ipl-logo

Board Of Education V. Earls Case Study

585 Words3 Pages

In the case Board of Education v. Earls, the issue involves drug testing for extracurricular activities. Previously, Vernonia school district created a policy to detect illegal drugs in students and that case with Acton of 1995; the court determined that the policy did not violate the Fourth Amendment “by dismissing the action in a 6-3 vote against the plaintiff” (Conlon). Lindsay Earls, a junior at Tecumseh High School in Tecumseh, Oklahoma, is involved in many extracurricular activities like show choir and the National Honors Society was tested for illegal drugs like all other students participating school sponsored activities. Earls claimed the policy was invading her privacy so she sued the Tecumseh school district for implementing a policy that she thought violated her rights with the Fourth Amendment (Earls v Board of Education ACLU). The Fourth Amendment to the United States prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures and requires any warrant to be judicially sanctioned and supported by …show more content…

Earls was 5 to 4 in favor of the defendants saying that a valid reason is needed in order to conduct a drug test. Lindsay Earls, the plaintiff, argued, “The policy violates the Fourth Amendment as incorporated by the Fourteenth Amendment” (Board of Education v. Lindsay Earls 4). She claimed that her rights to a reasonable search and seizure were violated. The Board of Education, the defendant, said that the policy was not violating the students’ rights because the government didn’t require it. The policy was simply in place “to send a message to parents and students that they don’t condone drug use” (Boyd). With a 5 to 4 vote, the decision was that because it is in the school district’s best interest “to detect and keep illegal drug use to a minimum, the policy is indeed constitutional” (Board of Education Oyez). The court said that any school using a similar policy should have a probable reason to drug tests their

Show More
Related
497 Words | 2 Pages

School officials’ strip searched Redding based off of a tip they received from another student at the school. Redding filed suit against the administrators who administered the search. She claimed that her Fourth Amendment rights of an unreasonable search were violated. A district court threw out the case but Redding appealed the case, which was threw out again on the initial appeal, but after being reheard a second time the court of appeals found that the young

Read More
507 Words | 3 Pages

It was decided as it was in Vernonia School District 47 J vs. Acton that students that participate in these activities would expect limited privacy, so the drug tests did not violate that. In fact, since the only real consequence was expulsion out of the group, it was determined that it was for the safety of the students to allow the drug testing. So the Supreme Court reversed the Tenth Circuit Court’s decision. It was a close vote, 5 to

Read More
424 Words | 2 Pages

Case: New Jersey v. T.L.O. (1985) Facts: A high school freshman (T.L.O) had her purse searched by the Assistant Vice Principal at her school because a teacher found her and another student smoking in the lavatory. The Assistant Vice Principal uncovered cigarettes and marijuana. Procedural history: T.L.O. motioned to suppress the evidence because her Fourth Amendment rights were violated and was denied by the Juvenile Court stating the search was reasonable. The Appellate Division of the New Jersey Superior Court agreed there was no violation of the Fourth Amendment. The New Jersey Supreme Court reversed the decision stating the search was unreasonable.

Read More
740 Words | 3 Pages

Facts of the Case: Earl versus the Board of Education was a Supreme Court case in 2002 where high school students and their parents disliked the action of The Student Activities Drug Testing Policy taking place in an Oklahoma School District. This policy required all middle and high school students who wanted to participate in any extracurricular activity like athletics, to take a mandatory urinary test for drugs before taking part in that activity. However, in this situation in Tecumseh, Oklahoma, the testing was only done for athletics. This was done by the Oklahoma Secondary Schools Activities Association (OSSAA). Specifically two Tecumseh High School students and their parents complained and brought suit, they believed this practice violated

Read More
665 Words | 3 Pages

Supreme Court on March 28, 1995. The court noted that the Fourth Amendment, which forbids unreasonable searches and seizures, was extended (by the Fourteenth Amendment) to cover searches and seizures by state officers, including those at public schools, Since the collection and testing of urine under the school policy was a search and thus subject to the Fourth Amendment, it was necessary to turn to the question of reasonableness. To that end, the court pointed out that even though school officials are agents of the state, as a result of their custodial and tutelary relationship with students, they have the authority to act in loco parentis in safeguarding the children in their care. The court then cited the fact that schoolchildren are already subjected to physical examinations, such as scoliosis testing, and to various vaccinations. According to the justices, student athletes have a lesser expectation of privacy than their peers who are not athletes.

