Consecutively, this is the second of two instances in this presentation at the legality of urinalysis and high school students (Vernonia school District v. Acton in 1995). Inside the Tecumseh (OK) school District, a drug policy required all those searching for participation in extracurricular sports, need to submit to a urinalysis. Two high school students complained, suggesting the policy interfered with their Fourth amendment rights. While the original court favored the district, a Oklahoma courtroom of Appeals ruled in favor of the students. It said that the faculty has to first show a wide-spread problem before they are able to act in any sort of way.
The Supreme Court is asked, is the Student Activities Drug Testing Policy, which requires all …show more content…
In a 5-4 opinion given by Justice Clarence Thomas, the Court held that, because the policy reasonably serves the School District's significant concern in identifying and preventing drug use among its students, it is constitutional. Thomas wrote the opinion for the majority. The court ruled that the reasonable attempts of preventing drug use in students and the student’s inherent minimum expectation of privateness renders the decision constitutionally sound and not in violation of the Fourth amendment. But, the courtroom stated, “In upholding the constitutionality of this coverage, we specific no opinion as to its information.”
The Court inferred that the Board of Education's general principle of competitive extracurricular activities decreased the assumption of privacy between students and that the Board's approach of obtaining urine samples and keeping test results was minimally invasive on the students' restricted privacy interest. The court next declared that the evidence of drug use offered by school officials was adequate to validate the policy, because the
The Supreme Court is asked, is the Student Activities Drug Testing Policy, which requires all …show more content…
In a 5-4 opinion given by Justice Clarence Thomas, the Court held that, because the policy reasonably serves the School District's significant concern in identifying and preventing drug use among its students, it is constitutional. Thomas wrote the opinion for the majority. The court ruled that the reasonable attempts of preventing drug use in students and the student’s inherent minimum expectation of privateness renders the decision constitutionally sound and not in violation of the Fourth amendment. But, the courtroom stated, “In upholding the constitutionality of this coverage, we specific no opinion as to its information.”
The Court inferred that the Board of Education's general principle of competitive extracurricular activities decreased the assumption of privacy between students and that the Board's approach of obtaining urine samples and keeping test results was minimally invasive on the students' restricted privacy interest. The court next declared that the evidence of drug use offered by school officials was adequate to validate the policy, because the