Vernonia v. action research paper

We find insufficient basis to contradict the judgment of Vernonia's parents, its school board, and the District Court, as to what was reasonably in the interest of these children under the circumstances.

There, the warrant requirement "would unduly interfere with the maintenance of the swift and informal disciplinary procedures [that are] needed," and "strict adherence to the requirement that searches be based upon probable cause" would undercut "the substantial need of teachers and administrators for freedom to maintain order in the schools.

Even Wolfish's arguendo "assum[ption] that the existence of less intrusive alternatives is relevant to the determination of the reasonableness of the particular search method at issue," U.

Railway Labor Executives' Assn. See Skinner, supra, at The record shows no objection to this districtwide program by any parents other than the couple before us here--even though, as we have described, a public meeting was held to obtain parents' views.

Vernonia School Dist. 47J v. Acton

As the text of the Fourth Amendment indicates, the ultimate measure of the constitutionality of a governmental search is "reasonableness. Respondents argue that a "less intrusive means to the same end" was available, namely, "drug testing on suspicion of drug use. Particularly with regard to medical examinations and procedures, therefore, "students within the school environment have a lesser expectation of privacy than members of the population generally.

Named the 9 fastest growing education company in the United States. Warrants cannot be issued, of course, without the showing of probable cause required by the Warrant Clause.

While the practice of the District seems to have been to have a school official take medication information from the student at the time of the test, see App. Thank you for your support! 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.

See supra, at With respect to the "rights of individual citizens," the Court eventually offered the simple yet powerful intuition that "those lawfully within the country, entitled to use the public highways, have a right to free passage without interruption or search unless there is known to a competent official authorized to search, probable cause for believing that their vehicles are carrying contraband or illegal merchandise.

The "effects of a drug-infested school are visited not just upon the users, but upon the entire student body and faculty, as the educational process is disrupted.

A Framework for Analysis, 12 U. Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students.

C In the fall ofrespondent James Acton, then a seventh grader, signed up to play football at one of the District's grade schools. The Fourth Amendment does not require that the "least intrusive" search be conducted, so respondents' argument that the drug testing could be based on suspicion of drug use, if true, would not be fatal; and that alternative entails its own substantial difficulties.

Landynski, Search and Seizure and the Supreme Court 20 Horne; and for the Washington Legal Foundation et al. Central, in our view, to the present case is the fact that the subjects of the Policy are 1 children, who 2 have been committed to the temporary custody of the State as schoolmaster.

The instant case, however, asks whether the Fourth Amendment is even more lenient than that, i. And finally, the results of the tests are disclosed only to a limited class of school personnel who have a need to know; and they are not turned over to law enforcement authorities or used for any internal disciplinary function.

If the second test is positive, the athlete's parents are notified, and the school principal convenes a meeting with the student and his parents, at which the student is given the option of 1 participating for six weeks in an assistance program that includes weekly urinalysis, or 2 suffering suspension from athletics for the remainder of the current season and the next athletic season.

We have found such "special needs" to exist in the public school context. Whether that relatively high degree of government concern is necessary in this case or not, we think it is met.

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.Vernonia School District 47J v.

Acton, U.S.

Vernonia School District V. Acton

() 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.

The opinion of the Court in Vernonia School District versus Acton will be announced by Justice Scalia.

Vernonia School Dist. 47J v. Acton

Antonin Scalia: This case, number comes to us on writ of certiorari to the Ninth Circuit. Defendant: VERNONIA SCHOOL DISTRICT 47J 9th Circuit Court of Appeals: Appellant: ACTON Appellee: VERNONIA SCHOOL DISTRICT 47J U.S. Supreme Court: Appellant: VERNONIA SCHOOL DISTRICT 47J Appellee: ACTON - Federal district court upheld the school districts policy for.

(Editor's Note: The following is a summary from the U.S. Supreme Court's June 26, ruling in Vernonia School District 47J, Petitioner v.

Wayne Acton.) Vernonia School District 47J, Petitioner v. Wayne Acton U.S. () by Chris Praylo Vernonia School District operated a high school and three grade schools in the city of Vernonia, Oregon.

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. On June 26,the Supreme Court decided on the case Vernonia School District v. Acton as to whether or not random drug testing of high school athletes violated the reasonable search and seizure clause of the Fourth Amendment.

Vernonia v. action research paper
Rated 5/5 based on 43 review