And of much greater proportions than existed in Von Raab, where there was no documented history of drug use by any customs officials. In Michigan State Police v. Respondents, a seventh grade student and his parents, refused to sign the testing consent forms and filed suit seeking declaratory and injunctive relief from enforcement of the policy on the grounds that it violated the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments, U. Searches based on individualized suspicion also afford potential targets considerable control over whether they will, in fact, be searched because a person can avoid such a search by not acting in an objectively suspicious way. What I'm trying to get you to do is to pinpoint precisely what it is that's the intrusion of the privacy interest. At the same time, I don't read those opinions to say that a program completely lacking in all of them would pass muster, which is what we have here, so I can't say that if they have no direct observation but they still require disclosure of medications, and they don't use independent monitors, that that would pass muster.
Monitors may though do not always watch the student while he produces the sample, and they listen for normal sounds of urination. We caution against the assumption that suspicionless drug testing will readily pass constitutional muster in other contexts. First, drug testing by urinalysis is no less invasive and degrading for minors than it is for adults. The record shows no objection to this districtwide program by any parents other than the couple before us here-even though, as we have described, a public meeting was held to obtain parents' views. The Students' Interest In Privacy Outweighs The District's Interest In Testing. Martinez Fuerte, , 556-557, n.
In response to increases in drug use and disciplinary problems amongst the student population, Vernonia School District 47J District defendant implemented a drug testing policy. Students who seek the benefit of participation in interscholastic sports reasonably understand that such participation also involves certain obligations. For one thing, there are significant safeguards against abuses. Talking about colleges, a program called World Class Scholars can help you get two years of attending our local college Grays Harbor Community College, with only maintaining a 2. But, impatient for immediate results, it soon switched from persuasion to coercion.
A teacher simply cannot do his or her job without constantly and pervasively intruding into privacy interests into which an employer, for instance, would never consider intruding. In fact, as discussed above, the school setting is truly unique. It is not a criminal search. As in many schools, the Vernonia locker rooms are open spaces and the showers are communal. On this record, then, it seems to me that the far more reasonable choice would have been to focus on the class of students found to have violated published school rules against severe disruption in class and around campus, see Record, Exh. See also Von Raab, 489 U. Moreover, an individualized suspicion requirement was often impractical in these cases because they involved situations in which even one undetected instance of wrongdoing could have injurious consequences for a great number of people.
The Court of Appeals appears to have agreed with this view. That question is plainly relevant under the balancing approach this Court applied in Skinner and Von Raab, because even though the Court declined to impose a least intrusive means requirement in its analysis, it is plain that alternatives to suspicionless testing are relevant to decide whether suspicionless testing is actually necessary to further the governmental interest that is being asserted, and I think that the limitations of individualized suspicion testing are illustrated well on the facts of this case. That is no doubt correct, for, as the Court explains, ante, at 655-656, schools have traditionally had special guardianlike responsibilities for children that necessitate a degree of constitutional leeway. Moreover, tests were designed to avoid direct observation of the act of urination or removal of clothes. Valid consent is a basis for a search, and that's always been true.
But that proposition seems uniquely unhelpful in the present case, for although children may have had fewer rights against the private schoolmaster at the time of the framing than they have against public school officials today, parents plainly had greater rights then than now. The District, however, places numerous restrictions on eligibility for its athletic programs. Those selected are notified and tested that same day, if possible. Indeed, many schools, like many parents, prefer to trust their children unless given reason to do otherwise. Individualized suspicion is not essential to the reasonableness of a search in the school setting. This decision allowed for drug testing in all schools throughout the United States not just for athletes but also students who are in any activities within the school, for example clubs and competitive events Carroll 23. It also requires students to disclose any prescription medications they may be taking.
Earls, the majority opinion by Justice Clarence Thomas used Vernonia as a precedent and expanded it to allow drug test to all students who are engaged in extracurricular activities. The District, therefore, respectfully requests that the judgment of the circuit court be reversed and the judgment of the district court in favor of the District be reinstated on the grounds that the District's Policy is not an unreasonable intrusion under the Fourth Amendment. Having reviewed the record here, I cannot avoid the conclusion that the District's suspicionless policy of testing all student athletes sweeps too broadly, and too imprecisely, to be reasonable under the Fourth Amendment. The Policy applies to all students participating in interscholastic athletics. He said that the school district's policy met constitutional standards because the District had demonstrated an interest in changing drug abuse among student athletes. As the discussion below shows, the drug tests performed by the District do not offend the Fourth Amendment, because, as in all other cases where suspicionless searches have been upheld, the privacy intrusion is minimal and the testing program adequately restricts the District's discretion.
The administration and teachers foresaw the need for mass expulsions. And all of a sudden we're into a big deal of a due process case. For one thing, the regulations do not require a monitor to observe the employee while the urine sample is produced. Chief Justice, no, you're not. Kramer, Legal Rights of Children § 1. See also Treasury Employees v. The student is then retested prior to the start of the next athletic season for which he or she is eligible.
They remain fully clothed and are only observed from behind, if at all. The obvious negative implication of this reasoning is that, if such an individualized suspicion requirement would not place the government's objectives in jeopardy, the requirement should not be forsaken. The District can't have it both ways. First, order in the classroom. The student signs and dates the security tape which seals the vial. Yet another limitation of the test is that it merely indicates whether a student has taken one of the targeted drugs at some time in the recent past.