In Vernonia v. Acton, the issue in question is the school’s ability to drug test student-athletes. In the mid 80’s, the Vernonia School District noticed an uptick in drug use, and more so from athletes. Furthermore, the football and wrestling coach cited several situations that he felt drug-use was causing the athletes to be unsafe. Thus, the school instituted a mandatory drug test for all student athletes prior to the season, and then weekly random drug testing. If a student-athlete failed a test, they would have the choice of joining a rehab program, or serving a suspension. Suspension from school was never an option, nor were the results reported to authorities. Results were reported to the superintendent, athletic director, and other personnel on a need to know basis only (Vernonia v. Acton, 1995). …show more content…
James Acton, a seventh grader, and his parents refused to sign the consent forms to allow testing to occur.
They argued that he should still be allowed to participate as the testing policy infringed on James’ Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment Rights. The Fourth Amendment protects unreasonable search and seizure. The family argued this “search” was unjustified, as there was no probable cause. The Fourteenth Amendment allows everyone due process before the loss of life, liberty, or property. The family argued that the drug testing broke due process, and that it should not take away James’ ability to participate in athletics (Vernonia v. Acton, 1995). In the courts, the District Court dismissed Acton’s suit seeking injunctive relief. Then the Ninth Circuit Appeals Court granted the injunction, stating that Acton’s Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights were violated by the drug testing policy. The case then ended up at the US Supreme Court, where Vernonia’s policy was again deemed legal (Vernonia v. Acton,
1995). The court stated that schools have some extra leeway, and that they do not always need a warrant to conduct searches. The court also discussed that student-athletes are choosing to have more regulations. Athletes already agree to having physical exams, appearance guidelines, and other rules related to their respective programs. This drug testing policy falls under these policies, especially as the drug use was suspected, and that drug use puts the athletes at risk (Vernonia v. Acton, 1995). The issue of privacy was also involved in the case. Because the male students remained fully clothed with their backs to the sample attendant, and the females went in a stall, with the attendant outside, the court deemed that the students had sufficient privacy. They also cited that interscholastic athletics implies less privacy (i.e. lockerrooms), and that falls into a situation where the students are choosing to be in sports, and agreeing to advanced regulations (Vernonia v. Acton, 1995). If you were to implement a drug testing program at your school, it would be important to follow Vernonia’s lead. Vernonia had documented suspicion of drug use, and they followed due process with their testing. They kept the results confidential, and did not report positive tests to authorities. There was also no suspension from school, which is a property right, nor was there immediate suspension from sports for a failed test (NIAAA, 2011). Rather, they initially had a rehab component for the first failed test, which should be key if education is truly the goal of interscholastic athletics and the testing program. References National Interscholastic Athletic Administrators Association. (2011). Legal issues III: Hazing, constitutional law, civil rights, statutory law, and event security (2nd ed.). Indianapolis, IN: NIAAA VERNONIA SCHOOL DISTRICT 47J, PETITIONER v. WAYNE ACTON, et ux., etc. (June 26, 1995). (June 26, 1995).
When officers arrived at the living area of Johnson and his roommate, Benner Brewer, they did not have a warrant to search Johnson’s area, which violated his 4th amendment rights against a warrantless search.
This case is about Scott Randolph, who’s home was searched without a warrant. Due to this “corrupted” search, police ended up finding cocaine in his home. As a matter of fact both Randolph and his wife Janet Randolph were present during the search, it’s stated that Randolph’s wife gave permission to search the house. However Randolph denied to give that consistent, but police believed that the wife’s permission was all they needed. After the encounter with the drugs, Randolph was arrested for drug possession. This case was taken to trail and both the appellate court and Georgie Supreme court believed that the search of Randolph's home was unconstitutional.
The Court held that because of the “special facts” the “attempt to secure evidence of blood-alcohol content in this case was an appropriate incident to petitioner’s arrest.” Under current jurisprudence, we would construe the language about “special facts” as relating to the exigent circumstances exception to the Fourth Amendment – which resists categorical rules – and instead focuses on the need for the intrusion and the availability of a warrant. However, the language also justifies the search as “incident to petitioner’s arrest,” which would indicate that the test was upheld as a search incident-to-arrest. In situations where it is appropriate, that has been described as a “categorical” exception to the warrant requirement that does not require any case-by-case
In the case of Canada v. Bedford, three sex workers in Ontario Canada, Jean Bedford, Amy Lebovitch and Valerie Scott, challenged the Charter as they stated that the following sections in the Criminal Code violate the rights promised and protected under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms; CC s 210, CC s. 212(1) (j), and CC s. 213(1) (c). These sections “make it an offence to keep or be in a bawdy-house, prohibit living on the avails of prostition, and prohibits communicating in public for the purposes of prostitution,” (Canada v. Bedford, 2013, 6-3). The women claimed that these restrictions did not, in fact, prevent but implement more danger for anyone in the field of work. The women claimed that these restrictions went against their rights protected under s. 2(b) of the Charter as it disabled them from their right to freedom of expression (Canada v. Bedford, 2013, 6). As the provisions were set to prevent “public nuuisance” and “exploitation of prositutes,” they in fact go against the rights in s. 7 of the Charter. Thus, being under declaration of invalidity. This in fact brings upon question on whether it is the right decision to allow prostitution without any regulation in order to impose that the the Charter is not being violated, or whether to suspend the declaration until a proper method has been developed (while infringing the rights of those in the field of work). Ultimately, all of the laws were struck down by the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada.
