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.
Between 1985 and 1989 the Vernonia School District began to see a marked increase in disciplinary problems, drug use by students, athletic injuries, use of drugs by athletes and a student body preoccupation with the drug culture. The school district adopted a policy requiring students who participated in interscholastic athletics to sign a consent of both routine and random drug testing.
In the fall of 1991, respondent James Acton, then a seventh-grader, signed up to play football at one of the District's grade schools. He was denied participation because he and his parents refused to sign the testing consent forms. The Actons filled suit on the grounds that it violated the Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. The federal district court ruled in the school district's favor, but the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the decision, stating that although the district had laid the foundation for a drug policy, the interest was not so compelling as to justify a random testing program. The time between the 1980's and 1990's America saw a dramatic increase in drug use which spread through nearly every community in the nation. Drugs had not previously been a major problem in Vernonia schools. In the mid-to-late 1980's, however, teachers and administrators observed an increase in drug use. Students began to speak out about their attraction to the drug culture, and boasted that there was nothing the school could do about it.
The Supreme Court had to decide on the question of, does random drug testing of high school athletes violate the reasonable search and seizure clause of the Fourth Amendment? According to the Fourth Amendment, "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.
Doe case, Taking place in Texas in the year 2000, ended with a five to four verdict (Santa Fe Independent School Dist. v. Doe). The decision was in support of Doe, a Mormon family and a Catholic family that contested the school’s support of prayer at football games. The result of this case restricted the first amendment freedom of religion. The “wall” between religion and government that the Establishment Clause creates was present in this case (Cornell University Law School). The end of this case led to a strong divide between public schools and students’ religious practices. This case caused social changes to occur that affected public schools across America. Other public schools and parents of public school students saw the outcome of this case as an example of the “wall” that exists between church and state and that it will be enforced. Because of this case, many schools changed or abolished their own policies regarding
A decision that is still very influential to Fourth Amendment jurisprudence is Schmerber v. California. After Schmerber and a friend drank at a bowling alley, Schmerber got behind the wheel of his car, and crashed his car into a tree. Because of their injuries, Schmerber and his friend were both taken to a hospital for treatment. Once at the hospital, a police officer requested that Schmerber submit to a chemical test of his breath so that officers could test for the presence of alcohol in his body. Schmerber again refused to comply with the test. After being directed to do so by a police officer, a physician took a blood sample from Schmerber – over Schmerber’s continued objections. The analysis of his blood showed that Schmerber was legally intoxicated at the time of the accident. Schmerber was charged with driving while intoxicated, a misdemeanor, and the subsequent report from the blood analysis was entered into evidence at a trial. Schmerber objected to the introduction of this evidence at trial, specifically arguing that the report
...level and not to the state level (once again undermining state government authority). For these reasons, the U.S. Supreme Court decision in this case was one of the most controversial decisions at that time. Up until this decision was made, police in many states had ignored the search and seizure law.
Board of Education (1954) which was a case of racial segregation of children that were discriminated against in public schools that violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Next, Franklin v. Gwinnett County Public Schools (1992) the Court decided that monetary damages of Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 which demonstrated sexual harassment and abuse by a teacher (Chicago-Kent College of Law, 2015b). Davis v. Monroe County Board of Education (1999) held a lawsuit under Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 that was against sexual harassment, denying a student of equal opportunity the school provided and subjecting them to facing discrimination in an elementary environment (Chicago-Kent College of Law, 2015a).
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.
The Supreme Court reversed the decision concluding that Smith et al. were using their religious beliefs and the First Amendment to condone their illegal drug use. In addition the Justices expressed the view that the law applied to the general public, not to just one religious group. Therefore, in a 6-3 decision, the Supr...
The rationale behind this is that family courts follow the “the golden rule” in which “the court must always act in the best interest of the child or children in a case” (Boyd Law). Further rationalizations behind this are the rights granted by the Fifth and Fourteenth amendment in which governments cannot deprive any person of "life, liberty, or property" without due process of law; that includes both Michelle Dorsey and Tyler Dorsey. If Tyler’s mother is incapable of being a positive parent, creating his chronic delinquency as a result, one may argue that he is being deprived of life and liberty, which may introduce a compelling enough government interest in order to rationalize Michelle Dorsey’s drug test. Dorsey might argue that her own liberty was being infringed upon as she was not formally convicted of a crime. This argument becomes invalid in light of Dorsey’s testimony and the concept of suspicion and probable cause, which will be discussed
was the first to hear T.L.O.’s case. they came to the verdict that she was guilty and sentenced her to one year community service. They also confirmed that assistant vice principal’s search of T.L.O.’s purse was legal and therefore did not withhold the evidence found. The case was then appealed and was sent to Appellate Division (New Jersey State Court System). They agreed with the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court that no fourth amendment right was violated. T.L.O. the appealed to the New Jersey State Supreme Court which then heard her case. The New Jersey State Supreme Court held that the fourth amendment is applicable to schools and they also agreed that school officials do not need a warrant only probable cause. Although the New Jersey State Supreme Court agreed with these things it reversed the ruling in the T.L.O. case stating that Theodore Choplick did not have probable cause to search T.L.O.’s purse as merely owning cigarettes was not against school policy. The U.S. Supreme Court then decided that it wanted to take a look at the case so they called it up. The Court decided that under the circumstances of the case, the search of T.L.O.’s purse did not violate the Fourth Amendment. The U.S. Supreme Courts also stated what teachers can and cannot do. The U.S. Supreme Court decided that: lockers can be searched, pat down but not strip searches are legal with just cause, personal items can be
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).
The issue brought forth to the U.S. Supreme Court pertained to whether or not evidence seized by a school official, without the involvement of law officials, was permissible in juvenile delinquency hearings. The U.S. Supreme Court never reached this issue because it ruled that the search of T.L.O.’s purse was not in violation of the Fourth Amendment.
“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.
...arteries a secret. This I find to be substantially suspect. While I do not argue that the student athletes have a lower expectation of privacy due to their situation in the locker rooms and activities undertaken together as a team, I do not believe that this expectation is nearly low enough to allow an invasion of ones own body for the purposes of a search. Clearly there is no way for anyone to have any indication of what chemicals are contained inside one's own blood by a casual glance or even a thorough study of the outside of one's body. The expectation of privacy regarding one's blood would be equivalent to the contents of a safe hidden and locked inside one's house. While this expectation of privacy is something to be respected it can still be violated by an individual suspicious of guilt accompanied by a probable cause and a search warrant. In that case the blood test or the opening of the safe would be justified in my opinion. But due to the nature of the randomness of this search it is obvious to me that it is unconstitutional and this court decision should be reversed.
An example of an issue with mandatory drug testing was the Vernonia School Dist. 47J v. Acton case. In this case the Vernonia School District, which is located in Oregon, requires any student who wants to participate in activities such as athletics, for example football or basketball, to sign consent forms to allow for random drug testing throughout the particular sports season. One testing is at the beginning of the season and during the season every week the students are placed into a “pool” and 10% of the athletes are chosen for random drug testing. What happened in this case was a student by the name of James Acton wanted to play football for his school but in this school district the student and the par...
Many schools across the country have brought attention to the idea of drug testing students. The interest in student drug testing may be the result of the recent increase of drug use among high school students. Many teachers, parents and community’s members are for the drug testing, while most students and some parents feel that it would be a violation of students’ rights, trust, and view it as not effective. Although some benefits may come from drug testing students in public schools, those benefits do not outweigh the problems that result in mandating drug testing.
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.