Board of Education of Independent School District No. 92 of Pottawatomie County v. Earls
536 U.S. 822 (2002)
by
Chris Spahr

Facts of the Case:

The Tecumseh, Oklahoma school district adopted the Student Activities Drug Testing Policy in the fall of 1998. This policy required all students in both middle and high school in the surrounding school district to consent to drug testing in order to participate in any competitive extra-curricular activities. The list of activities, previously made by the Oklahoma Secondary School Activities Association, consisted of clubs such as Future Farmers of America, choir, cheerleading, Academic teams, and all athletics. The policy required students to take a drug test before they participated in the activity and to consent to be subject to random drug testing any time during participation. The final condition of the policy was that students could also be tested anytime upon reasonable suspicion. The drug test the schools used was designed to only test for illegal drugs (cocaine, marijuana, amphetamines, etc) and not prescription medications used for student’s specific health problems.
Two students, Lindsay Earls (member of the choir, marching band, NHS, and Academic Team) and Daniel James, who wished to join the Academic Team, along with their parents decided to bring action against the school district. They believed that the Student Activities Drug Testing Policy violated the Fourth amendment, mainly because the school district failed to identify a special need for the policy/testing.

The Western District of Oklahoma Court rejected the claim by the students and their parents. The court based their decision by applying principles articulated in Veronia School District v. Acton (515 U.S.646). The court decided that there has been reported drug abuse in the school district dating back to the 1970’s and that this was a sufficient reason to drug test.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit reversed the decision claiming that the school must demonstrate that there was some serious drug abuse problem among a sufficient amount of students currently in the school district. It also stated that the implementation of the policy would only be justified if the testing would actually have an effect on the drug problem in the school district.

Decision of the Court:

The Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals decision on June 27, 2009 with a vote of 5-4. The decision stated that the student’s rights were not violated by the new drug testing policy. The Court claimed that there was reason for the school to implement the policy, that the school district had supplied enough valid evidence of drug abuse at the school and in the district, and that it is unnecessary for public schools to need a probable cause because it would “unduly interfere with maintenance of the swift and informal disciplinary procedures that are needed.” The court also stated that in public schools a search may be reasonable when supported by “special needs” beyond the need for law enforcement.

Basis for the Decision:

The Court, once again, cited Veronia School District 47J v. Acton (515 U.S 646), stating that the school district had the right to enforce the policy because it effectively serves the school district interest in protecting the student’s health and their well- being. Also, the Court cited Chandler v. Miller (520 U.S. 305) stating that a lack of drug problem does not necessarily rule out the need for a “reasonabless” drug testing program. The decision basically stated that the need for the drug testing program was necessary and that it was only implemented for the student’s sake. Another product of this case was the fact that, because there was a drug problem throughout the nation (not just in Tecumseh), this gave the school district enough evidence and reason to implement this new policy. The new drug policy did not violate the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution.