You are on page 1of 3

Vanessa Vitiello & Tarakshaya Bhatia Web Quest 1. The decision in the Veronica School District vs.

Acton case was that the school districts search was warranted because according to the judge, adults are responsible for students at school, and the privacy concerns to athletes are minimalized in comparison to the safety of the students while they are at school. VERNONIA SCHOOL DISTRICT v. ACTON. The Oyez Project at IIT ChicagoKent College of Law. 08 February 2012. <http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1994/1994_94_590>. 2. In the board of education vs. Earls case in 2002, the court voted 5-4 that the Fourth Amendment Rights were in fact, not being violated after two parents and students filed a suit against the Oklahoma School District. The Court of Appeals concluded that before drug testing suspicion-less students, there must be a sufficient amount of those tested, showing a drug abuse problem. Justice Clarence Thomas declared that the school district was within the Fourth Amendment Rights to drug test by urinalysis. 3. The procedure for collecting the urine specimens from students was deemed not problematic and less than negligible because under the policy of the school, students were left in a closed stall and monitored by a faculty member outside the stall. In addition, the files of each student are left confidential after the test is taken. 4. The search of T.L.O s purse does not seem reasonable to me because the search of her effects was only done after the discovery of the rolling paper and cigarettes. Without the search, there would have been no conviction, because possessing cigarettes and rolling paper is not a crime; smoking cigarettes and possessing marijuana are. The administrator had inferred that because the student possessed these items, she was a smoker, when in fact she was dealing. Without the initial assumption, there would not have been subsequent investigation, and therefore there would have been no conviction in her case.

5. The East Brunswick school system defines a substance as an alcoholic beverage, anabolic steroids, inhalants, and OTCs. Abuse of these substances is defined as using any substance for a purpose other than which it is intended or approved for. E.g. glue to get high. Possession, distribution, and use of any substance, including alcohol, is prohibited by the East Brunswick Board of Education on school grounds and during field trips, athletic events, and other school activities. Any school employee who believes that a student is under the influence of a substance must report the matter to a school administrator or principal. The parent must be notified, a urine sample will be taken, along with further medical examination as required. The student will then be taken to a doctor, who must deem the student clear to return to the school environment. In the case of anabolic steroid use or abuse, the student will be required to speak with a trained professional or trusted adult within the school system regarding the use of the drug, and to the extent to which it was used. Teachers have civil immunity with regard to the case as long as they report it diligently and within reasonable grounds. They cannot be held accountable in the event of a

lawsuit or in subsequent investigation. In the same vein, if a student says during any interview that their parent/guardian was responsible for the possession or usage of the substance, the parent cannot be held accountable or charged for his or her actions without the childs written consent. In the event of a more serious case, including possession of illegal drugs, the appropriate law enforcement agencies will be contacted for subsequent investigation and conviction, if need be.

You might also like