Court Case Analysis

In this, an elementary school student has just dropped off a cup at his teachers desk, the blackboard

behind them reads Drug Tests Today. The upset looking teacher says I liked it better when they left apples on

my desk! It does not take much deduction to understand the message this cartoon is supposed to convey. Its a

dramatized statement about mandatory drug testing in schools. I found no court cases, or news articles that

refer to elementary school drug testing either mandatory or voluntary. Any reference I found to elementary

school drug testing was to drug prevention strategies. But there are dozens of cases dealing with junior high

and high school drug testing.

New Jersey v. T.L.O: A landmark case affirming students' rights in schools, the Supreme Court ruled

that students rights do not become void as they enter the school grounds (as upheld by tinker v. des moines),

and that the Fourth Amendment still prohibited unreasonable searches and seizures in public schools. The court

constructed a two-part test in evaluating the legality of a search. Firstly, one must consider whether the search

was justified at the beginning, and secondly, one must determine whether the search as actually conducted was

reasonably related in scope to the circumstances which justified the interference in the first place." The court

also ruled that searchers must have individualized suspicion in order for student searches to be legal. This

major case set precedence in school searches and the two part test is still used today in justifying school related

student searches.

Vernonia School District v. Acton, 515 U.S. 646 (1995): The Supreme Court upheld a Vernonia School

District policy which required students to consent to random drug testing as a condition for participation in

interscholastic sports. The district claimed that mandatory drug testing was a program keeping with the U.S.

standard of drug-free schools. The court took into account the student's expectations of privacy and the nature

of the test's in accordance with the government's interest in drug-free schools. The Court held that the drug

testing policy did not violate the Fourth Amendment due to factors like: the athletes' relatively low expectation

of privacy due to the requirements of communal dress, showers and pre-season physical exams. The court

directed the policy narrowly to drug use by athletes, where the risk of immediate physical harm to the drug user

or those with whom they are playing is particularly high. This court case would also set precedence in school
related drug testing, being cited again and again throughout other Supreme Court cases as well as in the lower

courts.

Upholding Drug Testing:

Board of Education v. Earls, 122 S.Ct. 2559 (2002): The Supreme Court held as constitutional an Oklahoma

school policy of randomly drug testing students who participate in competitive, non-athletic extracurricular

activities. The court found such a policy to be "a reasonably effective means of addressing the school district's

legitimate concerns in preventing, deterring and detecting drug use."

Joy v. Penn-Harris-Madison Sch. Corp., 212 F.3d 1052 (7th Cir. 2000): The Seventh Circuit agreed with the

school's policy of requiring students interested in participating in extracurricular activities and student drivers to

undergo random drug testing.

Miller v. Wilkes, 172 F.3d 574 (8th Cir. 1999), vacated, 1999 U.S. App. Lexis 13289 (June 15, 1999): In a

decision that was later overruled, the Eight Circuit upheld the school district's policy which required students

participating in extracurricular activities to undergo suspicion-less drug testing. The ruling was in direct

opposition to the guidelines set forth in the New Jersey v. T.L.O. case, where searches had to be justified with

individualized suspicion.

Unconstitutional Drug Testing:

Brooks v. East Chambers Consol. Indep. Sch. Dist, 730 F. Supp. 759 (S.D. Tex. 1989), aff'd, 930 F. 2d 915

(5th Cir. 1991): The Fifth Circuit ruled that the districts policy of suspicion-less drug testing of students

wishing to participate in extracurricular activities was unconstitutional. In its decision, the court concluded that

the school's justifications for its policy did not meet "the compelling need criteria necessary to undertake a

search without reasonable suspicion. The ruling used the T.L.O. standard to make its decision based on a lack

of individualized suspicion, but did not utilize the Vernonia precedence of the students lack of privacy.
Gardner v. Tulia Indep. Sch. Dist., No. 2, 2000 WL 3368 0258 (N.D. Tex. 2000): A Texas District Court ruled

the Tulia School District's policy mandating random suspicionless drug testing of all students in grades 7-12

who engaged in any extracurricular activities as unconstitutional, once again using the T.L.O standard.

Linke v. Northwestern Sch. Corp.,734 N.E. 2d 252 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000): The Indiana State Court ruled that

suspicionless drug testing of athletes and students involved in extracurricular activities under Indiana and U.S.

law was unconstitutional.

Tannahill v. Lockney Indep. Sch. Dist., 133 F. Supp. 2d 919 (N.D. Tex. 2001): In a case affecting all students

in a Texas high school, the Texas District Court held the school's mandatory drug testing policy as

unconstitutional. Although the school argued that there were special needs for this policy, the court ruled that

the school failed to demonstrate a need for suspicionless drug testing, and also failed to create a program that

was specifically designed to solve "a drug crisis". Additionally, the court recognized the increased expectation

of privacy for non-athlete students the standard set forth in Vernonia.

Landmark cases that hold legal precedent, like the ones above do, will guide American schools in proper

drug testing enforcement.