Preview

Board of Education V Earls

Good Essays
Open Document
Open Document
710 Words
Grammar
Grammar
Plagiarism
Plagiarism
Writing
Writing
Score
Score
Board of Education V Earls
BOARD OF EDUCATION v. EARLS

Criminal Courts

bOARD OF EDUCATION V. EARLS
The Issue before the court was that two high school sophomores Lindsay Earls and Daniel James along with their families challenged their schools drug testing policy as an unlawful search that violated student’s right to privacy. They alleged that their policy requiring students to consent to random urinalysis testing for drug use violated the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
The student activities drug testing policy by Tecumseh, Ok school district requires all middle school and high school students to consent to urinalysis testing for drugs in order to participate in any extracurricular activity. Two Tecumseh high school students brought suit alleging that the policy violates the fourth amendment. Court appeals held that policy did violate the fourth amendment. The appellate court concluded that before imposing a suspicion less drug testing program, a school must demonstrate some identifiable drug abuse problem among a sufficient number of those tested, such that testing that group will actually redress its drug problem, which the school district failed to demonstrate.
Clarence Thomas was the Chief Justice when the case came before the court. The decision was five votes for the Board of Education and four votes against them. William Rehnquist, Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas and Stephen Breyer voted majority. John Paul Stevens, Sandra Day O’Connor, David Souter and Ruth Ginsburg voted minority. The court ruled that the policy reasonably served the school districts important interest in detecting and preventing drug use among its students and is constitutional. They said that students in extracurricular activities had a diminished expectation of privacy and that the policy furthered an important interest of the school in preventing drug use among students. The court said the Board of Education’s method of obtaining urine samples and



Cited: BOARD OF EDUCATION v. EARLS. The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law. 09 April 2012. <http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2001/2001_01_332>. Http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/onlaw/earls.html

You May Also Find These Documents Helpful

  • Good Essays

    New Jersey vs T.L.O Analysts BNCAPS-TLO This case brings the question up of was T.LO's rights broken or not. The fourth amendment is 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. T.L.O is the person who sued because she felt that the contents in her bag were only found because it was searched unlawfully. In Juvenile Court it was decided that there had been no Fourth Amendment violation. T.L.O was searched without probably cause of any illegal activity. The fact that she was smoking cigarettes in school have the principle no reason to think she is dealing marijuana.…

    • 314 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Elk Grove Unified School District et al. v. Newdow et al. 542 U.S. 1 (2004)…

    • 1101 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    This case was decided on Monday, June 26, 1995 (2). In a town named Vernonia, Oregon, the local public schools faced a major problem regarding the drug use of students while participating in high school athletics (3). The Vernonia School Board were disturbed that drug use increases the risk of sports-related injury (4), so they approved an anti-drug policy, the Student Athlete Drug Policy, which requires random drug testing of the school’s student athletes (5). However, this became a conflict with the parents of a child named James Acton. The parents refused to sign a consent form to allow their kid to take the drug test because they felt it went against the 4th Amendment’s prohibition against “unreasonable” searches (6). The case was dismissed in the Federal District Court and was appealed to the Court of Appeals for the 9th District (7). This court favored the Acton families’ complaint, but random drug testing in public schools was ruled allowable in 1988 in Indiana, Illinois and Wisconsin (8). The case went on appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court to conclude conflicting court decisions (9).…

    • 1137 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Civil Rights DBQ rd

    • 473 Words
    • 1 Page

    v. Board of Education the Supreme Court ruled that “separate but equal” no longer had…

    • 473 Words
    • 1 Page
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Pico v. Board of Educationn The U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in the Board of Education v. Pico discussed the issue of whether the school's board acted morally. The school board decided to remove nine books that they deemed to be anti-American, anti-Christian, anti-Semitic, and just plain filthy. The Supreme Court was asked to decide if the school board had valid reasons to remove these books from the school's library. The books weren't required readings and were optional information for the students to extend their personal interests and thoughts. The First amendment was the main issue that became the focal point of this case. The majority opinion reflected what five judges concluded after they were presented with the case. They agreed that the First amendment imposes limitations on the school boards reasons to remove the books from the library's shelves. Students do not vacate their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression as they enter the school's property. Removing the books implicitly violated the student's rights because there weren't any valid reasons provided by the school board. The school board has the power of deciding which curriculum provides the values associated with its community, but not beyond the environment of the classroom and into the voluntary confines of the library. The petitioner's motivation to remove these books, were fueled by partisan and political factors. The school board didn't have sufficient evidence to remove these books, other than they disliked the ideas contained in the books. This is a violation of the Constitution. The dissenting judges disagreed with the majority opinion because they believed the Board's actions were justified. Judge Mansfield believed that the undisputed evidence of the motivation for the Board's action was perfectly permissible saying that the books were indecent, in bad taste, and unsuitable for educational purposes. His position was proven because he thought the Board acted…

    • 819 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    Brown vs. Board of Education

