SUPREME COURT CURBS STUDENT DRUG TESTING

Must Suspect Youth Is Under Influence

The Supreme Court, limiting the drug testing of students, refused
Monday to allow a school district to test 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,
under the ruling that the high 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 just because you are a student, you don't lose all
your rights to privacy," said Kenneth Falk, a lawyer for the Indiana
Civil Liberties Union. He represented a freshman who successfully
fought the school drug-testing policy in Anderson, Ind.

In other action, the court:

* Allowed Charlottesville, Va., to enforce a teen curfew generally
requiring children under age 17 to stay off the streets from midnight
to 5 a.m. weekdays and 1 a.m. to 5 a.m. Saturdays and Sundays. A lower
court upheld the curfew as a valid tactic aimed at reducing juvenile
violence and crime.

* Rejected a challenge to the Violence Against Women Act filed by the
first woman convicted under the law. Rita Gluzman of New Jersey was
sentenced to life in prison for her husband's 1996 murder. She argued
Congress exceeded its power to control interstate commerce by making
it a crime to cross state lines to harm a spouse or intimate partner.

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

Most large urban school districts have not adopted widespread or
routine drug testing.

At roughly $50 per student, such testing is expensive for a large
system, officials say. Moreover, it would be seen as a highly
intrusive invasion of privacy for officials to insist 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 urine-testing 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 said.

A year later, a school district in 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 the testing of all students, and several courts
have struck down policies that target for testing students who have
violated certain disciplinary rules.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.