools is an issue that the courts have had the main role in regulating. The legislative and executive branches don’t give much direction on this issue, which leaves it up to the courts to decide. The issue of public college drug testing is one that has not received much attention because no public college has implemented a drug testing program for students that were not athletes. Linn State Technical College (LSTC), a small college in rural Missouri, broke this precedent and made headlines this year when it implemented a mandatory drug testing program for all students. The program was implimented to ensure the safety of students that will be working with heavy machinery. With dangerous activities like aircraft maintenance, heavy engine repair and nuclear technology, the students’ safety is at risk if they are using one of the eight drugs tested for (Williams). However, this has caused concern in many that such a widespread drug testing program is an unreasonable invasion of privacy. Specifically, because the college is publicly funded and must uphold the constitution, some argue that it is a violation of the fourth amendment right to be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures (Salter). Though courts have allowed public school drug testing, blanket suspicionless drug testing at a public college is unconstitutional because it violates the Fourth Amendment and goes beyond the precedent set by previous drug testing cases. The first reason that blanket drug testing at a public college is unconstitutional is because it violates the Fourth Amendment. The Fourth Amendment protects against “unreasonable” search and seizure. It states, “The right of the people ... ... middle of paper ... .../ICS/Drug_Screening.jnz>. Lawler, Jennifer. Drug Testing in Schools: a Pro/con Issue. Berkeley Heights, NJ: Enslow, 2000. Print. Salter, Jim. "Linn State Technical College Drug Tests Halted By Judge." Huffingtonpost.com. The Huffington Post, 26 Oct. 2011. Web. 14 Nov. 2011. "Student Drug Testing: Relevant Case Law." ACLU.com. American Civil LIberties Union of Eastern Missouri, 21 Oct. 2002. Web. 14 Nov. 2011. Tannahill v. Lockney Indep. Sch. Dist. United States District Court. 1 Mar. 2001. Print. Vernonia School District 47J v. Acton. Supreme Court. 26 June 1995. Print. Williams, Timothy. "At One College, a Fight Over Required Drug Tests." New York Times 10 Oct. 2011. Print. Mapp v. Ohio. Supreme Court. 19 June 1961. MAPP V. OHIO, 367 U. S. 643 (1961). Web. 10 Dec. 2011. .
Vernonia School District v. Acton was a US Supreme court decision that aims to uphold the constitutionality affecting random drug testing implemented by local public schools in Vernonia, Oregon States. This provision mandates student athletes to undergo drug testing before they are going to be allowed to participate in sporting activities. This particular measure established by the constitution stated that it propagates any illegal use of any prohibited substances for students in order to preserve the integrity of the society in particular with handling against drug use. An official investigation led to the discovery that high school athletes in the Vernonia School District participated in illicit drug use. School officials were concerned that drug use increases the risk of sports-related injury. Consequently, the Vernonia School District of Oregon adopted the Student Athlete Drug Policy which authorizes random urinalysis drug testing of its student athletes Substance abuse materials may include marijuana, which is cannabis that is commonly used by teens.
On March 7, 1980, a teacher at Piscataway High School in Middlesex County, N.J., found two girls smoking in the school lavatory, which was a violation of school code. The teacher took them to the Principles office where they met the Assistant Vice-Principle Theodore Choplick. Under questioning the first girl admitted smoking in the lavatory. The second girl, 14 year old freshman T.L.O., denied that she had smoked in the lavatory. Mr. Choplick then asked to search the girl’s purse. He found a pack of cigarettes. Upon pulling the pack of cigarettes out Mr. Choplick discovered cigarette rolling papers, which is closely associated with marijuana. He proceeded to search the purse to find a small amount of marijuana, a pipe, small empty plastic bags, a substantial amount of money all in one dollar bills, and two letters that implies that she is a dealer. Mr. Choplick notified her mother and the police and told her mother to take her to the police headquarters. A New Jersey juvenile court admitted the evidence, saying that the search of the purse was reasonable under the standard of enforcing school policy and maintaining school discipline. The court found the student, T.L.O., to be a delinquent and sentenced her to a years probation. The appellate Division affirmed the courts decision that there had been no Fourth Amendment violation, T.L.O.
On June 26, 1995, the Supreme Court decided on the case Vernonia School District v. Acton as to whether or not random drug testing of high school athletes violated the reasonable search and seizure clause of the Fourth Amendment. During the 1980's and 1990's there was a large increase in drug use. The courts decision was a strong interpretation of the Fourth Amendment and the right decision upon drug testing high school athletes.
The Fourth (4th) Amendment of the U.S. Constitution provides that “the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized” (Kanovitz, 2010). Courts use a two-part test to determine whether, at the time of the search, a defendant had a legitimate expectation of privacy in the place or things searched (Kanovitz, 2010). First, did the person actually expect some degree of privacy? Second, is the person's expectation objectively reasonable, being one that society is willing to recognize? (Kanovitz, 2010). However, in order for the 4th Amendment to be enforced, the U.S. Supreme Court acted upon the powers warranted by Congress to protect and uphold the Constitution. The 4th Amendment does not clearly define exactly what an unreasonable search is thus, leaving the interpretation to the discretion of...
TITLE AND CITATION: United States of America v. Raymond J. Place 462 U.S. 696 (1983)
In Vernonia v. Acton, the issue in question is the school’s ability to drug test student-athletes. In the mid 80’s, the Vernonia School District noticed an uptick in drug use, and more so from athletes. Furthermore, the football and wrestling coach cited several situations that he felt drug-use was causing the athletes to be unsafe. Thus, the school instituted a mandatory drug test for all student athletes prior to the season, and then weekly random drug testing. If a student-athlete failed a test, they would have the choice of joining a rehab program, or serving a suspension. Suspension from school was never an option, nor were the results reported to authorities. Results were reported to the superintendent, athletic director, and other personnel on a need to know basis only (Vernonia v. Acton, 1995).
