SUPREME COURT REJECTS SCHOOL'S DRUG TEST APPEAL

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court returned Monday to the
controversy over high school drug testing,letting stand a ruling that struck
down for violating privacy rights mandated tests for all suspended students.

The justices rejected without comment or dissent an appeal by a school
district in Anderson, Indiana, after an appellate court struck down its
drug-testing program for violating the constitutional right against
unreasonable searches.

The policy, adopted in 1997, requires that all students suspended from
school for any reason for three days or more take a urine test to screen for
drug or alcohol use before they may be readmitted.

Besides suspended students, tests are required for any students who use or
posses tobacco products, who are habitually truant or who are suspected of
being under the influence of drugs or alcohol.

The last major decision on school drug-testing was handed down in 1995, when
the Supreme Court ruled that schools may randomly test those who play
sports.

In 1998 the Supreme Court without any comment or dissent allowed a school
district to require all students involved in extracurricular activities to
submit to random drug tests.

The latest case stemmed from a lawsuit filed by James Willis, who in 1997
was a freshman at Anderson High School and was suspended for fighting with
another student.

After the five-day suspension ended, Willis was told he would be tested for
drugs and alcohol. When Willis refused to provide a urine sample, he was
suspended again.

He was told that if he refused again to provide the urine sample, he would
be deemed to have admitted unlawful drug use and would be suspended a third
time, pending expulsion proceedings.

A federal judge upheld the school's policy, but a U.S. appeals court struck
it down as unconstitutional, ruling that the school must meet the
traditional standard -- suspicion that a student used drugs or alcohol
before requiring the test.

It ruled the school's interests do not outweigh Willis' privacy rights.

In its Supreme Court appeal, the school district argued Willis has a
``lesser'' expectation of privacy as a public school student and the
infringement of his privacy rights from the drug test was ``minimal.''

The school district said it has a ``legitimate and compelling interest'' in
deterring student drug use and that its policy was ``very effective and
narrowly tailored.''

Last, the school district said there may be a link between drug or alcohol
use and fighting, giving ``individualized reasonable suspicion'' that the
cause of Willis' violent behavior may be drugs or alcohol.

But attorneys for the Indiana Civil Liberties Union, which represented
Willis, said the dean of students examined Willis after the fight and
concluded there was no reasonable suspicion he was under the influence of
drugs or alcohol.

They also said there was no need for the Supreme Court to expand the
boundaries on what constitutes sufficient cause to justify a drug test.