Supreme Court To Decide If Some Drug Tests Are Unconstitutional

WASHINGTON AND OKLAHOMA CITY, MARCH 18, 2002 (CBS News) - Lindsay Earls wanted to offer her voice and musical talent to Tecumseh High School's choir and its marching band. But first, she had to offer a urine sample.

In 1998, her school district asked students who engaged in extracurricular activities from seventh through 12th grades to consent to drug testing.

"It was sort of sprung on us," said Earls, now a freshman at Dartmouth College. "I felt strongly about it. That is none of their business."

Her lawsuit before the U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday could help decide whether school districts can require drug tests for students who want to participate in after-school activities from cheerleading to chess squad.

At issue is whether the Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable searches allows drug tests without evidence that the student or the school has a drug problem.

"It's basically a misdirected policy," said Graham Boyd, an attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union who represents Tecumseh School District students who challenged the district's random drug-testing policy.

"The most effective way to keep students from using drugs is to engage them in after-school activities," Boyd said. "The last thing you want to do is to put up barriers to these activities."

Supporters argue that testing deters illegal drug use by students before it becomes a problem.

"We don't think you should have to have a disaster on your hands before you do something to stop it," said David G. Evans of the Drug-Free Schools Coalition. "This is really all about protecting kids. It gives kids a chance to say no."

At Tecumseh High School, only students involved in competitive extracurricular activities were tested on the theory that by voluntarily representing the school, they had opened themselves to greater scrutiny than other students.

Earls said she provided urine samples for testing two or three times. All of the tests came back negative.

Overall, 505 high school students were tested for drug use. Three students, all of them athletes, tested positive, Boyd said. Two of the athletes also participated in other extracurricular activities.

The school offered drug counseling after a positive test, and those who complied could remain on their teams. Those who refused were barred from competition.

In 1995, the Supreme Court ruled that a school district in Vernonia, Ore., could require drug testing for students involved in athletic competition.

"When courts have upheld blanket drug-testing, it has been based on some dangerous activity" like sports, Boyd said. "There's nothing about singing in the choir that poses any danger."

Earls, her sister, Lacey Earls, and a third student, Daniel James, sued the school district in federal court alleging that the policy violated their Fourth Amendment rights.

A district judge in Oklahoma City upheld the policy, ruling that the intrusion into the students' privacy interests was minimal considering the devastating effect of illegal drug use on children.

But the decision was overturned by the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver, which said it is generally unconstitutional for public schools to require students in non-athletic extracurricular activities to be tested for illegal drugs.

Legal papers filed by Tecumseh's attorney, Linda Meoli of The Center for Education Law in Oklahoma City, said a student drug problem has existed in the district since at least the 1970s.

But Marsha Levick, legal director of the Juvenile Law Center in Philadelphia, said there is not much evidence of drug use in Tecumseh, about 30 miles southeast of Oklahoma City.

Supporters argue that testing deters illegal drug use by students before it becomes a problem.

In other words, we consider you guilty until you provide a 'sample'to prove otherwise.

A district judge in Oklahoma City upheld the policy, ruling that the intrusion into the students' privacy interests was minimal considering the devastating effect of illegal drug use on children.

Here we go, 'For the children', again. Man this statement is REALLY getting stale.

How true. It's a moot argument as well - students are still U.S. citizens entitled to 4th amendment rights, children or not. I wish some people would remember that before they come charging in to help children.

I don't know. I guess parents have a right to search their rooms etc and when in school the argument could be made in the case of minors the school officials are essentially taking the parents place

No employer has the right to inspect my urine. He can't check my hemorroids either. I won't even give him any spit.

Yes, and he shouldn't have to give you his job either. As long as it works both ways, I don't disagree with what you say.

The only problem comes when you think you have a 'right' to be a doper on my job.

As a parent I have every right to have my child tested for drugs but as an Employer, Government or School I do not. It is none of their business what my child or what anybody does on their own free time, don't get me wrong I do not condone children using drugs I just think that we should leave it up to the parents to do the tests.

