-
FreeAdvice has a new Terms of Service and Privacy Policy, effective May 25, 2018.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our Terms of Service and use of cookies.
is this legal in virginia schools
- Thread starter momzrule
- Start date
Accident - Bankruptcy - Criminal Law / DUI - Business - Consumer - Employment - Family - Immigration - Real Estate - Tax - Traffic - Wills Please click a topic or scroll down for more.
Yes, please put your two posts together as it makes more sense with all the facts.
Also realize that children will deny their guilt to their parnets who also want them to not be guilty . Knowing your child has a substance abuse problem early in life may save his life dealing with it now rather than teaching your child to cover it up or parents will get them off the hook.
Also realize that children will deny their guilt to their parnets who also want them to not be guilty . Knowing your child has a substance abuse problem early in life may save his life dealing with it now rather than teaching your child to cover it up or parents will get them off the hook.
BelizeBreeze
Senior Member
WHOA Rmet, not so simple.
I suggest you and the poster read BOARD OF EDUCATION OF INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 92 OF POTTAWATOMIE COUNTY, et al., Petitioner, v. LINDSAY EARLS and LACEY EARLS, minors
which can be found here:
http://216.109.117.135/search/cache?p=administering+drug+test+in+school+virginia&toggle=1&ei=UTF-8&xargs=0&pstart=1&b=11&u=archive.aclu.org/court/earls.pdf&w=administering+drug+test+school+virginia&d=20B3EAE54A&icp=1&.intl=us
I suggest you and the poster read BOARD OF EDUCATION OF INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 92 OF POTTAWATOMIE COUNTY, et al., Petitioner, v. LINDSAY EARLS and LACEY EARLS, minors
which can be found here:
http://216.109.117.135/search/cache?p=administering+drug+test+in+school+virginia&toggle=1&ei=UTF-8&xargs=0&pstart=1&b=11&u=archive.aclu.org/court/earls.pdf&w=administering+drug+test+school+virginia&d=20B3EAE54A&icp=1&.intl=us
Different test. Drug tests as cited refer to collection of urine etc and or intrusive drug testing and as such impact 4th amendent rights. There are ways to get around these restrictions if need be.
A Sobrity test is a non-intrusive neuro examination involving no collection or intrusive test, no violation of search and seizure under 4th amendment, in essense simply asking the actor to perform certain tasks such as they might do in PE class. Enrollment in school includes permission for such tests and would also be included under consent laws.
A Sobrity test is a non-intrusive neuro examination involving no collection or intrusive test, no violation of search and seizure under 4th amendment, in essense simply asking the actor to perform certain tasks such as they might do in PE class. Enrollment in school includes permission for such tests and would also be included under consent laws.
BelizeBreeze
Senior Member
The point of the decision if you actually read the entire thing, was that ANY such test required specific criteria before they could be administered.rmet4nzkx said:
Now, go back and re-read it. This is the problem with answers that depend on no factual information such as this poster gave.
The CORRECT answer is, it depends on the circumstances of the testing, why it was done, the policy of the school board and it's application, as this decision states.
That was not the question, the question was, "is it legal for a school to preform a sobriety test on child without a parent present?"BelizeBreeze said:
Yes, it is legal for a school to perform a sobriety test without a parent present.
The issues you addressed were not asked, so I didn't assume that, only what was asked. I did say that they should put their two threads together. You answered the other question. I read both questions before making my answer and qualified it as such.
I like the part where you told them to tell sonnyboy to kep his mouth shut especially when around drugs or a BONG
BelizeBreeze
Senior Member
O.K. since a great many people here are going to be looking at this post, let's get to the meat of the subject.
The only question posed is "is it legal for a school to preform a sobriety test on child without a parent present?" which, in and of itself, requires a yes answer. A parent is not required to give permission to administer such tests, whether they be for drugs, alcohol or other illegal substances.
However, what wasn't asked, and what is more important to the issue at hand, is the legal requirement upon the school for the right to administer such a test.
That is the issue of BOARD OF EDUCATION OF INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 92 OF POTTAWATOMIE COUNTY, et al., Petitioner, v. LINDSAY EARLS and LACEY EARLS, minors, which the U.S. Supreme Court decided in 2001.
