EXPELLED STUDENT SUES WASH. TWP. SCHOOLS

A 19-year-old Washington Township man, barred from attending classes for
more than two years after he tested positive for drug use, claims his
rights were violated.

While classmates of Adam Gutin continue their educations or find
entry-level jobs, he's still working to get his General Educational
Development certificate, said attorney Christopher M. Manganello.

In the lawsuit, filed in mid-April and assigned to U.S. District Judge
Jerome B. Simandle for trial, Manganello claims the student's civil rights
were violated because he was too young to consent to the testing and his
parents did not give permission for the test.

The lawsuit seeks unspecified damages to cover fees and costs of repeated
appeals as well as punitive damages. Manganello said the litigation costs
involved with the appeals were "substantial."

Gutin and his parents, Mitchell and Margo, feel so cheated by the
Washington Township school system that Manganello has filed a federal
lawsuit on their behalf.

Gutin was expelled twice from the high school, in August and December 2000,
the second time after the state Commissioner of Education ordered the
school board to review its initial decision.

In the 1999-2000 school year, Gutin had tested positive for marijuana use.
When Gutin turned 16, his 10 hours a week of home schooling ended,
Manganello said.

He argues Gutin was deprived of "free and appropriate public education"
because of the school district's reported zero-tolerance policy toward drug
use.

He said the district did not consider "reasonable alternative educational
options" before the expulsion.

Calls to Joseph Betley, attorney for the township school board, were not
returned Tuesday.

Attorney James Katz, often involved in civil rights issues, said school
districts need "just reasonable suspicion, not probable cause" to test for
drug use. Random testing is banned in the state, he said, and most drug
testing in schools relates to athletes and other extra-curricular activities.

"If there's individual suspicion, there has never been a question of (the
school district's) right to test. It's generally not a difficult standard,"
Katz said.

He referred to a July 2003 ruling by the New Jersey Supreme Court that
random drug testing of students involved in extra-curricular activities or
seeking parking privileges in the Hunterdon Central Regional High School
did not violate search and seizure constitutional protections.

In its opinion, the Supreme Court referred to the need of school officials
to maintain order, safety and discipline within a school. In the Hunterdon
school case, students who tested positive were suspended temporarily from
non-educational activities and required to receive counseling or other
treatment.

That district also relied on a student assistance program that used three
full-time professionals to counsel students and their families about drug
and alcohol abuse.

The Hunterdon testing program, according to the state Supreme Court ruling,
requires both the student and his parent or guardian to consent to the test.