A coalition of anti-drug groups is seeking individuals and organizations to join them in an amicus (friend of the court) brief before the U.S. Supreme Court in a major school drug testing case.
Board of Educ. of Independent School Dist. No. 92 of Pottawatomie County v. Earls, 70 USLW 3162 (U.S. Nov 08, 2001) (NO. 01-332).
If you, or your organization wish to be included, please contact David G. Evans, Esq. at 908-788-7077, fax 908-788-9504 or e-mail at
thinkon908@aol.com. He needs your name, address, phone, fax and e-mail. Mr. Evans, who is admitted to practice before the U.S. Supreme Court, will be writing the brief. Help from other attorneys and anti-drug experts is welcome. We need information on drug use in schools. Financial contributions are welcome.
Mr. Evans needs to hear from you quickly. The current list of participants is:
The Drug and Alcohol Testing Industry Association, Alexandria, Virginia
Drug-Free Schools Coalition, Flemington, New Jersey
Legal Foundation Against Illicit Drugs, St. Petersburg, Florida
Drug Free Kids: America's Challenge, Silver Spring, Maryland
Cap Beyer, Jupiter, Florida
National Families in Action, Atlanta, Georgia
Institute on Global Drug Policy of the Drug Free America Foundation
WHY THIS CASE?
This case is important because it will decide how much of a drug problem a school has to have in order to drug test students. The school in this case had minimal drug use and so the court did not allow testing, however, this is not the situation with many schools in the US. The ACLU has taken the position that a school has to be "out of control" with drugs before testing can take place. The ACLU position accepts the status quo of substantial drug use in most schools and asserts that the school must be in a state of rebellion before testing can take place. We cannot accept this status quo! The purpose of drug testing, and other drug-free schools programs, is to stop things from getting out of control.
Over one-third of secondary school students use illegal drugs leading to poor school performance, addiction, overdose deaths and accidents in schools. Recent studies confirm that kids who use drugs are more likely to bring guns and knives to school leading to school violence. For the last six years school children have listed drugs as the most important problem they face. Based on experience in the military, business and professional athletics, drug testing substantially reduces drug use.
Many schools have drug testing programs that have proven to be highly effective in substantially reducing drug use. As an example, the Hunterdon Central Regional High School in Flemington, New Jersey conducted a survey of student drug use in 1997. The survey took students about 35 minutes to complete and covered their history of drug and alcohol use and the frequency and intensity of their current substance use. The survey has built in controls to ensure accuracy and to detect erroneous or exaggerated responses with approximately 40 different consistency checks.
After conducting the 1997 survey, Hunterdon Central implemented mandatory random drug testing for all student athletes. Approximately half of the student body participated in athletics. Prior to implementing random testing the school also had a student counseling and education program and conducted drug searches. In 1999, the survey was conducted again. There had been no changes in the school anti-drug program except the introduction of random testing.
The 1999 survey showed that of the 28 categories of drug use evaluated by the survey, drug use went down in 20 categories. For example, in the highest risk drug use category of "Multi-Drug Users" the rates went down as follows:
9th grade - 57% decrease
10th grade - 100% decrease
11th grade - 14% decrease
12th grade - 52% decrease
School drug testing programs are a proven low-cost method to win the fight for our children's lives. Schools implementing drug testing experience an almost immediate and substantial reduction in drug use. It is an extremely effective deterrent. In most cases, as soon as students find out that they will be tested, they simply stop using drugs.
Student drug testing relieves students from peer pressure and enables them to reject drug pushers. It also greatly reduces the unpleasant confrontations that often occur between drug-using students and their teachers or parents, or between drug-using bullies and their weaker classmates. Students who avoid drug use during their high school years are not likely to subsequently use drugs; but if they later do, they more easily can stop using them.
The United States Supreme Court will hear a case in which the federal Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit concluded that a public school district's policy of suspicionless urinalysis drug testing of students participating in competitive extracurricular activities was not reasonable, and thus violated the students' Fourth Amendment rights. Pursuant to the district's policy, each student seeking to participate in extracurricular activities was required to sign a written consent agreeing to submit to drug testing prior to participating in the activity and random testing during the year while participating.
The school justified the policy on the basis of the "special needs" doctrine. Under this doctrine, the court identifies a special need and then balances the government's interest in conducting a particular search ( a drug test is a search) against the individual's privacy interests upon which the search intrudes.
The 10th Circuit held that students retain their Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches while at school, but the nature of that right is different--it is what is appropriate for children in school. Given the public school context in this case, the Tenth Circuit found that the district had demonstrated that there was a "special need" for a relaxation of the Fourth Amendment's standards. After balancing the factors, however, the Court of Appeals concluded that the policy was unconstitutional. Although the students who participated in extracurricular activities had diminished privacy expectations, and the invasion of their privacy was not significant, the district was not faced with an epidemic of illegal drug use. Rather, the evidence of actual drug usage at the high school was minimal. In so ruling, the Tenth Circuit disagreed with the Seventh and Eighth Circuits, which had upheld the random suspicionless drug testing of high school students even when there was not a significant drug problem.
