TESTS LOOK FOR DRUGS' RESIDUE IN TOMS RIVER, SOUTHERN SCHOOLS

The Toms River Regional and Southern Regional school districts quietly
began testing for drug residue on commonly used surfaces such as locker
doors and bathroom stalls in January with field kits long used by law
enforcement agencies.

Under a federally funded pilot program that examines the effectiveness of
the kit in a school setting, the two Ocean County districts last semester
tested dozens of surfaces in public areas where administrators suspected
that students may have used drugs, school officials said.

While results have not been released, an official for the company that
produces the testing kits said drug residue was found in all participating
schools.

Law enforcement agencies have used the kits for a decade to test suspected
drug users in the field, but Toms River school officials said their
objective was different.

"We're not using it for students or student discipline," said John Gluck,
assistant superintendent for high school safety and security at the Toms
River district. "We're trying to find out . . . where likely areas for drug
trafficking are or where people might have stored drug paraphernalia."

Toms River plans to continue the testing this school year under a more
regimented schedule, but Southern Regional has decided to drop the program
after finding the kits unreliable, according to Southern Regional High
School principal Craig Henry.

At a cost of less than $1 each, the drug-testing kit almost instantaneously
detects trace amounts of marijuana, heroin, cocaine and methamphetamine on
a variety of surfaces. To perform the test, a piece of paper is rubbed on a
surface such as a bathroom stall or wall. The paper then is sprayed with an
aerosol reagent that turns it a different color if drug residue is present.

Henry said the cleaning agents used to clean the areas prior to
administering the tests reacted with the sprays to cause false positives.

"We saw no practical application because of it's lack of reliability at the
stage that we last saw the product," Henry said. "There was no point in
pursuing it."

The kits have been modified since the problem was discovered, according to
the company. While the testing kit is used commonly for crime scene
investigations and motor vehicle stops, the National Institute for Justice,
which researched crime control and justice issues for the U.S. Department
of Justice, decided two years ago to examine its application in schools.

The program was implemented in January, without notifying the public, in
middle and high schools in the Toms River and Southern Regional districts,
as well as in the East Windsor Regional and Mercer County Vocational
districts. It also is being used in other states, including Virginia and
North Carolina.

"It's one tool that can be an effective way (to combat drug use in schools)
as long as we go about it the correct way," said Robert Schlegel, vice
president of the Washington D.C.-based Mistral Group, which manufactures
the test. "It's testing the presence of drugs in schools."

But at least one school district has decided to use the tests on students,
causing an uproar among civil rights groups that contend its a
constitutional violation.

Schools in Wake County, N.C., plan to use the test on students who display
outward signs of marijuana use. Officials said the test would be
administered by school personnel and would not be used for criminal
prosecution, although the results could lead to possible suspension.

There are no such plans in New Jersey schools.

"It's purely a research project to determine how it can be used," said
Gluck. "We don't have any clearance to use it for any disciplinary reasons."

He said that before the tests could be used on students, the program has to
answer fundamental questions about the test's accuracy and whether it
actually shows drug use. For example, a student could test positive for
drug residue from shaking hands with someone who smoked marijuana, Gluck said.

"We need to have some real clear legal definitions before we do anything,
before we introduce it," he said.

Those definitions would be developed by the state attorney general, said
John Hagerty, a spokesman for the Department of Criminal Justice, but the
program first has to demonstrate that the kits effectively indicate the
presence of drugs on a person or in their belongings.

"Right now you need a search warrant to get into a closed container such as
a locker or book bag, and to get that you need probable cause," he said.
"If the test comes back positive, does that lead you to believe there are
drugs inside? I don't know."

The New Jersey chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union, which has
fought other drug testing procedures administered in schools, reserved
judgment on the pilot program.

"The question is whether they have a right to be in those areas," said Ed
Barocas, legal director for the state ACLU. "If they are in legitimate
public areas, then that could be considered permissible."

Reaction about the program was mixed from parents and students who recently
learned of the testing.

"If they know about certain areas where kids are doing drugs on school
grounds, it's good for them to confirm it in order to place security
there," said Cheryl Fitzpatrick of the Manahawkin section of Stafford who
has two children at Southern Regional High School.

But Southern Regional sophomore Steve Whisten, 16, said having school
administrators test the outside of his locker would be an invasion of his
privacy, even though it's considered a public area.

"If they suspected me and told me they were going to test it one day,
that's different," he said. "But for me to be in class and they walk by and
test my locker, that's not right. What if they find something and it's a
(false reading)? That makes me a suspect."