Assignment 6 Drug Testing

.docx

School

University of Louisiana, Monroe *

*We aren’t endorsed by this school

Course

5014

Subject

Philosophy

Date

Oct 30, 2023

Type

docx

Pages

Uploaded by LieutenantBarracudaMaster88

(a) Fact #1 changed If the following facts changed, I think the actions by the WSD drug testing of the students would have been constitutional.  The first fact I think is if the school conducted random searches among athlete students with warrants with the police. The discussion would have been different if the tests were done with court warrants since they were in violation of the student's privacy. The “authority of law” required by article I section 7 is satisfied by a valid warrant, limited to a few jealously guarded exceptions. Trespassing a student athlete's body interferes with their private and personal space. It also violates the State Constitution, which states, "No person shall be disturbed in his private affairs, or his home invaded, without warrants. We must consider a high school student's alleged right to privacy. The United States Supreme Court has frequently concluded that while school children have some rights, they do not have the same comprehensive constitutional protections as adults in our society. Under the dual burdens of due process and probable cause, the administration of our schools would grind to a standstill if school children possessed all the same rights as adults. (b) Fact #2 changed  The second fact that needed to change to prove the procedure by the school constitutional is if the school only administered urine tests to students who were suspected of alcohol or drug use, then the procedure would have been constitutional. The school district claims student athletes have lower expectations of privacy. Certainly, students who choose to play sports are subjected to more regulations. The school district does not link regulations and the communal atmosphere of the locker room with a student’s lower expectation of privacy in terms of being subjected to suspicion less, random drug testing. The Wahkiakum School District's policy of suspicion less urine testing for kids who participate in extracurricular athletic activities was deemed illegal by the Washington Supreme Court today. On behalf of two families in the district, including a

deputy sheriff and an emergency room doctor, the American Civil Liberties Union of Washington filed a lawsuit challenging the suspicion less testing program. (c) Fact # 3 changed Last fact I feel is if the school had made the testing procedure voluntary, the narrative would have been different. The school subjected the students to mandatory testing of the students at the start of the season and 15% weekly to identify and suspend students who tested positive for use of alcohol or illegal drugs. Most critics of Acton are not persuaded the majority’s analysis justifies a suspicionless search of the student athletes. If schools are serious about keeping their students from abusing drugs, then they should listen to the experts – to the National Education Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry – who all say that one of the best ways to keep kids off drugs is to get them involved in school and extra-curricular activities. Instead of putting up barriers like drug testing, schools should engage students in meaningful activities. Any student can express his or her discomfort with drug testing. Depending on the laws in your state, you not only have the right to vocally oppose drug testing, but you may also have a right to legally challenge drug testing in your school. In order for a school to implement a drug testing policy, there must usually be reasonable suspicion that you, as an individual, are using drugs. Unless you are an athlete, the fact that some students may be using drugs may not be enough to allow a public school to drug test you!

Your preview ends here

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