Lacey and Lindsay Earls attended Tecumseh High School for which a drug testing policy was in effect for all students, including athletes and FFA members.
The district court, ruling on cross motions for summary judgment, enteredjudgment in favor of the School. The district court looked to Vernonia Sch. Dist. v. Acton, 515, U.S. 646 (1995), in which the Court upheld a drug testing policy of athletes who acted as the “leaders” of the “drug culture” in a “drug-infested school,” who faced the risk of serious injury during their athletic activities, and who had lowered privacy expectations because of physical exams and a practice of communal undressing and showering. 515 U.S. at 649.
Despite finding that drug use at Tecumseh schools was not a major problem, Pet. App. 57a, and despite noting many of the remarkable differences between the student athletes involved in Vernonia and the
students in this case, Pet. App. 65a, 76a-77a, the district court relied heavily on its concern about the prevalence of drugs in society as a whole and in schools across the nation in finding the drug test at Tecumseh’s schools constitutional. Pet. App. 61a-62a.
However,
The court of appeals reversed, Pet. App. 27a, finding the search unreasonable inlight of the legal principles announced by the Court in the primary cases concerning the Fourth Amendment in the school context: New Jersey v. T.L.O., 469 U.S. 325 (1985), and Vernonia.
The court recognized the familiar rule that the school context gives rise to a special need to dispense with the warrant and probable cause requirements of the Fourth Amendment, while generally retaining the need for individualized reasonable suspicion before a search. See T.L.O., 469 U.S. at 340. The court then found the record in this case did not meet the Vernonia standard for eliminating individualized suspicion altogether.
That brings us to the U.S. Supreme Court ruling.
In stating their opinion, the high court made a distinction between the policy of testing and the reasons behind such a policy.
Tecumseh High School’s decision to subject the vast majority of its student body to suspicionless drug testing goes far beyond anything authorized by the Court in Vernonia and cannot be reconciled with the Fourth Amendment principles that the Court has consistently applied, even in the school context.
Given the careful line drawn by the Court in Vernonia, the School is simply wrong toassume that a broader license was implied.
The court went on to say that because there was a low risk of injury, there is no communal risk of contamination and the school has continually stated there is not a prevailing drug problem, that [sic] "Given the careful line drawn by the Court in Vernonia, the School is simply wrong to assume that a broader license was implied."
Furthermore, the court struck down the blanket argument that a student, upon his/her very nature of attending school, gives up certain rights.
In order to defend the challenged drug testing policy, both the School and the Solicitor General argue, in essence, that the mere fact of running a public school justifies suspension of the Fourth Amendment right to individualized suspicion before a search, at least when the specter of drugs is invoked.
That result would leave no principled limitation to prevent drug testing all 23.7
million students in junior and senior high schools throughout the nation -- approximately tenpercent of all United States residents. Never has any court ruling endorsed a suspicionless search of such a significant segment of the population.
The court did define the needs of the school in combating illegal substances in 469 U.S. at 340-41. T.L.O when it said the school must have "reasonable grounds for suspecting that the search will turn up evidence that the student has violated or is violating either the law or the rules of the school.", however, in Vernonia, 515 U.S. at 669 (O’Connor, J., dissenting, the court "permitted a school with particularlyurgent needs to randomly drug test student athletes, a group described by the Court as having
particularly diminished privacy expectations".
So, while T.L.O defined the scope of requirements necessary for such searches under the 4th amendment, Vernonia offered an exception based on specifics.
Additionally, in the argument phase of the decision, the court made special effort to state:
"Contrary to petitioners’ approach, this Court has always been sensitive to the criticalconstitutional divide separating searches based on some individualized suspicion and searches entirely lacking in any individualized suspicion. For example, in O’Connor v. Ortega, 480 U.S. 709, 728 (1987), this Court invoked T.L.O. to uphold the warrantless search of a government
employee’s office based on reasonable individualized suspicion. But the Court has not read that decision as opening the door to suspicionless drug testing of government employees, which is permitted only under narrow circumstances involving diminished privacy expectations and a serious risk to public safety. See Von Raab, 489 U.S. at 668-71; see also Griffin v. Wisconsin, 483 U.S. 868, 873 (1987)(probationers present special need); Knights, 122 S.Ct. at 591 (continuing to look to a finding of individualized suspicion as the primary, most reliable indicium of reasonableness). "
The decision in the above case by the court was to affirm the court of appeal's decision in favor of the minors and against the school district.