    • 2480 Words
    • 10 Pages

    Brown V. Board of Education. "About the Case." www.brownvboard.org Accessed April 8, 2005. Copy write 2004.…

    • 2480 Words
    • 10 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Better Essays

    United States Court Of Appeals 19890531 Justia US LawUnited States Court Of Appeals (1989, May 31). Justia US Law. Retrieved October 7, 2011, from http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/875/954/179023/…

    • 1594 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Better Essays
  • Good Essays

    Safford Unified School District #1 v. Redding Facts In Safford Arizona school on October 8th, officials strip-searched a 13-year-old girl after they received information from another student that the girl possessed "prescription strength" 400 mg ibuprofen and 200mg naproxen. While attending math, assistant principle Kerry Wilson entered the classroom and instructed Savanna Redding's to his office. Upon entering, she immediately noticed her planner placed on his desk. However, what she didn't recognize was the knife, cigarette and lighter that was contained inside it. Admitting the planner was hers, she explained to the assistant principle that she had lent the planner prior to her classmate, Marissa and had NO knowledge of what was inside it. Also brought to her attention was a large white bottle of ibuprofen that was also found in the planner. Unsatisfied, the assistant principle asked to also search the rest of her belongings in order to disprove her claim. When no evidence was found, he proceeded to send her to the school's nurses office for what can be considered a strip-search. She was told to remove a clothing and in the processes her private areas (breast) were exposed. Complete embarrassed, she remained calm and did as she was told. No pills, or any other illegal item was found on her. Naturally, when Savanna 's mom discovered this she "dropped the bomb" and filed a lawsuit saying it violated her daughter's fourth amendment right (which was the right thing to do)and that she was never contacted during the search at anytime. Proceeding to the trial, the District court found no violation and a panel agreed, but on the appeal in a "en banc decision 6-5" the court reversed the other decision saying that it DID in fact violate her fourth amendment right. School district appealed to the Supreme Court and approved there appeal and granted certiorari. It was reasoned that the strip search was not justified nor was the scope of intrusion reasonably…

    • 899 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    In the case of New Jersey v. T.L.O., a New Jersey high school student was accused of violating school rules by smoking in the bathroom, leading an assistant principal to search her purse for cigarettes. The vice principal found marijuana and other items that made it look like the student was dealing the drug. The student tried to have the evidence from her purse covered up. Her argument was that mere possession of cigarettes was not a violation of school rules; therefore, a desire for evidence of smoking in the restroom did not justify the search. Although the court concluded that the Fourth Amendment did apply to searches carried out by school officials, it held that "a school official may properly conduct a search of a student's person if the official has a reasonable suspicion that a crime has been or is in the process of being committed, or reasonable cause to believe that the search is necessary to maintain school discipline or enforce school policies ("New jersey v.," 1985)." Here the Court recognized two things. First, it reaffirmed the role of the school in loco parentis, but it also recognized that school officials are representatives of the State. The Supreme…

    • 1838 Words
    • 8 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Better Essays

    On June 26, 1995, the Supreme Court decided on the case Vernonia School District v. Acton as to whether or not random drug testing of high school athletes violated the reasonable search and seizure clause of the Fourth Amendment. During the 1980 's and 1990 's there was a large increase in drug use. The courts decision was a strong interpretation of the Fourth Amendment and the right decision upon drug testing high school athletes.…

    • 1116 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Better Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    The Oyez Project, Brown v. Board of Education (I), 347 U.S. 483 (1954) available at: (http://oyez.org/cases/1950-1959/1952/1952_1) (last visited Thursday, October 28, 2010).…

    • 2471 Words
    • 10 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Good Essays

    This shows that the testing is not needed. It does not stop the kids from doing drugs or drinking alcohol. Not to mention, drugs are almost never found in the students during a drug test.…

    • 455 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    "Drugs, Alcohol, and Tobacco Testing" The procedure of testing student for drugs, alcohol and tobacco before every school day should be allowed. The fact that the subject of drug testing has even been brought up is a sign that illegal substances have become troublesome in high school environments. Therefore, school officials should be allowed to use any means necessary to discourage the use of these illegal substances, even if it means that the school officials could become dangerously close to violating the students' constitutional rights. A student under the influence of drugs or alcohol could endanger his or her fellow students or faculty and that student should not be allowed to attend that school. School officials must protect those who are at that school, so having a student whose actions are being controlled by illegal substances would not be the best way to protect the students and faculty. Students should be tested everyday for drugs, alcohol, and tobacco so that the students are healthier, the students have better grades, and the students never start doings things that could have a negative impact on their future.…

    • 754 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Supreme Court decisions that changed the nation : Brown v. Board of Education. Mount Kisco, N.Y. Guidance Associates, 1986. Follows each step leading to the Supreme Court 's unanimous overruling of Plessy vs Ferguson, culminating in the Court 's declaration that segregation in the public schools is unconstitutional.…

    • 1331 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Good Essays