COURT LIMITS DRUG TESTS

Not All Students Who Break Rules Can Be Screened

WASHINGTON The Supreme Court refused Monday to allow a school district
to test for drugs all those who violate its disciplinary rules.

While individuals who appear to be under the influence of drugs can be
tested at school, officials may not routinely test groups of students,
said an appeals court ruling that the Supreme Court let stand.

The Constitution's Fourth 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 challenged the school drug-testing policy in Anderson, Ind.

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

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

The school board in Anderson, Ind., 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.

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

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 Fourth 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 or her 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." On Monday, the
justices turned down the appeal.

Also Monday, the Supreme Court:

Let stand a Charlottesville, Va., curfew for teenagers. A group of
teenagers and their parents sued, contending the curfew - midnight
weekdays and 1 a.m. weekends - "deprives parents of their historically
fundamental right to direct the rearing of their children" and
unjustifiably "discriminates against minors in matters of fundamental
freedoms." A federal appeals court ruled that the city "was
constitutionally justified in believing that its curfew would
materially assist its first stated interest - that of reducing
juvenile violence and crime." The Supreme Court left that ruling intact.

Chicago has a curfew for children under 17: 10:30 weeknights and
11:30 weekend nights.

Agreed to decide whether Hawaii can bar white people from voting to
elect the trustees who oversee a fund for the benefit of native
Hawaiians. The lower courts have upheld the restriction, but the court
will hear the appeal of Harold Rice, a rancher who says the rule is an
example of unconstitutional race discrimination.

Ruled in an Ohio case that states do not violate the Constitution when
they cancel the right of public university professors to negotiate
workload rules as part of their union contracts.