Read More
607 Words | 3 Pages

Therefore we should drug test the kids to make sure the environment stays healthy ,and clean. People are saying to not drug test kids because it’s an invasion of the kids privacy ,and it can make them feel uncomfortable. It can also deter students from doing extra curricular activities. On the other had . Legally you can only drug test students who are in athletics or clubs.

Read More
1459 Words | 6 Pages

It may seem a little invasive, but schools are permitted to use drug dogs to sniff out contraband during unannounced, random searches and it becomes a controversial problem for all. The use of drug-sniffing dogs in schools is permitted because students do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the school and school search did not go against the Fourth Amendment, which is the right of people to be secure in their personal spaces houses and papers. While drug dogs are becoming more and more commonplace in our public schools and to maintaining a drug-dog program can cost district estimates $12,000 and $36,000 every year. Drug dog must go through a long period of time of training and drug dogs are not dangerous to people, but instead it protects people. Without reservation, we must know the history background, advantages, and disadvantages of having a drug dog searches.

Read More
812 Words | 4 Pages

If you don't know what the 4th Amendment is, it guards against unreasonable searches and seizures. If students are tested for drugs they may get discouraged about life and want to commit suicide, or they might not try as hard in their school work. Student athletes should not be tested for drugs because it takes money out of their education. Student athletes should not be tested for drugs because it takes money out of their education. They should not test them because it costs so much for a test and to test a couple hundred student athletes.

Read More
1052 Words | 5 Pages

Challenges to workplace drug testing policies on grounds that they violate employees' privacy have not been successful. But while drug testing itself usually does not violate an individual's rights, the manner in which the test was conducted (or its results utilized) may sometimes cross the line. For example, the U.S. Supreme Court has held that positive drug test results may not be used in subsequent criminal cases without the consent of the employee. Also, a drug test may be challenged on constitutional grounds if the results are divulged indiscriminately, if the test is conducted in a way that disrespects the subject's privacy rights, or if drug testing is done excessively or otherwise inappropriately. California:

Read More
1086 Words | 5 Pages

2.2 Yes, I do think drug testing is justified at school level. For the reasons stated above, I believe that athletes of all levels, should not have any unfair advantage as result of performance enhancing drugs. It makes no difference whether the athletes are professional or school going. Drug testing is justified at sports events at school to ensure that no student has any unfair advantage over another as this would undermine the entire purpose of competing in sport.

Read More
550 Words | 3 Pages

Have you are someone you know been drug tested? If you have children, have they done drugs? Or how do you know they are not doing drugs? In the following paragraphs we will be discussing why we should have mandatory drug test in schools. Drug test at schools may seem extreme but they are highly needed.

Read More
755 Words | 4 Pages

Drug testing can still be a controversial topic in today’s society depending on whom one asks. It causes uproar from workers to students across America while it applauded by others. The drug testing issue and conversation has spread into many areas of our society such as the workplace, sports, school, military and criminal justice system and has even trickled into our social safety system, such as welfare and unemployment. We will explore some of the many facets of drug testing and its impact on society including the history,progression,pros and cons, industry, testing methods and more.

Read More
728 Words | 3 Pages

This demonstrates how drug testing is a worthy investment in schools. Making sure students don’t get addicted to drugs is well worth the amount that the school is paying. Drug testing is a necessary investment that schools should make. Kurt Gibson, associate executive director of The Illinois High School Association, has been testing since 2008 and “Each year, the program costs about $100,000 and tests about 650 students … The association had no positive test results… ‘Our program serves more as a deterrent rather than being designed to punish students ’”

Read More
630 Words | 3 Pages

School Drug Testing and Why It Is Bad Requiring students to urinate into a cup, while a school staff member stands outside a stall is a violation of the Fourth Amendment [Pathos]. Currently there are organizations and state government officials trying to recruit schools to start doing randomized drug testing, but there are also several organizations who oppose them. A lot of these organizations that oppose random drug testing at schools are experts on the subject including: the National Education Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry [Logos]. Most of these students are underage, except for the few seniors who are 18; therefore, the school has no right to force them to get drug tested without reasonable suspicion.

Read More
483 Words | 2 Pages

Jimena Salgado Period 2 Language Arts Drug Testing in Public Schools Allowing schools to conduct drug tests on students has been a controversial topic for many years and continues to be. Some people believe that drug testing is an effective way to stop drug use amongst students. While others argue that it is a violation of students' privacy and rights. In this essay, I will argue why schools shouldn’t drug test students even with probable cause.

Read More

More about Board Of Education V. Earls Case Study

Related Topics

Open Document