Educ Vs Learners Case Study

In many high schools around the country, student athletes are using drugs. “The percent of students that have drunk alcohol is 72.5% while the number of students who have used marijuana is 36.8%” (Report: Nearly Half of High School Students Using Drugs, Alcohol). The students believe that since they are athletes that they do not need to abide by the rules because they feel more superior and that the narcotic will not hurt or affect them. Implementing random drug tests for athletes will create a positive image and not hurt others or themselves. Schools need to have drug tests for student athletes because drugs effect relationships, using drugs have consequences, and lastly they have a major effect on the body.

The school board of Vernonia, Oregon implemented this policy in their school. This applied even more so to athletes, who were seen as the “leaders of the drug culture” at the time. The policy “...required all those who wished to play on interscholastic athletic teams to submit to urinalysis drug testing.” (“Vernonia School District. [Brit.]) In the year 1991, after the policy was put into place for two years, a student challenged the policy. He, known by the name of James Acton, as well as his parents, refused to sign a consent form for the drug testing. Due to this, he was not allowed to be a part of football team, and is what led to their first trials. They were named “Wayne and Judy Acton, guardians ad litem (representing) for James Acton v. Vernonia School District 47J”. In these very first cases, the plaintiff were the Actons, and the defendant was the school district. The family lost in the U.S District Court, but later had the decision overturned by Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, who claimed that the district had truly violated Acton’s Fourth Amendment rights. The school district attempted to overturn the decision again, which led to the Supreme Court case, Vernonia School District 47J v. Acton,

2. The Supreme Court established that a warrant isn’t necessary in school due to the fact that students aren’t under the protection of police officers but instead by the school. The court decided that a search is reasonable if a) “specific facts, together with rational inference from those facts, justified the intrusion, and b) the search was reasonably related in scope to the circumstances justifying it. Also, there can be random drug testing for students in school involved in extracurricular activities, and

In response to the issues, the school district made an effort to quell the issue by inviting speakers, and several different presentations to limit the drug use of students help the comprehend it’s dangers and negative impacts. However, this did not stop the problem. To solve this issue, a policy of drug testing had been adopted. One student in particular, James Acton-- had refused to participate in these random testing. Upon his refusal, he was then denied participation in his school’s American Football Program. After this case was taken to the Supreme Court, an argument for James Acton was that the random drug testing policy violated the clauses in the 4th amendment that protected for unreasonable searching. The Supreme Court decided that the search was in fact reasonable due to the schools attempt to quell the issue of drug use and keep students safe. The majority opinion stated that the search was reasonable. There was hard evidence that there was definitely a drug problem in the school. To quote an excerpt from acclaimed author Johnson Scott F “Fourth Amendment rights, no less than First and Fourteenth Amendment rights, are different in public schools than elsewhere; the "reasonableness" inquiry cannot disregard the schools ' custodial and tutelary responsibility for children. For their own good and that of their classmates, public school children are routinely required to submit to various physical examinations and to be vaccinated

Rains, B. (2009). Testing Student Athletes for Drugs is Appropriate. In C. Watkins, Sports and Athletes (pp. 192-196). Detroit: Greenhaven Press.

Mandatory Drug testing within schools reverses the legal principle of innocent until proven guilty and also violates the Fourth and Fifth Amendments of the Constitution. Without suspicion of drug use, there is no probable cause to test student-athletes for drugs, thus violating the Fourth Amendment right to be free from unlawful searches. Drug testing student-athletes without acquiring sufficient evidence to base accusations on, is essentially asking them to provide the evidence of their own guilt which violates the Fifth Amendment right to protect

After years of delays, rising tensions and hours of discussion, a proposal to randomly drug-test Zionsville High School students was approved Monday night.The Zionsville School Board voted 3-2 in favor of the new policy which requires any students who elect to participate in extracurricular activities or park on school property to consent to random drug tests.Students who fail a drug test will be required to enter and complete a drug counseling program.The approved plan is a variation of one supported years ago by the Zionsville Student Rights Union. They also proposed that only students who park or participate in afterschool programs be tested, but the union plan wanted students to face no consequences at school, and for positive results to

