Jen Polin and Allison Kodroff

  The School District adopted the Student Activities Drug Testing Policy  Requires all students who participate in after school activities to take a drug test Facts of the Case

  2 students (Lindsay Earls& Daniel James) challenged  They and their parents challenged the policy to nonathletic drug tests Facts on Case cont.

  Federal District Court found the policy didn’t violate their 4 th amendment prohibition against unreasonable searches  Earls v. Board of Education  March 21, 2001 panel in 10 th circuit court reversed  School Board appealed and was granted Cert. Procedural History

  Is random search and seizures with probable cause in order to participate in extracurricular activities a violation of the 4 th amendment? Constitutional Issue

  Court’s holding:  USSC decided with the school board since it deters drug use among students.  Dissent:  Justice Ginsburg- role of schools don’t include invasive random drug testing. Also, discourages students from participating in after school activities Court’s decision

  Court believed…  that urinalysis was insufficiently intrusive  The results were private  Deters drug use  Applies Vernonia’s Principle  Balancing the intrusion on children’s 4 th A. Court’s Reasoning

  Court ruled that it’s within the limits of the School to have the ability to drug test students Impact

  We disagree with the USSC’s decision…  because is it unconstitutional to perform drug tests to students without probable cause. What we believe

 "Board of Ed. of Independent School Dist. No. 92 of Pottawatomie Cty. v. Earls 536 U.S. 822 (2002)." Justia Law. N.p., n.d. Web. 20 Feb "Landmark Supreme Court Cases – Pottawatomie v. Earls (2002)." Bill of Rights Institute Landmark Supreme Court Cases Pottawatomie v Earls 2002 Comments. N.p., Web. 20 Feb Works Cited