In the late 1940’s and early 1950’s there were many issues that involved racial segregation with many different communities. A lot of people did not took a stand for these issues until they were addressed by other racial groups. Mendez vs Westminster and Brown vs The Board of Education, were related cases that had to take a stand to make a change. These two cases helped many people with different races to come together and be able to go to school even if a person was different than the rest.
Vernonia School District v. Acton was a US Supreme court decision that aims to uphold the constitutionality affecting random drug testing implemented by local public schools in Vernonia, Oregon States. This provision mandates student athletes to undergo drug testing before they are going to be allowed to participate in sporting activities. This particular measure established by the constitution stated that it propagates any illegal use of any prohibited substances for students in order to preserve the integrity of the society in particular with handling against drug use. An official investigation led to the discovery that high school athletes in the Vernonia School District participated in illicit drug use. School officials were concerned that drug use increases the risk of sports-related injury. Consequently, the Vernonia School District of Oregon adopted the Student Athlete Drug Policy which authorizes random urinalysis drug testing of its student athletes Substance abuse materials may include marijuana, which is cannabis that is commonly used by teens.
In the fall of 1991, respondent James Acton, then a seventh-grader, signed up to play football at one of the District's grade schools. He was denied participation because he and his parents refused to sign the testing consent forms. The Actons filled suit on the grounds that it violated the Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. The federal district court ruled in the school district's favor, but the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the decision, stating that although the district had laid the foundation for a drug policy, the interest was not so compelling as to justify a random testing program. The time between the 1980's and 1990's America saw a dramatic increase in drug use which spread through nearly every community in the nation. Drugs had not previously been a major problem in Vernonia schools. In the mid-to-late 1980's, however, teachers and administrators observed an increase in drug use. Students began to speak out about their attraction to the drug culture, and boasted that there was nothing the school could do about it.
The Supreme Court reversed the decision concluding that Smith et al. were using their religious beliefs and the First Amendment to condone their illegal drug use. In addition the Justices expressed the view that the law applied to the general public, not to just one religious group. Therefore, in a 6-3 decision, the Supr...
The Government alleges that the Defendant, Austin Heim, committed drug-related federal offenses. The Government believed the Defendant was using email in furtherance of these activities. It obtained a court order requiring Cornell University, the provider of the Defendant’s email account, to provide them the contents of the account. The Defendant filled a motion to suppress these emails at trial. The Defendant argues he has a right to privacy in his emails. He argues that the Government’s ‘warrantless search’ breached his rights under the Fourth Amendment.
...ible items from “unreasonable search and seizure.” This was a landmark decision that has since redefined, as well as clarified the intended meaning of the way the 4th Amendment is applied to civil liberties of today.
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.
...arteries a secret. This I find to be substantially suspect. While I do not argue that the student athletes have a lower expectation of privacy due to their situation in the locker rooms and activities undertaken together as a team, I do not believe that this expectation is nearly low enough to allow an invasion of ones own body for the purposes of a search. Clearly there is no way for anyone to have any indication of what chemicals are contained inside one's own blood by a casual glance or even a thorough study of the outside of one's body. The expectation of privacy regarding one's blood would be equivalent to the contents of a safe hidden and locked inside one's house. While this expectation of privacy is something to be respected it can still be violated by an individual suspicious of guilt accompanied by a probable cause and a search warrant. In that case the blood test or the opening of the safe would be justified in my opinion. But due to the nature of the randomness of this search it is obvious to me that it is unconstitutional and this court decision should be reversed.
Overall, the ruling in this case was a perfect interpretation of the Constitution. Despite opposition claiming that it is not addressed in the Constitution, too few rights are ever addressed in the Constitution of the United States. That is why there is a thing called Judicial Review. By utilizing judicial review, the interpreters of the law –Supreme Court, may make changes to policies and laws. Abortion, medicinal marijuana, and marriage fall under the umbrella of Equal Protection since they correspond to the rights and liberties of US citizens.
I think that the system where they only test high school athletes is good. These students and their parents are informed and have to sign consent papers. This means that all parties are informed of what is expected and the consequences. If we were to do this with all of the school, it will cost a lot money, time, and paper work to get the approval of parents. Random drug testing will cause major problems in school attendance. I honestly believe that some students would rather not go to school if they knew that they could be randomly selected. Teacher’s opinions and suspicions of a student can bring up issues as well. For example, a teacher can mistake a teenager going through a hard time as a student using drugs. This can cause more problems for the student. Issues like these will definitely cause mistrust between students and teachers. Despite being caught many students will still continue their drug use. I believe that they have to choose to stop their drug use or else it won’t work. Random drug testing might be able to work with a system that somehow informs everybody of what can happen and the process of the drug testing. This can involve a signed agreement of confidentiality between the faculty and families. Also referrals plan for the parents to use to help make a decision for their child if tested positive for drug
Many high schools across the country have brought much attention to the idea of giving random drug tests to students in high school. The newfound interest in student drug testing may be as a result of recent polls, which have shown an increase in drug use among high school students. Many teachers, parents, and members of school comities are for the drug testing, while most students and some parents feel that this would be a violation of students rights as Americans, which is true.