This document discusses drug testing in high school athletics. It provides an overview of current drug testing policies and debates surrounding privacy rights. While some argue drug testing violates students' 4th amendment rights, the Supreme Court has ruled that athletes have a reduced expectation of privacy and that testing is permissible given the goal of protecting student health and safety and deterring drug use. Landmark cases like Vernonia v. Acton established that drug testing student athletes is considered a reasonable search and does not violate privacy as participation in sports is a privilege.

1. Drug Testing in High
School Athletics
By: Cody Martinez

2. Overview of Drug Testing
• As of right now only some high school in the U.S. require their student athletes to
take a drug test via urine analysis
• Drug testing was approved in 1995 based on the historic Veronia v. Acton case
• Many contest that drug testing is a violation of a students 4th amendment right
• Supreme Court contests that athletes give up their privacy based on sharing locker
rooms, hotel, and buses
• By signing consent form athlete voluntarily waives 4th amendment right
• 2 categories of drug testing administered (Illegal drugs/Performance enhancing
drugs)

3. Reasons for Drug Testing Athletes
1. Preserve the health of the student athletes
2. Fair and equitable competition
3. Deter drug use
4. Detect violations of laws and/or school rules

4. 4th Amendment
• Prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures and sets requirement for search
warrants to be based upon probable cause
• Once search and seizure is deemed unreasonable it becomes unconstitutional
• Searches of locker rooms, personal items, or the individual can be invasion
of 4th amendment right
• Schools only need reasonable suspicion to conduct search and seizure

5. 4th Amendment Privacy Interests
1. Does the conduct represent state governmental action?
• Actions or conduct by state, local, or federal officials is representative of
state governmental action
• Protects individuals' from invasions of privacy by the government
• Does not protect against private entities, such as NCAA

6. 4th Amendment Privacy Interests cont’d
2. Is the conduct a search?
• A search occurs when an expectation of privacy is infringed
• Collection and testing of an athletes urine constitutes a search/seizure under the 4th
amendment
• There is an expectation of privacy for the public school student that their urine not
be subject to public scrutiny
• In 1995 courts ruled that random urinalysis of testing of high school students
represented a reasonable search

7. 4th Amendment Privacy Interests cont’d
3. Is the conduct a reasonable search?
• What is reasonable depends on context within which a search takes place
• 4th amendment prohibits unreasonable searches
• Supreme court ruled reasonableness of a school search involved two points
1. Was the search justified at its inception (reasonable suspicion)?
2. Was the search reasonable in its scope?

8. Privacy Interests of Athletes
• Few activities in society more personal or private than the passing of urine
• Monitored urine collection is embarrassing and degrading
• Chemical analysis of urine violates medical confidentiality
• Urinalysis testing attempts to regulate off-field personal conduct

9. Vernonia v. Acton (1995)
• Seventh grade student and parents refused to sign testing consent forms and filed
suit declaring it violated 4th amendment rights
• Supreme Court upheld as constitutional a school district policy requiring students to
consent to random drug testing in order to participate in athletics
• Court held that the drug policy did not violate the 4th amendment given factors,
such as an athletes low expectation of privacy
• Students were not entitled to full 4th amendment protections as the states interest in
preventing drug addiction was compelling and the urinalysis and accompanying
disclosure requirements were not significant invasions of privacy

10. Board of Education v. Earls (2002)
• Students sued board of education alleging that the boards policy requiring all students
participating in extracurricular activities to submit drug testing violated the students constitutional
right to be free from unreasonable searches
• Students contend the board did not identify a special need for testing students who participate in
extracurricular activities and policy did not address a proven problem
• Supreme Court held that the policy did not constitute an unreasonable search because it served
the boards important interest in detecting and preventing drug use
• Boards method of obtaining urine samples was minimally intrusive on the students limited
privacy interest
• Furthermore the drug testing policy was an effective means od addressing the boards concern
about preventing drug use based on evidence of increased drug use at the schools

11. Todd v. Rush County Schools (1998)
• The drug testing program requires students wishing to participate in extracurricular activities
to consent to random suspicionless urine testing for nicotine, alcohol and unlawful drug use.
• After failing two tests or without satisfactory explanation, the student is barred from
participating in extracurricular activities.
• Courts ruled that successful extracurricular activities require healthy students. Further, the
court points out that these activities, like organized athletics, are a privilege.
• Emphasized the fact that athletes generally expect a lesser degree of privacy and that drug
influenced athletic participants pose a threat of physical harm to the other participants.
• Vernonia v. Acton (1995) acted as precedent for this specific case

12. Conclusion
• Although drug testing is legal a special need to conduct the tests must exist and be
compelling
• 4th Amendment requires 3 important issues in determining a drug test being constitutional
• By becoming an athlete there is a reduced expectation of privacy
• Schools contest that by instilling a drug testing program that it will promote a decrease in
drug use and increase safety
• Participation in such sports is entirely voluntary; Participating in team sports is a privilege,
not a right
• Landmark cases have paved the way for privacy expectations of public school students at
the high school level (Vernonia v. Acton)