Board of education v earls

Earls, case in which the U. Supreme Court on June 27,ruled 5—4 that suspicionless drug testing of students participating in competitive extracurricular activities did not violate the Fourth Amendmentwhich guarantees protection from unreasonable searches and seizures. In a school district in Oklahoma adopted a policy that required all middle- and high-school students who wished to participate in competitive extracurricular activities to submit urine for drug testing.

Board of education v earls

Illegal drug use remains prevalent among the Nation's school children. In the same survey, Children who abuse drugs risk serious physical and psychological harm, as well as death. They are less likely to achieve success in the classroom, and more apt to engage in criminal and other high-risk behavior, including driving while impaired and engaging in sexual acts that may result in unintended pregnancies or the transmission of disease.

Drug use also has contributed to the rise in youth violence. Tecumseh, Oklahoma, is a rural community about 40 miles southeast of Oklahoma City. Petitioners collectively, the "school district" are a public school district in Tecumseh and its governing board of education. The school district administers Tecumseh High School, which has about students in grades 9 through 12, as well as a middle Board of education v earls and elementary schools.

Like virtually every community in America, Tecumseh has experienced illicit drug use among its school children. The record in this case provides direct testimonial and other evidence of such abuse.

For example, a school board president testified that marijuana use has been reported in the classroom at Tecumseh High. Three teachers testified that they heard students talking about marijuana use, J.

Students too-including respondents themselves-have acknowledged drug use in Tecumseh schools.

[BINGSNIPMIX-3

Lindsay Earls stated during a nationally televised program that there is "a widespread drug problem" at Tecumseh High. Daniel James testified that he has seen "about twelve" students under the influence of illegal drugs, is aware of others who have abused such drugs, and knows of students who have entered drug rehabilitation programs.

In addition, school counselors met with students to discuss drug use more than 40 times between andJ. Those reports of drug use include incidents involving students who participate in competitive activities governed by the OSSAA.

For example, a voice teacher testified that she has had students tell her about drug use among students in the choir, and has observed choir students who appeared to be impaired. An FHA supervisor testified that students talk freely in class about marijuana use.

School counselors have reported several instances of drug use among band members, and other incidents of drug use among students in vocal.

An FFA supervisor testified that he has suspected drug use among members of FFA, and has overheard students discuss drug use. In addition, students enrolled in sports, FFA, band, and vocal have been caught with or disciplined for drugs.

The community has tried to deter drug use in a number of different ways. For example, the school district has observed "Red Ribbon Week" each year, during which anti-drug rallies are held and students are urged to pledge to remain drug-free. The school district participates in a "Grim Reaper" program designed to inform students about the perils of drug use.

The school district has stepped up surveillance activities, and uses drug dogs to sweep school property. In addition, since at leastthe school district has considered implementing a student drug-testing policy, as an added deterrent. Indiscussions over whether to enact such a policy intensified as "people all over the community" began to become more "aware" of a drug problem at Tecumseh High.

After a February school board meeting at which a parent admitted her own child's drug use, J. In Augustafter receiving more calls for action, the school district convened a special community meeting at which a proposed drug-testing policy was discussed.

No one who attended that meeting was reported to have objected to suspicionless drug-testing of school children. Shortly thereafter, the school district adopted the drug-testing policy at issue in this case. The policy applies to all students who participate in interscholastic competitions governed by the OSSAA, including both athletic and non-athletic activities.

Before a student is allowed to enroll in such an activity, he must return a consent form signed by him, his parent, and his coach, agreeing to be bound by the policy.

The policy authorizes three forms of urinalysis testing for illegal drugs. First, all students are tested as part of the annual physical examination required for a sport or, for non-athletes, before participation in OSSAA competitions.

Second, random tests are conducted each month based on names drawn from the pool of all students covered by the policy. Third, any covered student who is suspected of drug use may be tested at any time.

During tests, students are accompanied into a restroom by an adult monitor of the same sex and asked to provide a urine sample from behind a "closed stall.

Monitors examine the specimen for temperature and tampering, and give students a form on which the student may list any medications being taken.BOARD OF EDUCATION OF INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 92 OF POTTAWATOMIE COUNTY, et al., PETITIONERS v.

LINDSAY EARLS et al.. on writ of certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the tenth circuit.

Board of education v earls

BOARD OF EDUCATION OF INDEPENDENT SCHOOL v. EARLS ET AL. CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT No. 01– Argued March 19, —Decided June 27, The Student Activities Drug Testing Policy (Policy) adopted by the Te-.

Board of Education of Independent School District No. 92 of Pottawatomie County v. Earls U.S. , S. Ct.

, L. Ed. 2d () Board of Education of Independent School District No. 92 of Pottawatomie County v. Earls. Search. board of education of independent school district no. 92 of pottawatomie county, et al., petitioners v.

lindsay earls et al. supreme court of the united states. Created by DUKE LAW ~ tranceformingnlp.com 3 & the North Carolina Civic Education Consortium ~ tranceformingnlp.com Day 2 Moot Court: Vernonia tranceformingnlp.com and Board of Education v.

Board of education v earls

Earls 4. Let students know that they will be participating in a pro se court. Thank you for registering as a Pre-Law Student with Casebriefs™ As a pre-law student you are automatically registered for the Casebriefs™ LSAT Prep Course.

Board of Education v. Earls - Amicus (Merits) | OSG | Department of Justice