Discussion Post: Student Drug Testing

tudent Drug Testing
Competencies Addressed in This Discussion
Competency 1: Articulate how the rules of criminal procedure apply to a criminal justice practitioner.
Competency 3: Apply the 4th, 5th, and 6th Amendments in a criminal justice context.
Introduction
Drug testing elementary and high school students taking part in athletics and other school programs is valid. In the case Vernonia School District 47J v. Acton (1995), the Court upheld random drug testing of high school athletes. In the subsequent case Board of Education of Independent School District No. 92 of Pottawatomie County et al. v. Earls (2002), the Court extended that ruling to middle and high school students participating in any extracurricular activity.

Instructions
Locate a case dealing with random drug testing of elementary or high school students.

In your main post:

Explore the Court’s reasoning that drug testing is a minimal intrusion to students.
Assess whether the interests of the government in this line of cases are important enough to override the individual privacy protection.
Articulate whether you, as a criminal justice professional, believe these rulings should also extend to college students.
Discussion Objectives
The competencies addressed in this discussion are supported by discussion objectives, as follows:

Competency 1: Articulate how the rules of criminal procedure apply to a criminal justice practitioner.
Assess whether government interests are important enough to override individual privacy protections.
Articulate whether elementary and high school search rulings should apply to college students.
Competency 3: Apply the 4th, 5th, and 6th Amendments in a criminal justice context.
Explore the Court’s reasoning that drug testing is a minimal intrusion to students.
References
Vernonia School District 47J v. Acton, (94-590), 515 US 646 (1995).

Board of Education of Independent School District No. 92 of Pottawatomie County et al. v. Earls, (01-332) 536 US 822 (2002).