Argued March 28, Decided June 26, Motivated by the discovery that athletes were leaders in the student drug culture and concern that drug use increases the risk of sports-related injury, petitioner school district District adopted the Student Athlete Drug Policy Policywhich authorizes random urinalysis drug testing of students who participate in its athletics programs.
Scalia delivered the opinion of the Court. Petitioner Vernonia School District 47J District operates one high school and three grade schools in the logging community of Vernonia, Oregon. As elsewhere in small town America, school sports play a prominent role in the town's life, and student athletes are admired in their schools and in the community.
Drugs had not been a major problem in Vernonia schools.
In the mid-to-late 's, however, teachers and administrators observed a sharp increase in drug use. Students began to speak out about their attraction to the drug culture, and to boast that there was nothing the school could do about it.
Along with more drugs came more disciplinary problems. Between and the number of disciplinary referrals in Vernonia schools rose to more than twice the number reported in the early 's, and several students were suspended.
Students became increasingly rude during class; outbursts of profane language became common. Not only were student athletes included among the drug users but, as the District Court found, athletes were the leaders of the drug culture.
This caused the District's administrators particular concern, since drug use increases the risk of sports related injury. Expert testimony at the trial confirmed the deleterious effects of drugs on motivation, memory, judgment, reaction, coordination, and performance.
The high school football and wrestling coach witnessed a severe sternum injury suffered by a wrestler, and various omissions of safety procedures and misexecutions by football players, all attributable in his belief to the effects of drug use.
Initially, the District responded to the drug problem by offering special classes, speakers, and presentations designed to deter drug use. It even brought in a specially trained dog to detect drugs, but the drug problem persisted. According to the District Court: At that point, District officials began considering a drug testing program.
They held a parent "input night" to discuss the proposed Student Athlete Drug Policy Policyand the parents in attendance gave their unanimous approval.
The school board approved the Policy for implementation in the fall of Its expressed purpose is to prevent student athletes from using drugs, to protect their health and safety, and to provide drug users with assistance programs.
The Policy applies to all students participating in interscholastic athletics. Students wishing to play sports must sign a form consenting to the testing and must obtain the written consent of their parents.
Athletes are tested at the beginning of the season for their sport. Those selected are notified and tested that same day, if possible.
The student to be tested completes a specimen control form which bears an assigned number. Prescription medications that the student is taking must be identified by providing a copy of the prescription or a doctor's authorization. The student then enters an empty locker room accompanied by an adult monitor of the same sex.
Each boy selected produces a sample at a urinal, remaining fully clothed with his back to the monitor, who stands approximately 12 to 15 feet behind the student. Monitors may though do not always watch the student while he produces the sample, and they listen for normal sounds of urination.
Girls produce samples in an enclosed bathroom stall, so that they can be heard but not observed. After the sample is produced, it is given to the monitor, who checks it for temperature and tampering and then transfers it to a vial. The samples are sent to an independent laboratory, which routinely tests them for amphetamines, cocaine, and marijuana.
Other drugs, such as LSD, may be screened at the request of the District, but the identity of a particular student does not determine which drugs will be tested.
The laboratory's procedures are The District follows strict procedures regarding the chain of custody and access to test results. The laboratory does not know the identity of the students whose samples it tests. It is authorized to mail written test reports only to the superintendent and to provide test results to District personnel by telephone only after the requesting official recites a code confirming his authority.A summary and case brief of Vernonia School Dist.
47J v. Acton, including the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, key terms, and concurrences and dissents. Vernonia School Dist.
47J v. A summary and case brief of Vernonia School Dist. 47J v. Acton, including the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, key terms, and concurrences and dissents. Vernonia School Dist.
47J v. Case opinion for US Supreme Court VERNONIA SCHOOL DIST. 47J v. ACTON. Read the Court's full decision on FindLaw. Skinner v. Railway Labor Executives' Assn., U.S. , Where there was no clear practice, either approving or disapproving the type of search at issue, at the time the constitutional provision was enacted, the "reasonableness" of a search is judged by balancing the intrusion on the individual's Fourth Amendment interests against the promotion of legitimate governmental interests.
Pp. Vernonia School District 47J v. Acton, U.S. () was a U.S. Supreme Court decision which upheld the constitutionality of random drug testing regimen implemented by the local public schools in Vernonia, Oregon.
Under that regimen, student athletes were required to submit to random drug testing before being allowed to participate in . Read this American History Research Paper and over 88, other research documents. Vernonia School District V. Acton. On June 26, , the Supreme Court decided on the case Vernonia School District v.
Acton as to whether /5(1).