The court case, Hill v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, held on the 28th of January, 1998, Regarded the matter of the legality of NCAA student athletes being drug tested. In this case Plaintiff Jennifer Hill, a student athlete at Stanford University who objected to the NCAA’s student athlete drug testing program. Hill cited Article 1, Section 1 of the California Constitution; granting California citizens the right to privacy. Hill is not alone in this objection to the program instituted by the NCAA. These students in objection primarily oppose the program believing that the tests athletes must submit to are so extension and reveal extensive personal medical information they may wish to keep private. The defense’s counter argument is that the NCAA has a “legitimate regulatory objectives in conducting testing for proscribed drugs,” citing both student-athlete safety and maintaining the sanctity of collegiate

The goal of mandatory drug testing would be to reduce student substance by deterring substance use, detecting substance use, and the influence of the behaviors of students peers. Students involved in extracurricular activities, such as sports that are subject to in school drug testing, report less drug use than students in high school that do not play a sport and do not get drug tested. By drug testing the Athens student body would help by insure a safe, secure, and healthy school environment where students can reach their full academic potential to learn. Athens High schools goal should be to identify students with possible drug abuse issues and to intervene. Students should be required to take drug test to be allowed to park on campus. Less drugs in

Resourse officers, teachers, and administrators with experience in this practice of drug searches often discover talking about the drug problem wasn't enough and action is needed. High school students do and think whatever they want. I know this because I am a high school student. Mary White, who is a principal at Longmont High School, reported that "we had used the tradional methoods of drug education. We had brought in speakers to talk to the parents and the kids but that didn't seem to be enough." (Robinson) Obviously, students make their own desicons no matter if it's good or bad for them. This kind of search and seizure pratice leads the students to not listen because the want to be rebilous and want to try different things in life. According

Slowly pushing students to become addicts, drug testing high school student athletes may or may not be to blame. In Facts & Statistics on Random Drug Testing of High School Students, Dr. M.H. Davis stated, “In the early 1990s, many school districts began to look into drug testing as a way to curb student drug use, which led to two U.S. Supreme Court cases involving student privacy. The court upheld the constitutionality of drug testing student athletes in 1995, and in 2002, the court expanded high school drug testing policies to include all students who participate in a competitive extracurricular activity. In those rulings, the court stated deterring student drug use was more important than privacy” (Davis). Drug testing high school athletes

Secondly, the 4th amendment to the constitution protects people against unreasonable search and seizures. In brief, the 4th amendment says 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 searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” (Westlaw, 2015) The amendment clarifies very nicely that people secure in their persons against unreasonable searches and seizures. Therefore, a drug test is constituted as a search in a person because the university is looking for something in a person. However, they are conducting a search without a probable cause because they have not arrested everyone for abusing the illegal drug. Moreover, only 15% of the student consent that they are using drugs, but not all the students accepted that they were using illegal drugs. Therefore, the university cannot conduct a search for every student because they do not have a probable cause that every student has used illegal drugs. Hence, the drug-testing policy of the university is an unlawful search. According to the public

2. The issue is whether public school districts can perform random drug screening of students who participate in school athletic programs under state or federal law.

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.

It seems that drugs have become a major epidemic within teenagers in the last few years. There is only so much that can be done to try and eliminate drug use, while not dramatically changing anything in the community. Drug testing the district’s student athletes provides many reasons that it is a worthwhile expense. Lawyers, Mark Vetter and Daniel Chanen, stated in the Sports Law Institute Newsletter “First, student-athletes were the leaders of the drug culture” (Vetter and Chanen ¶3). This simple statement proves that athletes need to be drug tested; it will improve multiple circumstances within the district and the lives of athletes. Drug testing student athletes at the high school level is a step every school district needs to take in order to improve their schools, and the students’ lifestyles despite the high price tag on these tests.