Therefore, from this decision, it should be clear that while random drug testing (defined in the decision as ANY testing of illegal substances) is permitted, it is only so permitted as it follows the T.L.O and Vernonia guidelines for suspicion and reasonablness.
In the case here as stated by the poster, it is not clear what the policy is or under what guideline the test was administered and therefore no valid answer can be given as to the legality of the administration of the test itself. only to the fact that a parent need not be present upon administration of the test.
The only question posed is "is it legal for a school to preform a sobriety test on child without a parent present?" which, in and of itself, requires a yes answer. A parent is not required to give permission to administer such tests, whether they be for drugs, alcohol or other illegal substances.
However, what wasn't asked, and what is more important to the issue at hand, is the legal requirement upon the school for the right to administer such a test.
That is the issue of BOARD OF EDUCATION OF INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 92 OF POTTAWATOMIE COUNTY, et al., Petitioner, v. LINDSAY EARLS and LACEY EARLS, minors, which the U.S. Supreme Court decided in 2001.
Lacey and Lindsay Earls attended Tecumseh High School for which a drug testing policy was in effect for all students, including athletes and FFA members.
The district court, ruling on cross motions for summary judgment, enteredjudgment in favor of the School. The district court looked to Vernonia Sch. Dist. v. Acton, 515, U.S. 646 (1995), in which the Court upheld a drug testing policy of athletes who acted as the “leaders” of the “drug culture” in a “drug-infested school,” who faced the risk of serious injury during their athletic activities, and who had lowered privacy expectations because of physical exams and a practice of communal undressing and showering. 515 U.S. at 649.
Despite finding that drug use at Tecumseh schools was not a major problem, Pet. App. 57a, and despite noting many of the remarkable differences between the student athletes involved in Vernonia and the
students in this case, Pet. App. 65a, 76a-77a, the district court relied heavily on its concern about the prevalence of drugs in society as a whole and in schools across the nation in finding the drug test at Tecumseh’s schools constitutional. Pet. App. 61a-62a.
However,
The court of appeals reversed, Pet. App. 27a, finding the search unreasonable inlight of the legal principles announced by the Court in the primary cases concerning the Fourth Amendment in the school context: New Jersey v. T.L.O., 469 U.S. 325 (1985), and Vernonia.
The court recognized the familiar rule that the school context gives rise to a special need to dispense with the warrant and probable cause requirements of the Fourth Amendment, while generally retaining the need for individualized reasonable suspicion before a search. See T.L.O., 469 U.S. at 340. The court then found the record in this case did not meet the Vernonia standard for eliminating individualized suspicion altogether.
That brings us to the U.S. Supreme Court ruling.
In stating their opinion, the high court made a distinction between the policy of testing and the reasons behind such a policy.
Tecumseh High School’s decision to subject the vast majority of its student body to suspicionless drug testing goes far beyond anything authorized by the Court in Vernonia and cannot be reconciled with the Fourth Amendment principles that the Court has consistently applied, even in the school context.
Given the careful line drawn by the Court in Vernonia, the School is simply wrong toassume that a broader license was implied.
The court went on to say that because there was a low risk of injury, there is no communal risk of contamination and the school has continually stated there is not a prevailing drug problem, that [sic] "Given the careful line drawn by the Court in Vernonia, the School is simply wrong to assume that a broader license was implied."
Furthermore, the court struck down the blanket argument that a student, upon his/her very nature of attending school, gives up certain rights.
In order to defend the challenged drug testing policy, both the School and the Solicitor General argue, in essence, that the mere fact of running a public school justifies suspension of the Fourth Amendment right to individualized suspicion before a search, at least when the specter of drugs is invoked.
