Random Drug Testing In Schools

The Supreme Court decided “Yes. In a 5-4 opinion delivered by Justice Clarence Thomas, the Court held that, because the policy reasonably serves the School District’s important interest in detecting and preventing drug use among its students, it is constitutional. The Court reasoned that the Board of Education’s general regulation of extracurricular activities diminished the expectation of privacy among students and that the Board’s method of obtaining urine samples and maintaining test results was minimally intrusive on the students’ limited privacy interests.” (www.oyez.org/cases/2000-20009/2001_01_332). A drug test invades U.S citizen’s privacy, and prevents people from going to after school activities. If one of the students at Earl’s school was sick, they would need to take prescription drugs to help them get better. If they have urine samples, they could not participate in after school activities. This means that the school has no right to see if their students are doing drugs or not. The school did not have a permit, so Earl’s 4th amendment was violated twice. Even though that the Supreme Court decision was against Earls, many people believe that the ruling violated his 4th amendment because the tests could prevent Earls from going to after school activities because if he is sick, he needs to take medicine.Therefore, the drug tests were supposed to violate

The performance of random drug testing has seen its fair share of scrutiny in terms of cost, test result reliability, and constitutionality. Drug testing has been fraught with controversy for decades by both employers and employees alike and there are three valid reasons as to why the testing is not ideal. One of the main elements that is a cause for concern is an employee’s invasion of privacy. When an employee tests positive, there is a strong possibility and fear that they will be permanently stigmatized. Any explanation given to the employer, whether it’s voluntary or forced on contingency of employment, violates their HIPAA Rights. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, for example, has referred to the practice as a "needless indignity" (DeCew, 1994).

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

Still in debate, the Supreme Court has yet to decided whether drug testing would interfere with the Fourth Amendment in such a way that it would restrict rights. Several individuals and states wish that the Court would rule in the drug testing favor, but from cases in the past, the chances are slim. The reason being that, unless they make it and requirement, random drug testing for the use of welfare is considered an unreasonable search.

New Jersey statute N.J.A.C. 6A:16-4.4 raises a host of legal and financial issues for school district administrators. According to the law, when it comes to random testing of student alcohol and other drug use, districts that decide to do random drug tests must follow certain protocols to ensure students’ 4th Amendment rights are not violated.

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

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

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

According to Essex(2012), drug testing students would be in violation of the fourth amendment and would be difficult to justify because the students are protected under their privacy protection rights.As discussed in the text it was decided in the year 2002 during the case of Board of Education V. Earls when the supreme court had ruled that students who are participating in extracurricular activities must undergo a mandatory drug screenings and it became constitutional (Essex, 2012,p.35).

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

However, drug testing is constitutional and has proven to be useful nationwide in America. A simple search on the World Wide Web will unveil the truth about the constitutionality of drug testing in America. Two major cases from Supreme Court, Vernonia School District 47J v. Acton and Board of Education of Independent School District No. 92 of Pottawatomie County, et al, Petitioners v. Lindsay Earls et al, involved the challenging of officials’ ability to drug test students in order to participate in extracurricular activities. In both cases, the ruling resulted in a majority declaring these test requirements to be constitutional (“Prevention”). Along with the fact that testing has held its constitutionality in Supreme Court, evaluations have proven that the testing process effectively minimizes drug use among high school students in extracurricular activities. “Some 16 percent of students subject to drug testing reported using substances...in the past 30 days, compared with 22 percent of comparable students in schools without the program (‘The Effectiveness’).” This fact means that six percent less students in the high schools studied were not using drugs in the schools which had been implementing the drug tests. If this same number would be a proportionate reflection of all high schools in America, six percent more of high school students - about 3.3 million teenagers - would not be utilizing drugs and contracting the painful consequences later in life (“Fast Facts”). That is a humongous number which means a humongous number of kids would be drug-free, living healthier lives with even brighter futures. The constitutional drug testing in high school athletics could save over 3 million kids from having to endure possible years of life with painful illnesses like cancer during

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.

If health organizations oppose the testing why should it be allowed, obviously health care providers and researchers know what is best for the young adults. These researchers and health care providers spend their lives learning how to better the health of the American people. A few of the organizations that oppose are the: American Public Health Association, National Council on Alcoholism and Drug Dependence, and ACLU . One of the reasons why ACLU opposes is because it is intrusive, also because it is an invasion of privacy to ask a kid to take a drug test . What ACLU believes is what many other organizations believe as well, this testing is an invasion of privacy, and also will be counterproductive and lead students to other destructive things.