SCHOOL MUST HALT RANDOM DRUG TEST

A Superior Court judge yesterday ordered that Hunterdon Central Regional
High School stop its random drug-testing policy, saying it is invasive and
could cause irreparable harm to students.

The state chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union sued the district
in August on behalf of three students, claiming the district's policy was a
violation of the students' privacy and undermined parental authority.

Hunterdon Central's policy -- among the toughest in the state -- called for
random testing of any students involved in sports, clubs or who parks their
car at school.

"The concern of Hunterdon Central is understandable and admirable," Judge
Robert Guterl wrote in a 10-page decision released via the Internet. "But
the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures should not be
bartered for the right of a school child to participate in school
activities with his or her peers."

In a statement, the school board said it will appeal the decision to the
Appellate Division. The board has 15 days to file a notice of appeal.

Several other school districts in New Jersey conduct drug tests on
student-athletes. It was not immediately clear how yesterday's ruling will
affect those districts.

Three years ago, Hunterdon Central began random drug testing on its
athletes, and school officials said drug use among athletes dropped. In
September, the school board adopted a measure to expand the testing to
include students who participate in extracurricular activities or have a
parking permit for the 2,500-student campus in Flemington.

The additional testing never began, and the testing of athletes was
suspended while the legal challenge was pending, said Kevin Kovacs, the
school board's attorney.

The U.S. Supreme Court has allowed random drug testing for athletes if a
school can demonstrate a special need. Other federal courts have ruled both
against and in favor of expanded drug-testing in cases around the country.

In yesterday's decision, Guetrl wrote that "on numerous occasions, New
Jersey's courts have held that the state Constitution affords greater
protection from unreasonable searches and seizures than does the Fourth
Amendment of the United States Constitution."

However, "the law concerning this issue is unsettled," he wrote.

The New Jersey Supreme Court has never ruled on the issue.

Hunterdon Central officials objected to Guterl's decision, suggesting that
arguments about privacy were given too much weight. The goal of the testing
was not to invade students' privacy, but to keep drugs out of the school,
officials said.

"It is an important issue for the school. . . . (The policy shows) a real,
legitimate interest in the board's part to deter drug use," Kovacs said.

Officials also took exception to the judge's assertion "there is absolutely
no evidence of any heightened drug use amongst the students targeted by
Hunterdon Central's policy."

In October, a poll of Hunterdon Central students found alcohol use above
the national average. However, the number of students who had had sex and
experimented with cocaine and marijuana was lower than the national
average, the poll of 1,725 students found.

ACLU staff attorney J.C. Salyer said Guterl's ruling showed "these sorts of
tests aren't permissible without a compelling need."

"Here, there's nothing to show that suspicion-based testing, that is,
testing when you believe a child has used drugs, wouldn't work," Salyer
said. "That's the hallmark of being right to be free of unreasonable search
and seizures. In New Jersey, there could be individualized evidence of
wrongdoing, absent this compelling need."

News of the decision spread quickly through the school yesterday.

Senior Anna Zdepski, 17, one of the students who sued the district, jumped
with excitement when she learned of the decision shortly after her English
class ended yesterday.

"They should be testing every student, every bus driver, every janitor at
our school or nobody at all," said Zdepski, who is a member of the Model
United Nations and several other clubs and who has a parking permit. "Just
because we are students doesn't mean we have diminished rights. . . .
Random testing just does not seem fair at all."

Shaun Joye, another student who sued, said he understood the goal of
keeping drugs out of the school, but objected to the invasion of privacy.

"I really didn't like the way they were doing it. The way they were doing
it, you have to sign away your Fourth Amendment rights. By the same logic,
they could do that with any right," said Joye, 17, a junior.

His mother, Deborah, was also elated by yesterday's decision.

"We do want him to be able to participate in extracurricular activities,
but we don't feel like we should sign away his rights," she said. "Also, we
felt like it took away our rights as parents. We are pretty responsible
parents. . . . We don't feel like we should give up our rights to the
school board to make those decisions for us."

A handful of New Jersey districts conducted random testing among student
athletes last year, said Mike Yaple, a spokesman for the New Jersey School
Boards Association. Those districts include Brick Township, North Bergen,
Clifton, Collingswood and Pennsauken.

Another district, West Deptford in Gloucester County, conducts random drug
tests on any student involved in an extracurricular activity or with a
parking permit, he said. However, the district did perform widespread
evaluations to prove there was a serious drug problem before instituting
the policy, Yaple said.

"All of the handful of districts that do drug testing in New Jersey will
probably be reviewing their policies and making sure they an show a
demonstrated need," said Yaple.

Staff writer Katie Wang and the Associated Press contributed to this
report.