NotesFAQContact Us
Collection
Advanced
Search Tips
ERIC Number: ED461166
Record Type: Non-Journal
Publication Date: 2001-Aug
Pages: 15
Abstractor: N/A
Reference Count: N/A
ISBN: N/A
ISSN: N/A
Student Searches, Urinalysis and Drug Dogs.
Stader, David L.
A review of legal decisions provides thought-provoking considerations for administrators who want to deter drug use on campus. The United States Supreme Court has recognized that even a limited search of students is a substantial invasion of privacy, but also that school officials need to maintain school discipline. Guidelines for the reasonableness of a search, and its legality, consist of deciding whether the search was justified at inception, reasonably related to the objective, and not excessively intrusive in light of the infraction or the age and sex of the student. A public-school policy stating that lockers are the property of the school lessens expectation of privacy. Similarly, on school-sponsored trips students can be informed that rooms are subject to search. Strip searches for relatively minor offenses are difficult to defend. The establishment of a drug problem before drug testing is wise. Urinalysis drug testing, based on individualized suspicion or to lessen risk to athletes is more likely to pass constitutional muster, but not random suspicionless drug searches. "Vernonia School District v. Acton" has set precedents for drug testing of student groups. "Horton v. Goose Creek Independent School District" established that drug-dog sniff searches of lockers and cars did not constitute a search, but would for people. (Contains 22 references.) (RKJ)
Publication Type: Information Analyses; Reports - Evaluative; Speeches/Meeting Papers
Education Level: N/A
Audience: N/A
Language: English
Sponsor: N/A
Authoring Institution: N/A