Board of Education of Independent School District No. 92 of Pottawatomie County v. Earls, case in which the U.S. Supreme Court on June 27, 2002, ruled (5–4) that suspicion-less drug testing of students participating in competitive extracurricular activities did not violate the Fourth Amendment, which guarantees protection from unreasonable searches and seizures.
In 1998 a school district in Oklahoma adopted a policy that required all middle- and high-school students who wished to participate in competitive extracurricular activities to submit urine for drug testing. The samples were collected by teachers, who stood outside bathroom stalls. If test results were positive, they were kept confidential, except that parents were notified, and students were referred to counseling. Students were not reported to the police, and only repeated positive tests or refusals to participate in counseling could have led to students being excluded from extracurricular activities.
Britannica Quiz All-American History Quiz
Two students at Tecumseh High School, Lindsay Earls and Daniel James, and their parents filed suit against the school board, challenging the policy as a violation of the Fourth Amendment. Citing Vernonia School District 4 7 J v. Acton—in which the Supreme Court ruled that suspicionless drug testing of student athletes was constitutional—the federal district court upheld the policy, granting the board’s motion for summary judgment. The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, however, reversed in favour of Earls and James, deciding that the policy did violate the Fourth Amendment. It found that schools “must demonstrate that there is some identifiable drug abuse problem among a sufficient number of those subject to the testing, such that testing that group of students will actually redress its drug problem.” The Tenth Circuit held that the school district had failed to meet this requirement.
ALSO READ : How to the can you change school in year 9.
The case was argued before the U.S. Supreme Court on March 19, 2002. As it had in Vernonia, the court reasoned that students who participate in extracurricular activities have limited expectations of privacy. It also found that the testing procedure was constitutionally permissible, and it was satisfied that the policy clearly required confidentiality. Further, insofar as the court explained that the results were not given to the police and the only real consequence was exclusion from extracurricular activities, it concluded that the invasion of students’ privacy was not significant.
The court next asserted that the evidence of drug use offered by school officials was sufficient to justify the policy, because the court had “not required a particularized or pervasive drug problem” to allow drug testing. To that end, the court agreed that the policy served the board’s interest in protecting the safety and health of its students. Finally, the court ruled that the policy was a reasonable means of advancing the district’s interest of preventing drug use by its students. On the basis of its findings, the Supreme Court held that the policy did not violate the Fourth Amendment, and it reversed the Tenth Circuit Court’s decision.
Fourth Amendment, amendment (1791) to the Constitution of the United States, part of the Bill of Rights, that forbids unreasonable searches and seizures of individuals and property. For the text of the Fourth Amendment, see below.
Introduced in 1789, what became the Fourth Amendment struck at the heart of a matter central to the early American experience: the principle that, within reason, “Every man’s house is his castle,” and that any citizen may fall into the category of the criminally accused and ought to be provided protections accordingly. In U.S. constitutional law, the Fourth Amendment is the foundation of criminal law jurisprudence, articulating both the rights of persons and the responsibilities of law-enforcement officials. The balance between these two forces has undergone considerable public, political, and judicial debate. Are the amendment’s two clauses meant to be applied independently or taken as a whole? Is the expectation of privacy diminished depending on where and what is suspected, sought, and seized? What constitutes an “unreasonable” search and seizure?
The protections contained in the amendment have been determined less on the basis of what the Constitution says than according to what it has been interpreted to mean, and, as such, its constitutional meaning has inherently been fluid. The protections granted by the U.S. Supreme Court have expanded during periods when the court was dominated by liberals (e.g., during the tenure of Chief Justice Earl Warren [1953–69]), beginning particularly with M app v. Ohio (1961), in which the court extended the exclusionary rule to all criminal proceedings; by contrast, during the tenure of the conservative William Rehnquist (1986–2005) as chief justice, the court contracted the rights afforded to the criminally accused, allowing law-enforcement officials latitude to search in instances when they reasonably believed that the property in question hardbound presumably dangerous persons.
YOU-TUBE : CLICK HERE