Vernonia V. Acton Case Study

In this case two students who were female where smoking in the laboratory. When caught one of the students admitted to smoking as for the other she denied when asked to search her purse she denied so instead the vice principal still searched and found the cigarettes and rolling paper. When digging deeper he found little amounts of marijuana and a pipe zip lock bags and a card with many of

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 case was argued to the U.S. Supreme Court on March 28, 1995. The court noted that the Fourth Amendment, which forbids unreasonable searches and seizures, was extended via the Fourteenth Amendment to cover searches and seizures by state officers, including those at public schools. Since the collection and testing of urine under the school policy was a search and thus subject to the Fourth Amendment, the Court decided a reasonableness test would be required. As a result, the court stated that while school officials are technically agents of the state, because of their custodial relationship with their students, the school faculty have authority to act in-loco-parentis to make sure the children they are responsible for are kept safe. The court

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

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.

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

The major constitutional issue this case deals with is the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution. The Fourth Amendment prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures and requires any warrant to be judicially

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.

In the case of New Jersey v T.L.O a high school student was suspected of trying to hide cigarettes in her bag. An official searched the bag and found cigarettes,marijuana, and a list of names of students who owed T.L.O. money, she argued that her Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable searches was violated. She was then charged with possession of marijuana and sentenced to one year of probation. Before trial, T.L.O. wanted to suppress the evidence discovered in the search, but the Court denied her motion. The supreme court said school administrators don't need to have a search warrant or probable cause before conducting a search because students already have a reduced expectation of privacy when in

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

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.

Debate over drug testing students in school is very controversial. Drug testing students gives the school administration the power to drug test random students at any time. Various schools across the country have implemented these tests. Parents have very different views on this topic. Some believe that this gives the administration too much power. They also believe that these tests infringe on students rights. Other people believe that these tests are very helpful in decreasing the amount of students that use drugs. They also believe that the tests make schools a safer environment for learning. Both sides want safer schools for the students, but disagree on the steps that should be taken to make it happen.