Pubdate: Wed, 06 October 1999 Source: Santa Rosa Press Democrat (CA) Copyright: 1999, The Press Democrat Contact: http://www.pressdemo.com/index.html Forum: http://www.pressdemo.com/opinion/talk/ PRESUMED GUILTY With a U.S. Supreme Court decision to uphold mandatory drug testing for teachers, America has slipped deeper into an age of implied suspicion. The action Monday was significant not because the high court let stand a rejection of this constitutional challenge. The court has upheld drug testing before. Rather, the decision was precedent-setting because of who it involved -- school teachers in Knox County, Tenn. School board members in Knox County acknowledge the district has never had any problems with drug use among teachers. Yet, they voted to require urine testing for all new teachers in 1994 to take a "firm stand" against drug-use on campus. The National Education Association, the nation's largest teachers union, took up the case rightly arguing that teachers should not be tested unless there is reason to believe a drug problem exists. But the courts rejected that argument, with fuzzy justification. When the Supreme Court upheld testing 10 years ago, the cases concerned the screening of train engineers and armed federal agents. The five-judge majority found that because these workers could pose a safety risk to the public if they were under the influence, testing did not constitute an "unreasonable search" as prohibited by the Fourth Amendment. However, that "safety" standard has slowly been eroded until now it, inexplicably, has been applied to teachers. In the decision upheld by the Supreme Court Monday, a U.S. appeals court found, "The public interest (in a drug-free school staff) clearly outweighs the privacy interest of the teacher not to be tested." Given the absence of risk so far among Knox County teachers, that's debatable. More importantly, what's missing is any limitation to the measures taken to ensure a drug-free school. Once the court has abandoned the Fourth Amendment principle of "probable cause" there are few limits. Wouldn't the public's interest in school safety be even more enhanced by weekly staff drug tests, drug testing of students and lie-detector testing? Wouldn't public safety interests also be served if communities set up sidewalk checkpoints to combat drug sales and use? Given pressures to reduce insurance costs and exposure to liability, this decision no doubt will clear the way for testing for teachers across the nation. Worse, children born today are destined to grow up not knowing of a time when work places did not have regular, mandatory drug tests and other means of ensuring employee honesty. And the concept of a "presumption of innocence" will be only a sentimental notion of an earlier age. - --- MAP posted-by: Jo-D