In two 1989 decisions, the Court held that no warrant of arrest, probable cause or even individual suspicion is required for mandatory drug testing of certain categories of railway and public employees. In each case, «special needs beyond the normal needs of law enforcement» were identified as warranting drug testing. In Skinner v. Railway Labor Executives` Ass`n,381 the Court upheld regulations requiring railway companies to administer blood, urine and breath tests to employees involved in certain train accidents or in breach of certain safety rules; In National Treasury Employees Union v. In Raab,382 the court upheld a customs screening program, which required urine testing of employees seeking transfer or promotion to positions directly related to drug prohibition or to positions where the incumbent operator must carry firearms. Student-athletes must also participate in random drug testing. You may be wondering if drug testing for student-athletes is legal, and the simple answer is yes. Read on to find out why and under what circumstances student-athlete drug testing is allowed. Emphasizing the «special needs» of the public school context, which are reflected in the «custodial and guardianship power» that schools exercise over students, and also citing the diminishing expectation of privacy among students, the Court in Vernonia School District v. Acton388 maintained a school district`s policy allowing random urinalysis drug testing for students participating in interscholastic track and field games. The Court redefined the term «imperative interest» of the government.
The sentence does not describe a «fixed and minimal level of government concern,» the court said, but «describes an interest that appears significant enough to warrant the particular search.» 389 Applying this test, the Court concluded that «deterring drug use by schoolchildren in our country is at least as important as improving the effective enforcement of national laws against the importation of drugs. or deterring drug use by engineers and trainees.» 390 On the other hand, the interference with the interests of privacy is not great, since schoolchildren must regularly undergo various physical examinations and vaccinations. Moreover, «expectations of privacy are even lower [for] student-athletes, as they typically dress, shower and dress in locker rooms that do not offer privacy, and when voluntarily undergoing physical examinations and other regulations beyond those imposed on non-athletes.» 391 The Court «cautioned against the assumption that unsuspected drug testing will readily exist in other contexts» and identified as «most important» in Vernonia the fact that the policy was implemented under the responsibility of government as guardian and educator of schoolchildren.392 Brooks v. East Chambers Consol. Indep. Sch. Dist, 730 F. Supp. 759 (Tex.
S.D. 1989), aff`d, 930 F. 2d 915 (5th Cir. 1991): The Fifth Judicial District declared unconstitutional the unsuspected drug testing of students who wanted to participate in extracurricular activities. In its decision, the court found that the school`s policy justifications did not «meet the mandatory criteria of necessity necessary to conduct a search without reasonable suspicion.» The court also noted that drug testing was intrusive, that there was no evidence of a drug problem or increased safety risk to applicants, and that the policy «was unlikely to achieve its purported objectives.» Rebecca`s son, a high school student, came home one afternoon and surprised his mother when he learned that he had been called to the vice-principal`s office and tested for drugs. Her results were clean, but it made no difference to Rebecca, who was horrified that the school was taking such a liberty. What exactly are the rules for random drug testing in public schools? 397 Drug testing is a «reasonable» means of protecting «the important interest of the school board in preventing and deterring its students from using drugs» and the decision in Vernonia «depends primarily on the responsibility and authority of the school.» 536 U.S. at 838, 831. The only systematic study of random drug testing in schools had no effect.8 In this study of 76,000 students in grades 8, 10 and 12 in a number of schools, researchers found that testing was not associated with the prevalence or frequency of student cannabis and other illicit drug use among male high school athletes. McKeganey,9 in a major report on school drug testing published by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, highlighted concerns about the development of drug testing programs based on «the thinnest research available.» Created by FindLaw`s team of writers and legal writers| Last updated: 20 June 2016 Those advocating drug testing in schools do so in the belief that it is likely to reduce drug use, discourage use, provide evidence when use is suspected, help former users remain sober, assure parents that «something is done,» and serve as final evidence when expulsion is contemplated.