“Search and Seizure. Suspicionless Drug Testing. Seventh Circuit Upholds Drug Testing of Student Athletes in Public Schools. Schaill v. Tippecanoe County School Corp., 864 F.2d 1309 (7th Cir. 1988).” Harvard Law Review. 103 (Dec. 1989): 591-597.
In 1985 a case the Supreme Court heard a case involving searches and seizure of student’s lockers and effects but the school need to show that “reasonable ground existed to believe that the search will uncover evidence of a violation of criminal law or regulation,” rather than the probable cause standard that applies in criminal proceedings. (Shmoop Editorial Team, 2008) Drug testing of students has since been upheld since the Supreme Court heard New Jersey v. T.L.O.
Some may say that drug testing students is unconstitutional because it is an “invasion of privacy”. This, however, is not true. . . “In 1995, the United States Supreme Court ruled that drug testing for high school athletes was constitutional, and some districts expanded their policies to include middle schools.” I believe allowing schools to drug test athletes was a very positive thing. For many reason, but mainly because athletes who are on drugs have a higher risk of being injured. For example a kid who is on drugs and plays a sporting event has a greater risk of their heart stopping on the field or court. “Drug tests analyze bodily samples such as urine, blood, or hair to detect the presence of legal and illegal drugs.” The most common one is urine testing. I believe urine testing is the best way for high school students, because it does not take as long as some other tests and it is not as costly as other tests. This is especially important because obviously a school does not want to spend money on anything they do not have to. Our school does randomly drug test students every once in a while but only a few of the athletes are chosen to take the test so that really is not helping ...
Legal Challenges. When discussing the use of drug testing at the work place for pre-employment screening or on the job testing, we must consider the legal and ethical implications. Those who are in favor of drug testing claim that the testing itself acts as a deterrent in the use of illegal drugs and will also detect the use of illegal drugs which could impair employees resulting in injuries, accidents, lost productivity and ultimately liability concerns. Those in favor also refer to federal laws such as the Controlled Substances Act and take a zero tolerance approach to their employment policy. On the other hand those who argue against drug testing claim ethical violations of privacy and in some cases seek protection under state and federal laws such as the Americans with Disabilities Act, not always successfully. In the case of Raytheon v. Hernandez, the employee sought protection under the Americans with Disabilities Act which “prohibits discrimination against individuals with a drug addiction, although it permits an employer to act against an employer because of current drug abuse” (Witlin 2004). There is also a trend in the United States for the decriminalization of marijuana for personal and/or medical use which creates conflicts for employers. Employers have the responsibility to interpret both federal and state laws when determining their stance and policies when it comes to drug testing at the work place.
The largest and first assault on the rights of students to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures occurred in the case of New Jersey v. T.L.O. In 1980 at Piscataway High School in Middlesex County, N.J. a few girls were caught smoking in the bathroom. After being brought to the principal's office one of the girls, T.L.O., denied that she had been smoking. The principal then searched her purse looking for cigarettes. After finding a pack of cigarettes the search continued until the principal discovered evidence of drug dealing. This evidence was used to prosecute T.L.O. and ultimately she received a year of p...
Some high schools require athletes to submit to random chemical testing for illegal drug use. On the other hand, other schools and coaches believe that random drug testing is stating that all athletes are guilty of wrongdoing instead of believing they are innocent. There can be advantages and disadvantages to both sides, although random chemical testing for illegal drug use is the smartest idea. Having random drug tests is used for precautions, influences some to not do drugs if they are considering it, and encourages students to be their best.
The increasing amount of public school students selling, using, or being offered illegal drugs on school property has not only parents greatly concerned but school administrators and educators as well. This matter has caught the attention of the United State Supreme Court, which held “deterring drug use by school children is an important-indeed, perhaps compelling interest of the government.” Although there is a common agreement for the need to provide a drug free learning environments for our students, there is much debate with regard to the procedures and measures to be taken before infringing on the students’ Fourth Amendment right. In efforts to safeguard our students, many states have implemented the use of strip searches. The idea of having young adolescents disrobing on school grounds shocks the conscience of many and acts as a red flag for the intrusion on students’ constitutional rights. In fact, a Federal District Court has characterized a strip search as “visual rape.” So, where do we draw the line between insuring the safety of our students and in the same turn not going as far as stripping them of their Fourth Amendment right?
...ey to getting a good job, but high school students can’t get their education if they are caught up in doing drugs. Over thirty percent of dropouts in the United States are because of drugs. The thirty percent of drug addict dropouts may never find a job. Thats why it is important for high school drug testing to be enforced among all students. High school drug testing would allow early notice of drug use and allow the school to steer the student into the right path towards success. The drug tests will give students confidence and another reason to say “No” when being peer pressured into trying drugs. Many would argue that drug testings invade their privacy, but with drug usage being at an all time high who can we count on? High schools are made to prepare students for their future, and in order to make the students successful we must allow high school drug testings.
Many high schools across the country have brought much attention to the idea of giving random drug tests to students in high school. The newfound interest in student drug testing may be as a result of recent polls, which have shown an increase in drug use among high school students. Many teachers, parents, and members of school comities are for the drug testing, while most students and some parents feel that this would be a violation of students rights as Americans, which is true.