ipl-logo

Educ Vs Earls Case Study

507 Words3 Pages

Mod: Today we are speaking with our own Janelle Norkevicus regarding her thoughts on Board of Education of Independent School District #92 of Pottawatomie County v. Earls (2002). Good Morning Janelle, how are you?
Janelle: Good Morning. I am well. Yes, I am here to discuss the Board of Educ vs. Earls.
Mod: So give us a little history on the case.
Janelle: Well, this case started off with the Tecumseh School in Oklahoma requiring all students in the middle and high schools that participate in extracurricular activities to take a urine drug test. Now this school is a public school, and the activities include clubs and sports.
Mod: What was done with the tests?
Janelle: From what I read, the tests that were given were only to detect …show more content…

Both sets of parents filed suit stating this was a violation of the Fourth Amendment.
Mod: Was there a case precedent for or against?
Janelle: The attorneys used Vernonia School District 47 J vs. Acton, which the Supreme Court ruled that suspicion less drug testing of student athletes was constitutional. The Federal District Court upheld the policy, granting the Board’s Motion for Summary Judgment.
Mod: What happened next?
Janelle: The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed in favor of Earls and James. It was decided in the appeal that the school must show an identifiable drug abuse problem among most of the group of students in order to test. The Tenth Circuit held that the School District failed to meet the requirement that there was an actual drug problem. The case was then argued in March of 2002 in front of the U.S. Supreme Court. 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

Open Document