12:16
but you should do sales
Warning
Info
Warning
Info
LSDefine
Simple English definitions for legal terms
Board of Education v. Earls (2002)
Read a random definition: acceptance doctrine
A quick definition of Board of Education v. Earls (2002):
In this case, the Supreme Court said that a school in Oklahoma could require students who participate in after-school activities to take drug tests. The Court said that the school's policy did not violate the Fourth Amendment, which protects people from unreasonable searches and seizures. The Court said that students who participate in after-school activities have less privacy than other students, and that the drug tests were not a big invasion of privacy. The Court also said that the school had a good reason for doing the drug tests, which was to stop drug use among students.
A more thorough explanation:
Board of Education v. Earls is a Supreme Court case that dealt with the constitutionality of a school district's policy requiring all students participating in extracurricular activities to consent to random drug testing. The Court held that the policy did not violate the Fourth Amendment and was constitutional.
The Court had previously upheld the constitutionality of suspicionless drug testing for student athletes in Vernonia Sch. District 47J v. Acton, but the policy in this case was even broader. The School District's collection of urine samples for drug testing implicated the Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches and seizures.
The Court evaluated the reasonableness of the drug testing policy by weighing the students' privacy interests against the policy's promotion of legitimate government interests. The Court found that the students affected by the drug testing policy had a limited expectation of privacy. By participating in extracurricular activities, students voluntarily subject themselves to rules that do not apply to the student body as a whole. Submitting to these extra regulations diminishes an already limited expectation of privacy in the public school context.
The Court also found that the testing itself was not a significant invasion of privacy. The method of urine collection was minimally intrusive, and the only consequences of a failed test would be to limit a student's participation in extracurricular activities.
The Court concluded that the testing policy was a reasonable means of furthering the School District's interest in detecting and deterring drug use among its students. The School District offered sufficient evidence of drug use in its schools to show a special need for suspicionless testing.
For example, if a student wants to participate in the school's football team, they must consent to random drug testing. If they fail the test, they may not be allowed to play in the next game. This policy is constitutional because the students have a limited expectation of privacy when participating in extracurricular activities, and the testing is a reasonable means of detecting and deterring drug use among students.