That result would leave no principled limitation to prevent drug testing all 23.7
million students in junior and senior high schools throughout the nation -- approximately tenpercent of all United States residents. Never has any court ruling endorsed a suspicionless search of such a significant segment of the population.
The court did define the needs of the school in combating illegal substances in 469 U.S. at 340-41. T.L.O when it said the school must have "reasonable grounds for suspecting that the search will turn up evidence that the student has violated or is violating either the law or the rules of the school.", however, in Vernonia, 515 U.S. at 669 (O’Connor, J., dissenting, the court "permitted a school with particularlyurgent needs to randomly drug test student athletes, a group described by the Court as having
particularly diminished privacy expectations".
So, while T.L.O defined the scope of requirements necessary for such searches under the 4th amendment, Vernonia offered an exception based on specifics.
Additionally, in the argument phase of the decision, the court made special effort to state:
"Contrary to petitioners’ approach, this Court has always been sensitive to the criticalconstitutional divide separating searches based on some individualized suspicion and searches entirely lacking in any individualized suspicion. For example, in O’Connor v. Ortega, 480 U.S. 709, 728 (1987), this Court invoked T.L.O. to uphold the warrantless search of a government
employee’s office based on reasonable individualized suspicion. But the Court has not read that decision as opening the door to suspicionless drug testing of government employees, which is permitted only under narrow circumstances involving diminished privacy expectations and a serious risk to public safety. See Von Raab, 489 U.S. at 668-71; see also Griffin v. Wisconsin, 483 U.S. 868, 873 (1987)(probationers present special need); Knights, 122 S.Ct. at 591 (continuing to look to a finding of individualized suspicion as the primary, most reliable indicium of reasonableness). "
The decision in the above case by the court was to affirm the court of appeal's decision in favor of the minors and against the school district.
Therefore, from this decision, it should be clear that while random drug testing (defined in the decision as ANY testing of illegal substances) is permitted, it is only so permitted as it follows the T.L.O and Vernonia guidelines for suspicion and reasonablness.
In the case here as stated by the poster, it is not clear what the policy is or under what guideline the test was administered and therefore no valid answer can be given as to the legality of the administration of the test itself. only to the fact that a parent need not be present upon administration of the test.
We agree
I was just answering their question in kind, they were not even asking about consent to the test, only if it required a parent present.
They broke up their quesiton, as if we were stupid, to manipulate our answer.
I am tired of pointing out that when posters fail to give the facts, we have to ask for the accurate information, having them refuse and having an attitude instead. They are no more concerned about the constitutional application of the intent or spirit of the law, but rather are looking for us to aid and abet their children and encouraging their budding criminal careers.
For every one parent we get through to, how many attack us as being messengers or slink off? 10, 20 more?
How many interventions does it take to get through to the kids, if we can't get through to their parents? How many have watched helplessly as their children, their children's friends lose the battle? They are always "really good kids". I think of my neighbor, my son's friend who had watched Bambi in my home. He looked forward to my son's return home on leave for Christams, instead we attended his funeral, he OD'd. He was troubled for years, nothing would stop him, nothing. The irony was that 2 days before his death we talked, he seemed to have finally got his act together. There is no free ride.
I was just answering their question in kind, they were not even asking about consent to the test, only if it required a parent present.
They broke up their quesiton, as if we were stupid, to manipulate our answer.
I am tired of pointing out that when posters fail to give the facts, we have to ask for the accurate information, having them refuse and having an attitude instead. They are no more concerned about the constitutional application of the intent or spirit of the law, but rather are looking for us to aid and abet their children and encouraging their budding criminal careers.
For every one parent we get through to, how many attack us as being messengers or slink off? 10, 20 more?
How many interventions does it take to get through to the kids, if we can't get through to their parents? How many have watched helplessly as their children, their children's friends lose the battle? They are always "really good kids". I think of my neighbor, my son's friend who had watched Bambi in my home. He looked forward to my son's return home on leave for Christams, instead we attended his funeral, he OD'd. He was troubled for years, nothing would stop him, nothing. The irony was that 2 days before his death we talked, he seemed to have finally got his act together. There is no free ride.
Find the Right Lawyer for Your Legal Issue!
Fast, Free, and Confidential
data-ad-format="auto">