SCHOOLS WEIGHING DRUG-TEST RULING

Two Ocean County high school districts that conduct drug tests could be
affected by yesterday's state court decision banning such tests at
Hunterdon Central Regional High School.

But Brick, which imposes random drug tests on athletes at the two township
high schools, intends to continue doing so unless its board attorney says
not to.

The Toms River Regional schools require tests selectively, rather than at
random, and worry the court decision will hurt the fight against drugs.

"That's definitely going to negatively affect our ability to clean up drug
use among teens," said Michael J. Ritacco, superintendent of the Toms River
district. "Study after study has shown drug use continues to rise. Schools
are looking at every method within the law to rid drug use from the schools."

"Athletes have to be held to a higher standard because they're leaders,"
said Joseph T. Montano, Shore Conference president and the athletic
director at Red Bank Catholic High School, where the anti-drug policy
doesn't include random tests. "The privilege to play sports comes with
responsibility."

The Hunterdon decision was made by Superior Court Judge Robert F. Guterl
and prohibits random tests, which were administered to students on teams,
in clubs or who park their cars at the school.

"Students should not have to surrender their right to privacy in order to
participate in athletics and extracurricular activities, and participation
in these school programs does not significantly diminish an individual's
reasonable expectations of privacy or the intrusiveness of a suspicionless
drug testing program,"the judge wrote.

Hunterdon Central school lawyer Kevin B. Kovacs said he expected the school
district will pursue the case, if needed, to the state Supreme Court, which
has never ruled on such a case.

The U.S. Supreme Court has allowed random drug testing for student athletes
if a school demonstrates a special need for such a program.

Brick has based its policy on that Supreme Court decision. The nation's
highest court voted 6 to 3 in favor of allowing the Veronia, Ore., school
district to drug test its student-athletes, saying this would make sports
safer.

Under Brick's program, all students who go out for sports and their parents
must sign a consent form saying they are willing to undergo random,
mandatory drug testing.

Mouth swabs and urine tests are done weekly. Positive results, if confirmed
by an outside laboratory, means students are suspended from school for 10
days and from all extracurricular activities for a year.

Philip Nicastro, Brick's acting schools superintendent, said the court
decision would be reviewed by the board attorney, who will "advise us
whether our policy is consistent with the court decision." In the meantime,
the testing will go on, he said.

Toms River's program isn't random and is based on staff members'
observations of students.

"What we're doing this year if a staff member suspects a student is under
the influence, the student is brought to me or to the principal," said Jim
Patten, the substance abuse coordinator at Toms River High School North.
"The student is then required to have a medical exam with a drug test
within 24 hours, and must have a doctor's note saying he is clean to be
permitted to come back to school."

Patten, a licensed clinical social worker, said last year he was able to
identify students before they ran afoul of the school's drug policy, and
get them help.

Ritacco said the district will have to re-evaluate its policy to make sure
it complies with the law.

"The bottom line is parents and the schools should work together to keep
drugs out of the schools," Ritacco said.

The state chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union filed the Hunterdon
lawsuit in August on behalf of three students. Pending the outcome of the
lawsuit, the district agreed to suspend the testing.

ACLU staff attorney J.C. Salyer said such tests violate "the right to be
free of unreasonable search and seizures."

Guterl wrote that in the Hunterdon case, "where there is absolutely no
evidence of any heightened drug use amongst the students targeted . . . and
where students are under close supervision, the board's failure to use the
narrowest means available to achieve the public purpose does not meet the
standard of protection afforded . . . under the Constitution."

Other state judges have ruled along the same lines.

The Associated Press contributed to this story.