1. Vernonia v. Acton & Drug Testing Student Athletes
CJ Yoannou

2. 4th Amendment & Delaware v. Prouse
4th Amendment: “the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures”
Extends to Public School Administrators: How much should student athletes rights differ?
Delaware v. Prouse (1979): Four factors for courts to weigh when determining the reasonableness of a search:
1) Importance of governmental interest
2) Physical or psychological intrusion upon individuals’ privacy interest
3) Amount of discretion exercised by the official conducting the search
4) Effectiveness and necessity of the intrusion in reaching law enforcement goals

3. Vernonia v. Action Background
Apparent increase in drug use and bad behaviour in Vernonia in the mid-to-late 80’s. Correlation and causation were inferred
Student athletes were claimed to be the leaders of drug use
Attempts to offer special classes, bring in speakers, and have trained police-dogs at schools failed to deter
At a “Parent Input Night” parents gave their support of a new Random Drug Testing Policy that was then passed by the district school board
All athletes must sign a form consenting to testing at the beginning of the season and once a week 10% of students were randomly picked to be tested
Laboratory tests the samples for amphetamines, cocaine, and marijuana, and can request screening for other drugs, such as LSD. Accuracy rate of 99.94%

4. Cost Benefit Analysis (santa Clara 1990)
Additional Cost:
Each test costs $15-35
DePauw has approx. 560 student athletes
56 students x 40 wks x $25 test = $56,000 / year
-Avg Head Coach Salary 33k-42k
-Avg Assistant Coach Salary 8k-13k
(Approximations)

5. District Court ruling (#1-3) & Supreme Court Majority Opinion (#4-7)
Coaches had observed instances of unsafe athletic performance by students presumably under the influence of drugs*
Athletes are role models, deterring their drug use would deter other students’ use*
District had attempted to alleviate the drug problem using other means
Athletes diminished right to privacy  suspicionless testing constitutionally justified
Deterring school children drug use ≥ enforcing laws against importation of drugs, deterring use by trainmen, engineers
Targets only voluntary participants in extracurricular sports; already require: physical exam, med. insurance, parental consent, grade requirements, locker room showers
School interest or duty in limiting drug-related injuries to athletes

6. Coaches testimony and efficacy report
The wrestling and football coach, Pat Svenson, made the following claims in his testimony:
A high school wrestler sustained a sternum injury in a match “when he failed to react as quickly as [Coach Svenson] would have preferred to a hold that his opponent put on him”
While watching some football game film, [Coach Svenson] “noted that some of the players did not react to situations as he had taught them, making him wonder if drugs were to blame”
Efficacy: 2010 report by the US Department of Education:
Student-Athletes subject to drug testing generally showed a decreased rate of use
No spillover effect to other groups of students
Students who were drug tested and those who were not maintained equal interest in experimenting with drugs in the future

7. Supreme Court Dissenting Opinion (#1-3) and my Concurrent Dissent (#4-7)
No probable cause in vast majority of athletes  intrusive & constitutionally unjustified
“mass suspicionless searches, however evenhanded, are generally unreasonable”
“sweeps too broadly, and too imprecisely, to be reasonable under the 4th Amendment”
Suspicionless, warrantless, arbitrary search violates students 4th Amendment
Either all extracurricular participants should be tested, or none (Board of Ed v. Earls 2002)*
“60-65% of students are athletes”  Bad to create barriers to entry for public school EC’s
High cost of testing is better spent on Education and Rehab. (Medical or Criminal Problem?)
Court ought to specifically highlight interest in preventing use of each individual drug*
Sanctioning a kid for drug testing moves them away from healthy sport towards potential increased drug use and addiction

8. Case law (argument #5)
Skinner v. Railway Labor Executives Association (1988): Random, suspicionless drug testing violates 4th A. except for railway workers in “safety sensitive” positions.
National Treasury Employees Union v. Von Raab (1989): Drug testing all US Customs Agents too broad, but testing positions involving drug interdiction and firearms is permissible
Vernonia v. Acton (1995): Suspicionless Drug Testing of School Athletes Permissible (massive expansion)
Board of Education v. Earls (2002): Upheld Oklahoma School District requiring all middle and high school students to consent to drug testing for participation in any extra curricular activity
“Either all extracurricular participants should be tested, or none”
Geofencing Warrants: Slippery slope?
Delaware v Prouse: Can’t stop motorists without reasonable suspicion
Geofencing Warrants

9. Court ought to specifically highlight interest in preventing use of each individual drug (Argument #8)
Performance Enhancing vs. Recreational:
Amphetamines, steroids vs. marijuana, LSD
Interest in keeping the sport fair
Marijuana
Lack of empirical evidence regarding its harms: it won’t make you faster like Ben Johnson or Neal Armstrong
Legalization trend, help with recovery time and pain management
Robin Williams: “The only way it’s performance enhancing is if there’s a big f***ing Hershey bar at the end of the run.”

10. Current Events Cannabis Legalization Trend
Nevada became first state to ban rejecting job applicants for marijuana use in June 2019
The NCAA bans large amounts of caffeine (equiv. to 6-8 cups of coffee /day, even though its legal) under the stimulant section of its Banned Drugs List. Cannabis is banned under street drugs. 
The National Hockey League (NHL) is the only professional sports league that does not include marijuana on its list of banned substances.
High school vs College vs Professional: Drug testing protects a team’s investments in a player and avoids negative publicity that results when a player suffers adverse health or legal consequences associated with illegal drug use

11. Extra Discussion Prompts:
Consequentialism: Benefits of Testing v. Financial and Human Costs
Probable Cause, warrantless searches, and the 4th Amendment
Is the state’s interest in deterring school children drug use really ≥ enforcing laws against importation of drugs, deterring use by trainmen, engineers ?
Is there a morally relevant difference between drug testing for recreation drugs and performance-enhancing drugs?
Is there a difference between testing high schoolers and college students?
What other searches in high schools would be reasonable or unreasonable under this ruling?

12. Quote from Justice Ginsburg’s Dissent in Board of ed. v. Earls
“It is a sad irony that the petitioning School District seeks to justify its edict here by trumpeting "the schools' custodial and tutelary responsibility for children." In regulating an athletic program or endeavoring to combat an exploding drug epidemic, a school's custodial obligations may permit searches that would otherwise unacceptably abridge students' rights. When custodial duties are not ascendant, however, schools' tutelary obligations to their students require them to "teach by example" by avoiding symbolic measures that diminish constitutional protections. "That [schools] are educating the young for citizenship is reason for scrupulous protection of Constitutional freedoms of the individual, if we are not to strangle the free mind at its source and teach youth to discount important principles of our government as mere platitudes."