9-3 Case Brief & Compare

.docx

School

Southern New Hampshire University *

*We aren’t endorsed by this school

Course

610

Subject

Law

Date

Jan 9, 2024

Type

docx

Pages

Uploaded by jasminestagg

Case Citation: Vernonia School District vs. Acton Facts : James Acton signed up to play football in the fall of 1991. Yet because he and his parents refused to sign the consent documents for the testing, he was not allowed to participate. The Actons filed a lawsuit, claiming that the Policy violated both Article I, Section 9 of the Oregon Constitution and the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution. Article I Section 9 of the Oregon Constitution states that Clause 9. Randomly performed searches or seizures. No law may infringe upon the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable search or seizure, and no warrants may be issued unless there is probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and specifically describing the location to be searched and the person or thing to be seized ( Bills and Laws Oregon Const , 2023). Acton’s parents also requested declaratory and injunctive relief to prevent the Policy from being implemented. The Student Athlete Drug Policy, issued by School District 47J in Vernonia, Oregon, permits students who take part in the district’s interscholastic athletics programs to be subjected to random drug tests involving urinalysis. A form consenting to the testing must be signed by students who want to participate in sports, and they must also get their parents' written approval. At the start of each season, athletes are put through a sport-specific test. School athletes also don't have as high an expectation of privacy in another area. They are required to obtain adequate insurance coverage or sign an insurance waiver, submit to a preseason physical exam, maintain a minimum grade point average, and abide by any "rules of conduct, dress, training hours, and related matters as may be established for each sport by the head coach and athletic director with the principal's approval" in Vernonia's public schools (James testified that his included the giving of a urine sample, App. 17). Exh. 2, Record, page 30, position 8. Issues : The main or specific legal question presented before the courts in this case was if in fact this student athlete drug testing policy in the state of Oregan violated the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution? Another question to this case is what type of privacy interest is intruded to Acton as an athlete? Holding (Decision) : The Ninth Circuit ruled that Vernonia's Policy not only violated the Fourth Amendment but also Article I, Section 9 of the Oregon Constitution because of that violation. Since it was concluded that the earlier holding was incorrect, the later holding must have had a weak foundation. Considering the foregoing, the case goes back to the Court of Appeals for additional proceedings in line with this reasoning. Rationale : Your brief should conclude with a summary of the explanation by the court of its findings. Why did the court answer the legal question in the manner that it did? Case Citation: UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO, Boulder v. David DERDEYN, 863 P.2d 929 ( Nov. 1, 1993. )

Facts : The main issue or fact of these cases is how the case seeks to prove if random drug testing with no suspicion is legal or valid for student athletes. the law used to support this case was the Colo. Const. art. II, § 7. Which is what made the Colorado Supreme Court hold that the "extraction or compelled production of body fluids is an unlawful search. With granted review, to explore the more general issue addressed by the trial court, parties were still left unaddressed by the court of appeals—whether the drug-testing program in this context, based neither on probable cause nor reasonable suspicion. Issues: One question this case seeks to answer is did the University of Colorado’s random urine drug testing of intercollegiate students’ where there is no suspicion of drug usage violate the United States Fourth Amendment or Article II Section 7 of the state of Colorado: s constitution? Another question was If giving their consent is a requirement for taking part in intercollegiate athletics at the university, is that really a valid consent to the university's drug-testing program? Holding (Decision): The final ruling was that it did violate the fourth amendment and that the students that had to sign a contract to be randomly drug tested were made invalid because they felt they had been coerced into signing them. Colorado’s Supreme court concurred with the court of appeals, that CU's random-drug testing of student athletes violates both Article II, Section 7 of the Colorado Constitution, and the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Furthermore, it was agreed that, to satisfy the requirements of the same constitutional rights, CU failed to demonstrate the voluntariness of the athletes' consents to the testing, therefore sustaining the court of appeals' decision. Rationale and Case Comparison Both rulings were similar in both the actual decisions and the laws used to validate those decisions. Although the first case decision was sent back to the court of appeals to be reassessed, the ruling has been the same as in the second case, that it does violate the fourth amendment. References Bills and Laws OrConst . (2023). Oregonlegislature.gov. https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/bills_laws/Pages/OrConst.aspx

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help