There is nothing that prevents employers from using urine samples to test for other things. Pregnancy, diabetes/etc. I interviewed for a job where the drug test form said something to the effect of 'testing for the presence of illegal drugs and other relevant medical information'. When I asked what 'other relevant medical information' was I was escorted out of the interview!. This was at a major fortune 500 company as well. This language was in VERY SMALL print at the bottom of several pages of legalese. I read said legalese thankfully. I just want to know WHAT ELSE THEY WERE LOOKING FOR BESIDES DRUGS!? Where do you draw the line with regard to pee tests? Was this prospective employer within their rights to eject me for asking a question about their form? What is 'other relevant medical information'?

You are very right, in today's age of genetic testing and such, who knows what they are going to do with a urine sample now days. And it's a shame we even have to worry about things like that. It seems like the courts are siding with the companies more and more. I'm proud of these girls for standing up for their Constitutional rights. Maybe there's hope for kids after all.

when in school the argument could be made in the case of minors the school officials are essentially taking the parents place

Minors rights are held in proxy by their adults and exercised in their bahalf. If the parent wants to search the child, fine. If the government (school) wants to search the kid, they must ask permission from the parents.

If the parent decides to exercise their child's 4th Amendment rights in the child's behalf, then no search is constitutionally permissible, case closed.

If they are at work and you find them high or using drugs, by all means fire them on the spot.

No, that implies that you can hide your doper status and claim my job under false pretenses and then make me play "Catch me if you can" with you.

You have no duty to give me a drug sample, but I certainly have a right to condition my job upon it. You don't have to give a sample, but I don't have to give you my job either.

You have no duty to give me a drug sample, but I certainly have a right to condition my job upon it. You don't have to give a sample, but I don't have to give you my job either.

As long as you are a private, non-governmental employer, AMEN to that!!! Bump for freedom of association!

said David G. Evans of the Drug-Free Schools Coalition. "This is really all about protecting kids. It gives kids a chance to say no."

LOL!!! That is exactly what the kid's are doing. Saying NO!! LOL!!

David G. Evans of the Drug-Free Schools Coalition is a major tool!

I think all this drug testing has gone way too far. I do see valid points on both sides, especially for those individuals in sensitive areas involving public safety. I recently applied for a job where I had to take a drug test. It was negative, but the whole experience was degrading, humiliating, and bordering on abusive. You are treated like a criminal, guilty until proven innocent. Also with health insurance companies so out of control now, it would be easy to see how they could abuse the situation even further.

You are treated like a criminal, guilty until proven innocent.

And that is why I resist taking a drug test whenever I can. I work in a very hazardous marine environment (check out my profile), and I certainly don't want someone high when I might have to depend on them. But what I do at home is my business. I am a believer that I can do what ever I want on my property, as long as I'm no infringing on anyone else's rights. People really need to start fighting for their rights, because if they don't, there soon won't be any left.

Corporations are exempt from having to respect anyone's Constitutional Rights. However, expediency should not be allowed to over-ride the Bill of Rights in any government run forum, including the public schools. Yes, drug use is a horrible problem; yes, we should do everything we can to dissuade people from drug abuse. But if we allow ourselves to overlook basic Constitutional freedom, then we have opened the door to a police state. The 4th Amendment is very clear in its intent. I cannot argue for the unfettered possession of firearms embodied in the 2nd and I cannot argue about someone's 1st Amendment right to utter 'hate speech' if I make an exception to the 4th Amendment's search and seizure prohibition without warrant and probable cause. Its the whole Bill of Rights, or its Civil War II. The choice is ours.

...the school officials are essentially taking the parents place

And there is something wrong with this. When parents allow other people to raise their children, there will be problems. I smoke every now and then, but I have a 19 yr. old step son that doesn't. He knows that I get high, has known since I married his mother, but I certainly don't give it to him. I've tried to teach him that we all have a choice, and all choices have conseqences. He chooses not to, therefore, I am extremely proud of him for looking at both sides of the issue and making his own decision.

People really need to start fighting for their rights, because if they don't, there soon won't be any left.

The fighting is already over. As soon as parents sat on their hands for this one it was over. I talked to a parent friend of mine who said, and I quote,

"Having the school do it saves us (her and her husb.) the trouble of confronting him (the son, now 16)".

I blew up at her, she cried, they left my house. I have no patience for the people that are letting the gubment do what they do out of sheer laziness or fear of confrontation.

EBUCK

I don't think she has a chance with this Supreme Court. They have ruled in favor of most police state measures without regard to the Constitution as long as they are determined to be in the common interest. They certainly haven't shown any interest in individual freedom.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.