anna-gardner Amendment four prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures.
anna-gardner Justice Thomas wrote the majority decision.
anna-gardner Relevance: A urinalysis test for drugs in a school does not violate the fourth amendment if there is evidence of a drug problem.
anna-gardner The End
anna-gardner I think that the court ruled fairly. The school district had a evidence that drugs were a problem throughout the schools, therefore this was constitutional to the fourth amendment.
anna-gardner Courts Decision:The court decided on June 27, 2002 that this was constitutional. The court ruled 5-4 that urine samples were minimally intrusive and limited privacy interests. The school district won.
anna-gardner This case showed that the urinalysis of student athletes was consitutional because the school district had a reason, which was that they had previously had a drug problem.
anna-gardner Appellant: The school district argued that if they have a reason for the drug test, it does not violate the fourth amendment.
anna-gardner The case went from US district court to US court of appeals tenth circuit then to the supreme court.
anna-gardner Respondent: Two high schoolers and their parents brought suit against the Board of Education Independent School District No. 92 of Pottawatomie City that this violates the fourth amendment.
anna-gardner Board of Education v. Earls
anna-gardner Facts: The Tecumseh, Oklahoma school district requires all middle and high schoolers who participate in extracurricular activities to consent to urinalysis testing for drugs to be able to participate.