"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated…." The 4^th Amendment.)

See
Court Refuses to Return The Kubbys’ Computers, Forcing Them Into Bankruptcy;
How Seizing Computers Undermines Our 4^th Amendment And Other Basic Rights.

March 22, 1999

From The Associated Press

RULING BARS MANDATORY DRUG TESTING OF STUDENTS

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court today refused to let an Indiana school district require all high school students suspended for disciplinary reasons to undergo drug testing before they are reinstated.

The justices, without comment, let stand a ruling that struck down the requirement as a violation of students’ privacy rights.

Today’s action is not a decision and sets no precedent. In fact, the court’s denial of review could confuse the already-murky law surrounding student drug-testing across the nation.

At issue was a drug-testing policy formerly imposed at two Anderson, Ind., high schools. Lawyers for the Anderson Community School Corp. asked the justices to reinstate the policy, which they called vital to "deterring drug and alcohol use among students."

That 6-3 ruling emphasized the "role model" effect of student athletes’ drug use but also noted the importance of "deterring drug use by our nation’s schoolchildren."

The justices left that policy intact by rejecting, without comment, a challenge to it.

But no court has ever condoned the random testing of all public school students.

In striking down the drug-testing policy in Anderson, a three-judge panel of the 7^th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals drew a distinction between it and those involved in the Oregon and Rush County cases.

"A testing policy for students in athletics or other extracurricular activities applies only to students who have voluntarily chosen to participate in an activity," the appeals court said. "Drug testing could be construed as part of the ‘bargain’ a student strikes in exchange for the privilege of participating in favored activities."

But in the Anderson case, the appeals court said, "Such testing is a consequence of unauthorized participation in disfavored activities."

The policy adopted in 1997 for Anderson’s two public high schools required that all students suspended for any reason for three days or more take a urine test to screen for drug and alcohol use before being readmitted.

If the test detected drug or alcohol use, the result was disclosed only to parents and a designated school official. The test result was not used for additional punishment.

James R. Willis II was a freshman at Highland High School when in December 1997 he was suspended for five days for fighting. The school official to whom Willis was taken right after his fight later testified that there was no indication he had been using drugs or alcohol.

Willis refused to take the required drug test for readmission, and, with his father, sued the school district.

A federal trial judge upheld the drug-testing policy, but the 7^th Circuit court reversed that ruling.

The appeals court said the school district must restrict drug testing in such disciplinary cases to students individually suspected of using drugs or alcohol.

The case is Anderson Community School Corp. vs. Willis, 98-1183.