Drug%20Detection%20in%20Schools

1
Drug Detection in Schools

• Class 14

2
Searches in Schools Generally

• New Jersey v T.L.O. gave broad discretion to
  school officials to search students
• Diminished right to privacy in schools
• Way beyond plain sight exceptions to Fourth
  Amendment searches, and broad interpretation of
  reasonable suspicion, based more on sufficient
  probability
• Greater deference to school officials searching
  for drugs or weapons, but this assumes we
  understand where the line stands between serious
  and minor offenses

3

• Does the schools interest vary by context of the
  search?
• Is the calculus of the search different when the
  search is conducted in the school, in the school
  parking lot, in the locker room after school, or
  when the Math Team practices?
• Does the balance of the schools interests tip
  toward the school and away from the students
  privacy in one of these circumstances more than
  others? Why?
• Does the Exclusionary Rule serve as a deterrent
  to school authorities in constraining their
  search parameters and discretion?
• Thompson v Carthage (1996, CA) says no

4
Drug Testing Generally

• Automobile drivers Schmerber v California
  delay resulting from obtaining a warrant, etc.,
  would result in destruction of evidence
  (metabolizing alcohol)
• Railroad employees Skinner v. Railway Labor
  Executives Association blood tests are so
  routine in society that they no longer constitute
  an intrusion but collection of urine samples is a
  greater invasion of privacy
• Is fitness-for-duty test rationale justified? Or
  should it be confined to those who have had
  railway accidents? Parallels to schools?

5

• Private employers Alaska 1977 legislation.
  State legislation authorizes employers to conduct
  urine screens, employers shielded from tort
  liability if confidential data are disclosed
• Pregnant women Ferguson vs. City of Charleston
  (South Carolina), Whitner mandatory testing of
  pregnant women in medical facilities,
  doctor-patient privacy is diminished because of
  threat to fetus if mother uses drugs

6
Doctrines Justifying Broad School Search

• Individualized v. Generalized Suspicion
• Threshold questions what estimate of prevalence
  justifies mass search?
• Does presumption of broad probability influence
  weight accorded to individual factors?
• What are the boundaries on individualized
  suspicion?
• Ind. suspicion need not arise from collective
  suspicion
• And vice-versa (Desilets v Clearview Regional
  Board of Edn, 1993, NJ)
• Reasonable suspicion is prevailing std., not
  probable cause

7
School Cases

• Doe v Renfroe (ND)
• Does any search itself violate 4th Amendment
  (generalized suspicion in pursuit of valid
  educational goal)
• Was use of dogs a search, and does 4th Amendment
  apply, and if so, how does school context
  mitigate 4th Amendment protections?
• Is special search of clothing pursuant to dogs
  alert a 4th Amendment violation?
• Is body search unreasonable intrusion based on
  dog warning?

8

• Does prior evidence of drug use by students
  justify search and provide context for
  generalized suspicion?
• Students have no expectation of privacy with
  respect to lockers, but to clothing? Purses
  (T.L.O.)? Body?
• The mild inconvenience of pocket search or
  purse does not extend to body search
• Would this threshold have been neutralized is
  student had overt signs of intoxication? Wads of
  cash?

9
Student Cases

• Vernonia v Acton (1995) student athletes
  constitute special needs
• suspicionless searches are ok if they serve
  valid prophylactic purpose analogous to
  Skinner, customs officials, drunk drivers, etc.
• These needs are compelling
• What are special needs here? What is compelling
  about them?
• Danger of physical harm during sports
• Student athletes are leaders of drug culture
• State of rebellion fueled by drug and alcohol
  use
• Role models

10

• Pottawatomie County and Independent School
  District 92 v. Lindsay Earles and Lacey Earles
  (536 U.S. 822, 122 S.Ct. 2559) (2002)
• Suspicionless drug testing of students in all
  extracurricular activity
• Extension of Vernonia logic, beyond initial harm
  concern
• Advances school districts interests in
  preventing and deterring drug abuse among its
  children
• S.C. ruled that an emergency need not be
  present to justify policy, preventive rationale
  is sufficient
• but said that one was present anyway, relying
  heavily on hearsay
• Earls argues that if she objects, she will suffer
  in college competition from not having
  extracurricular activities on her record

11
The 48 Hours Story

• Reflect back, how can the school system defend
  its search?
• Can the school system defend the offensive
  tactic?
• Is there constitutional ground to consider the
  harm developmentally of subjecting children to
  these searches? What evidence?
• Is the search less objectionable as policy if no
  guns or dogs?