COURT LIMITS DRUG TESTING OF STUDENTS

WASHINGTON The Supreme Court, limiting drug testing of students,
refused Monday to allow a school district to test all those who
violate its disciplinary rules.

Although individuals who appear to be under the influence of drugs can
be tested at school, officials may not routinely test groups of
students, under the ruling that the high court let stand.

The Constitution's 4th Amendment protects students, as well as adults,
from unreasonable searches by public officials, the ruling stressed.

"This decision says that just because you are a student, you don't
lose all your rights to privacy," said Kenneth J. Falk, a lawyer for
the Indiana Civil Liberties Union. Falk represented a freshman student
who successfully challenged the school drugtesting policy in Anderson,
Ind.

Mandatory drug testing in schools, once considered a likely next step
in the "war on drugs," now appears to be fading as an optiona victim
of privacy concerns, high costs and adverse court rulingsexperts said.

Not Common in Large, Urban School Districts Most large urban
school districts, including Los Angeles, have not adopted widespread
or routine drug testing.

At roughly $50 per student, such testing is expensive for a large
system, officials said. Moreover, it would be seen as a highly
intrusive invasion of privacy for officials to insist that presumably
innocent students undergo drug tests, said Howard Friedman, an
assistant general counsel for the Los Angeles Unified School District.

Instead, the lead cases in school drug testing have come from small
towns in Oregon, Indiana and Colorado.

"They have the feeling they don't want to become like New York,
Chicago or Los Angeles. In these [small town] communities, there is
minimal opposition" to mandatory drug testing, Falk said.

Four years ago, the Supreme Court opened the door to routine testing
at schools when it upheld a urinetesting program for school athletes
in rural Vernonia, Ore.

Because students playing sports while under the influence of drugs
could be injured, it is reasonable to force them to undergo regular
urine testing, the high court concluded.

A year later, a school district in rural Rushville, Ind., went one
step further and adopted regular testing for all students who
participated in extracurricular activities.

Since then, however, the trend toward more testing has been halted. No
court has condoned testing all students and several courts have struck
down policies that permit testing of students who have violated
certain disciplinary rules. In Colorado, the state Supreme Court
recently struck down a drugtesting policy that included members of the
marching band.

The school board in Anderson, which is north of Indianapolis, adopted
a policy requiring students who were caught fighting or had otherwise
violated significant school rules to submit to a test for drugs and
alcohol.

"We figured those are the kids who are likely to abuse drugs and
alcohol," said Robert M. Baker, an attorney for the school district.
In one of the town's high schools, drug testing of students after they
had been fighting showed evidence of an illegal substance in 46% of
them.

But a freshman named James R. Willis, who had been involved in a
fight, refused to take the test and was suspended.

When his challenge came before the U.S. court of appeals in Chicago,
the judges struck down the school policy as a type of unreasonable
search prohibited by the 4th Amendment. The judges stressed, however,
that a school official who had a specific reason to believe a student
was under the influence of drugs could order him to be tested.

In January, the school district appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing
that "its responsibilities as guardian and tutor of children entrusted
to its care outweigh Willis' expectation of privacy." But on Monday,
the justices without comment turned down the appeal in the case
(Anderson Community Schools vs. Willis, 981183).

"This means we need to go back to the basics and test only when we
have a reasonable suspicion" that an individual is impaired, Baker
said.

Officials at the Los Angeles County Office of Education said that none
of its campuses regularly tests for drugs. The few drugtesting
programs implemented in area schools have been limited and shortlived.

In 1986, officials at Banning High School in Wilmington implemented a
drugtesting program for athletes after two football players died of
cocaine overdoses.

A few months later, the policy was dropped. "There was no way to keep
financing it," said Los Angeles Unified School District spokesman Shel
Erlich.

In the San Fernando Valley, Henry David Thoreau High School, a special
continuation school mostly for students in drugabuse recovery,
maintains what it calls a voluntary testing program.

"Our students and parents sign an agreement that states they will be
subject to random drug testing," said Principal Carole Johnson Tash.
"If they don't [agree], they are not allowed to enroll." Court
to Hear Discrimination Claim Meanwhile, in other actions, the
court: * Agreed to decide whether Hawaii can bar white persons
from voting to elect the trustees who oversee a fund for the benefit
of native Hawaiians (Rice vs. Cayetano, 98818). The lower courts have
upheld the restriction but the court will hear the appeal of Harold
Rice, a rancher who maintains that the rule is an example of
unconstitutional race discrimination.

* Let stand a $1.9million verdict by a Seattle jury against an
anticult group whose members were accused of helping to abduct an
18yearold from a Pentecostal Christian church to "deprogram" him (Cult
Awareness Network vs. Scott, 98878).

* Upheld an Ohio law that required state university professors to
spend more time in the classroom. The state Supreme Court had struck
it down as unconstitutional, citing the principle of equal protection
under the law. In an unsigned opinion, the justices reversed that
ruling in the case (Central State University vs. America Assn. of
University Professors, 981071).

Times staff writer Louis Sahagun in Los Angeles contributed to this
story.