Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Drug testing in schools cons
Impact of drug testing in schools
Analysis of the fourth amendment
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Drug testing in schools cons
Case Review
The case that my team has chosen is the case of Earls v. the Board of Education of Tecumseh public school. The amendment that this case was associated with was the Fourth Amendment. A brief explanation of what the Fourth Amendment states is that the government cannot execute unreasonable searches and or seizures, and to be searched or seized it must be supported by a warrant with a probable cause. The plaintiff of this case was Lindsay Earls, was suing the Board of Education of Tecumseh public school because she felt that drug testing the students of her school was a violation of the Fourth Amendment.
In the Earls vs. Board of education the violation of Fourth Amendment of the US Constitution was mentioned. The Fourth Amendment of the US Constitution states the “right of people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures” .When Lindsay Earls was forced to perform a drug test at her school, the school violated her privacy rights. By law children and teens under the age of 18 are forced to attend school, therefore when Lindsay was a minor she didn’t have a choice. The school doesn’t represent a reasonable reason in order to have performed the drug test. Lindsay was an extraordinary student participating in many extracurricular activities such as Choir, National Honor Society, marching band and an academic team. Drug testing in schools is not required because it shows no improvement to the school, it takes away money from the school for each drug test performed, the drug test aren’t always correct, and drug testing can actually cause emotional trauma on students.
The defendant of this case is the Board of Education of Tecumseh public school who claims that...
... middle of paper ...
...s unhygienic. Having somebody waiting outside the door, hearing your relieve yourself is considered as invasion of privacy. It causes humiliation and can cause students to be nervous and possibly not be able to relieve themselves. When students are unable to provide a specimen sample they are given tap water to drink. Tap water contains millions of bacteria, which can be harmful when ingested. When following the drug testing procedure you are given a cup to provide the specimen in the cup is very small and quite easy to miss or spill due to the size. There also is the problem of possibly missing the cup and urinating on your hands, that then leads to the spreading of millions of more bacteria that can cause sickness or harm other students’ health, the only exception to this is if your urine is sterile. While you hold your urine can possibly cause bladder problems.
Name & citation of case: Urban v. Jefferson County School District R-1, 870 F. Supp. 1558 (D. CO 1994)
Board of Regents (1967). The teacher’s interest as a citizen in making public comment must be balanced against the State’s interest in promoting the efficiency of its employees’ public services. The court found the statements of the appellant were substantially correct, regarded matters of public concern, and presented no questions of faculty discipline or harmony. The statements offered no proper basis for the school board’s action in dismissing the appellant (Oyez, n.d.).
I believe this United States Supreme Court case is particularly important because it ultimately defends a person?s Constitutional right to privacy. As stated before, until this decision was made, the search and seizure laws were given little consideration. Although there is always an exception to the rule, for the most part, evidence that is obtained in a way that violates a person?s Constitutional right is inadmissible in Court. This decision has most definitely refined the laws of the admissibility of evidence and the procedures followed by those in law enforcement.
Terry v. Ohio was in 1968 it had a decision by the United States Supreme Court which held that the fourth amendment prohibition on the unreasonable search and seizures is not violated when a police officer stops a suspect on the streets and frisks him or her without probable cause to arrest, if the police officer had a reasonable suspicion of that person had commit a crime in which he can be belief that the person may have a weapons that can be dangerous to a police officer.
There are records of many cases that has created controversies over reasonable or unreasonable searches and seizures. As stated in the fourth amendment,
The U.S Constitution came up with exclusive amendments in order to promote rights for its citizens. One of them is the Fourth amendment. The Fourth Amendment highlights the right of people to be secure in their persons, houses, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searches, and persons or things to be seized (Worral, 2012). In other words such amendment gave significance to two legal concepts the prohibition of unreasonable searches and seizures and the obligation to provide probable cause to issue a warrant. This leads to the introduction of the landmark Supreme Court case Mapp v. Ohio and the connection to a fact pattern (similar case). Both cases will be analyzed showing the importance of facts and arguments regarding the exclusionary rule and the poisonous doctrine.
