Hill V. National Collegiate Athletic Association Case Study

In the case, Banks v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, the plaintiff is Braxston Lee Banks and the defendant is the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA). The case can be found in volume 977 of the Federal Reporter, Second Series starting on page number 1081. The court that decided the case was the Seventh Circuit, United States Court of Appeals in 1992.

Drug testing athletes or even just college students is against the students and Linn State’s fourth amendment rights. College students have the right to be secure in themselves, house, and papers. “On the con side of the argument, the American Civil Liberties Union along with with students attending Linn State say that drug testing of all college students is against the law and violation of their fourth amendment right” (Clabaugh 3). According to Jason Clabaugh, students have a right to not be drug tested because of their fourth amendment of having the right to be secure of themselves. Also sometimes test can lead to false positives. “On the con side of testing the college student athlete population, drug tests can often lead to false positives” (Clabaugh 4). Although, it’s likely to be a false positive it might not

There are rules and regulation for everything. The DMV requires certain forms of identification for your driver’s license and the IRS requires you to file your income tax in a certain way to avoid penalty. It is no different when we are talking about the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA). NCAA has strict regulation on its players and its member schools that must abide by. Although NCAA regulates pretty much everything through its 427-page manual, some rules were difficult if not impossible to enforce. In the case of Oliver v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, the conflict emerges as Andy Oliver questioned NCAA’s power to regulate in the face of court.

The use of illegal substances is rapidly increasing in the college sports due to the expansion of supplements used by athletes that are being banned. In a study done, athletes were asked if illicit drugs would negatively impact their performance. Majority of them responded “yes”, their main reasoning being; the effects of illicit drugs were both mental and physically damaging. Illicit drugs come in many forms, but the testing procedures are all the same for any substance. There is almost always a consequence with the use of prohibited substances. Drug testing is appropriate to help ensure the safety of student athletes while they participate in intercollegiate contests. (Krotee, M 555).

By now, four years had passed since the issue had first started. In the end, the court had ruled six to three in favor of the district. The court answered the question of whether or not the student athletes’ Fourth Amendment rights were violated with a strong no. The court claimed that student athletes already subject themselves to more exposure than most other students, and that these drug tests had just as much of a reasonable cause behind them as a vaccine requirement or scoliosis check done in-school. Moreover, the court also stated that the results would only be shared with limited personal, which made the tests arguably more private than what athletes were exposing in their open locker rooms. In their opinion, stated by Antonin Scalia, “We find that the privacy...by the process of obtaining the urine samples (is) negligible, since samples are collected under conditions nearly identical to those routinely encountered in public restrooms. Furthermore, the test looks only for standard drugs not private medical conditions and the results of the test are released only to a limited group of school officials who have a need to know the information. The nature and the immediacy of the government's interest and the efficacy of this means for meeting it, also contribute to our conclusion that the policy is reasonable. The importance of deterring drug use by public school children

Drugs in sports is becoming a problem everywhere. “Another 26-year old athlete died of liver cancer after taking a number of different types of steroids over a four year period ” (Drugs and…). This is significant because this shows how dangerous drugs can be. If we have drug testing in schools this student could still be alive and would have stopped drugs before it got bad. The evidence points to the fact that drugs are a major health risk that is very concerning. In some cases taking drugs can even lead to death. In addition, another situation took place that affected a college student named Bob. Bob tried everything to gain weight so he could play football, so he chose to try steroids like everyone else. Steroids got him to play professional football, but horrible things were happening to him. He was having serious health problems. Bob quit drugs and is lucky to be alive (Drugs and…). This connects to the fact that doing drugs is a major

Some people may say that mandatory drug testing is a violation of the athletes’ Fourth Amendment right. According to some people, these tests are unnecessary and therefore violate these rights. The author of “Mandatory Drug Testing Violates Rights” believes that drug testing is a violation of the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution; “Courts have ruled that drug tests are a search. A search is a privacy issue, and there has to be a reason for the search.” This is true. Drug tests are a search, and in some cases they may violate the rights of some citizens. Professional athletes, on the other hand, do not get their rights violated by this. This does not violate the Fourth Amendment because the athletes have already agreed to the rules of participating in the sport. Deborah Lee and Ann Griswold, authors of “Point: Athletes Should be Tested for Drugs” explains that “in none of these cases have athletes’ Constitutional rights been abrogated because the participation in athletic events is always voluntary and never mandatory. The ‘mandate’ only comes into play after the athlete has agreed to participate, thereby voluntarily agreeing to obey the rules of the sport.” This explains how the athletes have agreed to the rules of the activity, which in most cases prohibit the use of many performance enhancing substances, so since they have agreed to these conditions, the mandatory drug testing of athletes is not a violation of their rights. An athlete’s rights are not being violated by

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.

Throughout the years, many Amendments to the Constitution have been created. The first Ten Amendments, the Bill of Rights, were added to the Constitution in 1791. These Amendments guaranteed citizens certain privileges that the government could not take away. The First Amendment guarantees U.S. citizen’s five equally important rights. First, it gives us the freedom to criticize the government openly. Second, it prevents us from being forced to print only what the government wants in the newspaper. Third, the First Amendment inhibits the government from establishing an official religion. Fourth, it allows us to come together publicly or privately, in order to form political groups with different ideas. Finally, it allows citizens to ask the government to change by collecting signatures and petitioning. The Bill of Rights was added to the Constitution to protect our rights as U.S. citizens. In the court case Brentwood Academy v. Tennessee Secondary School Athletic Association, Brentwood Academy felt their rights were not protected and took legal action for infringement of the First Amendment. This long-standing court case had me asking the question, “Is it acceptable for high schools to recruit potential athletes?” The conflict between Brentwood Academy, a private school in Brentwood, Tennessee, and the TSSAA, an administration that oversees TN high school athletes, began in 1997. It all started when

The Court ruled that it did not violate students' federal or state constitutional rights to be free from unreasonable searches. The Court reasoned that the state, as schoolmaster of children, must exercise a degree of supervision and control greater than it could exercise over adults. They also said that public school children have lesser privacy expectations with regard to medical examinations and procedures than the general population, and student athletes have even less legitimate privacy expectation. The school district had immediate and legitimate concern in preventing student athletes from using drugs.

When asked, “Do you agree that the NCAA is taking away your rights by making you devote more time towards sports than school?” Summer Atkins responded, “Yes, I agree. You sign a contract to play sports, and the NCAA is specifically for “Collegiate Athletics,” so even though you have to keep your grades up to play, you’re there to represent the school sport wise.” The NCAA is forcing student athletes to sign away their freedom rights because it says it is “protecting” the students. Sure, the athletes receive full rides with paid tuition, room and board, along with extras, but sports are a huge source of funding for those schools.

Drug use in school athletics has become a substantial problem in today’s society. With the rising pressure to succeed and the high level intensity in athletics, it does not come to a surprise that so many student–athletes are giving in to drugs. Many schools that are faced with drug use are turning to mandatory drug tests for student-athletes; however mandatory drug tests are a violation of the Fourth Amendment, the Fifth Amendment and drug testing reverses the legal principle of innocent until proven guilty. In order to protect the rights of the American people, drug testing student-athletes without suspicion and without sufficient evidence should not be introduced into school athletics due to the fact that it violates the Fourth

In recent years the number of athletes caught using drugs has increased dramatically. The use of a illegal or unprescribed drugs can cause serious problems and unfairness in many ways. Certain drugs can cause harm to the user and the people around the user, most student athletes do not even know what they are putting into their bodies. With all the risks many persons propose student athletes to be drug tested at random.

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.