Pubdate: Fri, 05 Jan 2001
Source: Trenton Times, The (NJ)
Copyright: 2001 The Times
Contact:  P.O. Box 847, Trenton, N.J. 08605
Fax: 609-394-2819
Website: http://www.njo.com/times/
Forum: http://forums.nj.com/
Author: Joseph Dee
Note: The Associated Press contributed to this report.

JUDGE BARS SCHOOL DRUG TESTS

A Superior Court judge yesterday blocked Hunterdon Central Regional
High School from randomly testing certain broad groups of students for
drug use.

The controversial policy targets students who participate in athletics
and other extracurricular activities as well as those who drive to
school.

In issuing the preliminary injunction -- a ruling before a case goes
to trial -- Superior Court Judge Robert E. Guterl wrote that
Hunterdon's policy "violates the heightened privacy protection
afforded by the state constitution."

"Students should not have to surrender their right to privacy in order
to participate in athletics and extracurricular activities, and
participation in these school programs does not significantly diminish
an individual's reasonable expectation of privacy or the intrusiveness
of a suspicionless drug-testing program," he wrote.

School officials will appeal the decision, according to a news release
issued by the school district last night.

The policy was to go into effect last September, but the district
decided not to implement it after the parents of three students sued
in August.

"The district voluntarily chose not to conduct the testing at the
beginning of the year because of the lawsuit," said high school public
information officer Sheila Fernekes.

J.C. Salyer, the New Jersey staff attorney for the American Civil
Liberties Union, said, "I think the court took its time and issued a
thorough and well-reasoned opinion.

"We remain confident that our position and the Superior Court's
opinion are the correct standard," Salyer said.

"The New Jersey Constitution provides a greater privacy protection
than does the federal Constitution," he said. "And that means that the
government can't engage in a search unless they suspect someone of
wrongdoing, or unless they demonstrate a compelling need to do away
with that suspicion-of-wrongdoing standard."

The plaintiffs in the case were represented by the ACLU and the Newark
law firm of Krovatin & Associates.

The Hunterdon Central policy, adopted last year, was an expansion of a
1997 random drug-testing policy for athletes in grades 9 through 12.
During the 1997-98 school year, 107 student-athletes, or about 10
percent of the school's students, were tested, and fewer than 10
percent tested positive for illegal drugs, school officials have said.
No students, including athletes, have been tested while the suits were
pending.

The state Supreme Court has never ruled on school drug-testing
policies.

Last year, the Ridgefield Park School District dropped a drug-testing
policy after a lower court issued a temporary injunction against the
school for failing to justify the policy.

The U.S. Supreme Court has allowed random drug testing for student
athletes if a school shows reasonable suspicion, Salyer has said. But
courts in Pennsylvania, Indiana and other states have held that their
state constitutions prohibit such random testing, according to an ACLU
news release.

Referring to the Hunterdon Central policy, Salyer said, "The school's
policy is not aimed at evidence of wrongdoing. It's aimed at groups of
kids. But there is no reason to believe athletes or people who park
(cars) or participate in extracurricular activities are any more
inclined to use drugs than others. And there is no evidence that
Hunterdon has a drug problem. In fact, it is a very successful school."

Salyer noted that the state Supreme Court has permitted random
drug-testing of NJ Transit police officers because those officers are
not supervised.

Guterl found, however, "In this case, where there is absolutely no
evidence of any heightened drug use among the students targeted by
Hunterdon Central's policy and where students are under close
supervision, the board's failure to use the narrowest means available
to achieve the public purpose does not meet the standard of protection
afforded to the citizens of this state under the constitution."

Salyer said the high court cited an additional factor in permitting
the random testing of transit officers: "the obvious danger they would
present because they are armed and dealing with the public."
- ---
MAP posted-by: Richard Lake