The 1995 case of vernonia school district v acton
Constitutionality of random drug testing of student-athletes makes the cut.
Vernonia school district v. acton essay
Since the collection and testing of urine under the school policy was a search and thus subject to the Fourth Amendment, it was necessary to turn to the question of reasonableness. The majority has chosen the least desirable of these alternatives. Central to the Court's analysis in this case was the fact that the "subjects of the policy are 1 children, who 2 have been committed to the temporary custody of the State as schoolmaster. Scalia, J. Now that the only remaining issue involves the proper interpretation of Article I, Section 9 of the Oregon Constitution, I see no reason not to defer to the Oregon Supreme Court. They take communal showers afterward. Among public school students, athletes have even less of an expectation of privacy. The importance of deterring drug use by all this Nation's schoolchildren cannot be doubted. Supreme Court Toolbox. However, he and his parents refused to sign a consent allowing for Acton to be tested under the drug policy. Supreme Court granted certiorari. If a student's sample tested positive, the student was given the option of either undergoing counseling and submitting to six weekly drug tests or sitting out the remainder of that season as well as the following season. Third, discouraged by the Court's rejection of our construction of the United States Constitution, we could throw up our hands and simply proclaim that random, suspicionless drug tests are consistent with the Oregon Constitution as well. C;The Court thus concluded that the invasion of privacy was "not significant.
The Court declined, however, to reach the question of whether or not, apart from any constraints imposed by the Fourth Amendment, the drug tests in question would violate the Oregon Constitution.
However, in the mid- to late s, teachers and administrators observed student-athletes boasting of drug use, which they believed promoted a drug culture.
Rule of Law or Legal Principle Applied: A public school policy of randomly drug testing student athletes in the face of a school-wide drug problem does not constitute an unreasonable search and seizure in violation of the Fourth Amendment. Second, the test discloses personal information concerning "the state of the subject's body and the materials he has ingested.
More recently, the Court had limited its willingness to dispense with the individualized suspicion requirement only in particularly dangerous contexts, such as prisons. In James Acton, a seventh-grade student, was not allowed to participate in interscholastic athletics after he and his parents refused to sign a consent form for drug testing.
With regard to the government interest at issue: No one doubts the need to deter drug use by school children. Acton, U. Majority Opinion[ edit ] The Fourth Amendment only protects against unreasonable searches and seizures.
Vernonia school district v. acton prezi
The court noted that the Fourth Amendment , which forbids unreasonable searches and seizures, was extended by the Fourteenth Amendment to cover searches and seizures by state officers, including those at public schools. Supreme Court on March 28, Third-time offenders were suspended for the remainder of the season and the next two seasons. Scalia, J. Constitutionality of random drug testing of student-athletes makes the cut. In this case, the drug policy is reasonable when balancing those interests. The school board approved the policy, the purpose of which was to prevent student-athletes from using drugs, protect their health and safety, and provide drug users with assistance programming. If a student's sample tested positive, the student was given the option of either undergoing counseling and submitting to six weekly drug tests or sitting out the remainder of that season as well as the following season. The information gleaned from the testing of the sample is to a limited audience.
Citing Case 66 F. It is highly likely that it will be found to offer more protection.
based on 65 review