Pubdate: Fri, 09 Nov 2001
Source: Los Angeles Times (CA)
Copyright: 2001 Los Angeles Times
Contact:  http://www.latimes.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/248
Author: David G. Savage
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/testing.htm (Drug Testing)
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/youth.htm (Youth)

HIGH COURT TO WEIGH EXPANDED SCHOOL DRUG TESTING

Law: Justices To Decide If All Students Engaging In Extracurricular 
Activities Can Be Randomly Tested.

WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court agreed Thursday to decide whether all 
high school students who participate in extracurricular activities 
beyond sports can be forced to undergo random drug tests.

A ruling on the issue, which can be expected by next spring, should 
clarify how far public school officials can go in requiring drug 
tests of students.

The justices have said that students have lesser privacy rights than 
adults. Six years ago, they upheld an Oregon school district's policy 
of testing school athletes for drug use. School officials in the 
small town of Vernonia, Ore., said they had a serious drug problem. 
Athletes serve as role models and must be seen as drug-free and, 
beyond that, young athletes would risk serious injury if they were 
using drugs while playing sports, officials said.

For all these reasons, the Supreme Court approved the school's 
drug-testing policy and rejected the claim that it violated the 4th 
Amendment's ban on unreasonable searches and seizures.

Since then, school officials in some communities have sought to 
extend mandatory drug testing to all students who participate in 
extracurricular activities.

In 1998, the Tecumseh School District in rural Oklahoma decided to 
require random urine tests of high school students who participated 
in such activities as band, choir, cheerleading and Future Farmers of 
America.

Their urine samples were checked for such illegal drugs as cocaine, 
marijuana and amphetamines, but not alcohol. The local police were 
not told of positive tests. Instead, students were counseled to quit 
using drugs.

Two students--Lindsay Earls, who was in the choir, and Daniel James, 
who was on the academic team--challenged the policy as 
unconstitutional and won before the U.S. Court of Appeals in Denver.

That court's 2-1 majority said that the drug problem in Tecumseh was 
"negligible" in general and that nothing regarding choir members and 
cheerleaders indicated a "special need" to test them for drugs.

But the Supreme Court voted to take up the school district's appeal 
in the case, Board of Education vs. Earls, 01-332.

For their part, the justices have been unable to devise a clear rule 
on when the government can impose mandatory drug testing.

Normally, the 4th Amendment requires officers to have specific 
evidence before they can search someone. But in 1989, the court said 
that this rule of individualized suspicion can be waived if the 
government has a "special need" for drug testing. On that basis, the 
court upheld a federal regulation requiring urine testing of railroad 
crews after an accident. Separately, the justices also upheld the 
drug testing of U.S. Customs agents who carry guns and inspect for 
narcotics.

But they balked in 1997, striking down a requirement by the state of 
Georgia that candidates for high state offices undergo drug tests.

Meanwhile on Thursday, the court agreed to decide whether the 
Securities and Exchange Commission can sue brokers who steal money 
from their clients.

Since 1933, the SEC has policed the stock market by going after fraud 
in the buying and selling of stocks.

But this year, a federal appeals court said police power did not 
extend to ordinary thefts by a stockbroker.

Charles Zandford, a broker from Bethesda, Md., was convicted of 
stealing $343,000 that had been entrusted to him. Reading the federal 
law narrowly, Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson said this theft was not "in 
connection with the purchase or sale of any security," and, 
therefore, was not covered by the Securities Act.

In its appeal, the commission said that this ruling, if allowed to 
stand, would greatly weaken its policing powers, and the justices 
voted to hear the case in SEC vs. Zandford, 01-147.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Josh