HIGH COURT WON'T RULE ON TEEN CURFEWS

Also leaves intact drug-test prohibition

WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court declined yesterday to delve into efforts by
cities and high schools to reduce teen crime through curfews and mandatory
drug tests.

Without comment, the justices left intact a Charlottesville, Va., curfew
imposed on teen-agers to keep them off the streets overnight.

The high court, also without comment, let stand a decision prohibiting an
Indiana school district from requiring suspended high-school students to
pass a drug test before they can be reinstated. The court's refusal to hear
the cases sets no nationwide precedent, and does not mean the justices
could not rule on these issues in the future. In the curfew case, the 4th
U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Va., upheld a 1996
Charlottesville ordinance that bars anyone under 17 from being on city
streets between midnight and 5 a.m. weekdays and between 1 a.m. and 5 a.m.
Saturdays and Sundays.

Charlottesville defended its law as "a reasonable, constitutional exercise
of (its) authority to enact legislation to protect the welfare and safety
of children."

Parents and teen-agers who challenged the ordinance said it "deprives
parents of their historically fundamental right to direct the rearing of
their children" and deprives youngsters of the "fundamental liberties to
come and go without a pass."

The appellate court ruled, "Charlottesville was constitutionally justified
in believing that its curfew would materially assist its first stated
interest -- that of reducing juvenile violence and crime." Most curfews for
minors have been upheld in state and federal courts, but there have been
exceptions. Curfews in San Diego, Allentown, Pa., and the District of
Columbia are among those that were struck down when challenged. The
drug-testing case concerned the Anderson, Ind., school board's effort to
reinstate its 1997 policy requiring students suspended for at least three
days for disciplinary reasons to pass a drug test.

High school freshman James R. Willis II refused to take a drug test after
completing a five-day suspension for fighting and challenged the policy in
court as a violation of his constitutional privilege against unreasonable
searches. The Anderson Community School Corp., however, argued that the
urine test is necessary to deter drug use by students. The 7th U.S. Circuit
Court of Appeals in Chicago, overturning a federal District Court decision,
agreed with Willis and invalidated the drug test. The Supreme Court in 1995
upheld the constitutionality of random drug tests of student athletes. In
its 6-3 decision, the justices said students who participate in school
sports are role models and that random drug testing of them is a legitimate
method for deterring drug use by schoolchildren. In striking down the
Indiana school's policy, the 7th Circuit distinguished student athletes
from pupils who have been suspended and seek readmission. "Drug testing (of
student athletes) could be construed as part of the `bargain' a student
strikes in exchange for the privilege of participating in favored
activities," the appeals court said. But suspended students have struck no
such deal and may be tested only if they are suspected of using drugs, the
7th Circuit added.