... is one that a reasonable guardian and tutor might undertake.” And he concluded that given the mission of public schools, and the circumstances of this case, the searches required by the school board's policy were “reasonable” and thereby permissible under the Constitution's 4th Amendment.
On March 7, 1980, a teacher at Piscataway High School in Middlesex County, N.J., found two girls smoking in the school lavatory, which was a violation of school code. The teacher took them to the Principles office where they met the Assistant Vice-Principle Theodore Choplick. Under questioning the first girl admitted smoking in the lavatory. The second girl, 14 year old freshman T.L.O., denied that she had smoked in the lavatory. Mr. Choplick then asked to search the girl’s purse. He found a pack of cigarettes. Upon pulling the pack of cigarettes out Mr. Choplick discovered cigarette rolling papers, which is closely associated with marijuana. He proceeded to search the purse to find a small amount of marijuana, a pipe, small empty plastic bags, a substantial amount of money all in one dollar bills, and two letters that implies that she is a dealer. Mr. Choplick notified her mother and the police and told her mother to take her to the police headquarters. A New Jersey juvenile court admitted the evidence, saying that the search of the purse was reasonable under the standard of enforcing school policy and maintaining school discipline. The court found the student, T.L.O., to be a delinquent and sentenced her to a years probation. The appellate Division affirmed the courts decision that there had been no Fourth Amendment violation, T.L.O.
The Supreme Court had to decide on the question of, does random drug testing of high school athletes violate the reasonable search and seizure clause of the Fourth Amendment? According to the Fourth Amendment, "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
“Marvin L.Pickering, a high school science teacher in Illinois wrote a letter published in a newspaper denouncing the board of education's choice of allocating of funding between athletics and academics, he also criticized the superintendent who did not inform the local taxpayers why they were actually paying more for the school. After posting the letter, the high school teacher was fired because the board claimed that he delivered false information that could affect the efficiency of the school administration, it damage the reputation of the board of education and of its superintendent and that it could possibly encourage “controversy, conflict, and dissension” between the school staff "Detrimental to the best interests of the schools"(Findlaw.com, I) . Pickering decided to sue the school for violating his First and Fourteenth Amendment rights to free speech and of equal protection because he claimed that he has the right to free speech and is allowed the same rights as everybody else.“
Bennett, A., & Brower, A. (2001). ’THAT’S NOT WHAT FERPA SAYS!’: THE TENTH CIRCUIT COURT GIVES DANGEROUS BREADTH TO FERPA IN ITS CONFUSING AND CONTRADICTORY FALVO V. OWASSO INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT DECISION. Brigham Young University Education & Law Journal, 2, 327.
These cases and due process standards allow for a protection of students within the school, and ensure that student’s constitutional rights do not stop at the schoolhouse gates. Moreover, these cases ensure that administrators are running schools in a manner that is fair and consistent, and not arbitrarily disciplining students without due process. I think they provide for an efficient school because students will understand what they are being disciplined for, and have the ability to engage in a defense of the...
20 May 2014. This article shows a majority of the cases that are relevant to the topic and research questions; it clearly shows the articles that are involved with public schools and how and what they did. It helps answer that research question because it shows that some of the schools are capable of bypassing the system, but sometimes get overturned. Paulson, Ken. A.
The law differs from state to state as the 4th amendment has been modified to meet public school safety. Legislatures decided that there needs to be some modification of the level of suspicion of illegal activity needed to justify a search. They also decided that there's a need for a balanced between the students and the school setting. The 4th amendment has been modified from where you need probable cause and a warrant to...
...ey to getting a good job, but high school students can’t get their education if they are caught up in doing drugs. Over thirty percent of dropouts in the United States are because of drugs. The thirty percent of drug addict dropouts may never find a job. Thats why it is important for high school drug testing to be enforced among all students. High school drug testing would allow early notice of drug use and allow the school to steer the student into the right path towards success. The drug tests will give students confidence and another reason to say “No” when being peer pressured into trying drugs. Many would argue that drug testings invade their privacy, but with drug usage being at an all time high who can we count on? High schools are made to prepare students for their future, and in order to make the students successful we must allow high school drug testings.