A BREATH OF FRESH AIR

Westport student argues against Breathalyzer test

Editor's Note: Westport High School junior Keith Costa is coming in for
praise from school officials for the three-page letter he wrote to the
School Committee objecting to the idea of testing students for alcohol
before letting them enter next month's prom.

"I was so proud when I read Keith's letter," said School Committee member
Deana Chase. "My first thought was, if this is the kind of student we are
turning out at Westport High, we're doing a pretty good job."

Said School Superintendent Margot desJardins: "I respect Keith a great deal
for engaging in the process so maturely."

Keith, a participant in The Standard--Times high school journalism project,
shared a draft of his letter earlier this week. The letter follows:

To the School Committee

Westport school administrators are not doing enough to control substance
abuse at the high school level, especially at proms, dances, and other
school-sponsored events. Even with the newly proposed Breathalyzer test,
there are ways for students to get around this. They can choose to drink a
long time before the event begins, during the event, or directly after the
event.

The best solution to the problem of drinking before and/or during the event
is simply to force all students to come to the event at least two hours
earlier. This way, administrators will have the time to perform a full
body-cavity strip search on every student; this search will also include
multiple blood-alcohol content and drug tests. If this is done, it will
truly eliminate any transgressions of any kind relating to any substance,
which should not be at a school-sponsored event.

That still leaves the problem of drinking after the event to deal with. In
order to curb the number of students who have the opportunity to drink, the
School Department should recommend the hiring of a larger police force. One
police officer will handcuff himself or herself to a WHS student at all
times. In addition, part of the high school should be transformed into a
prison, which would provide students with a safe environment for living
their lives. They will live in individual cells where they will be safe from
hurting themselves and others. If this program is implemented it will not
only stop substance abuse problems, but all other forms of misbehavior.

This proposal takes drug and alcohol prevention to the extreme, as does
testing and or searching every student who wants to attend the prom.

There are several legal, logistical, and moral issues that need to be
addressed before the issue of implementing a Breathalyzer is looked at
again. Even if none of the issues mentioned above existed, there are still
unanswered questions as well as unclear areas of this policy, which should
be clarified. The School Committee must also bear in mind that there are
serious consequences if this policy does in fact pass.

According to a legal document obtained from Dighton-Rehoboth Regional High
School, a public school that administered the Breathalyzer at school events,
there are "two applicable privacy rights that must be considered: the Fourth
Amendment of the United States Constitution and Article XIV of the
Massachusetts Declaration of Rights."

The Fourth Amendment states, "The right of the people ... against
unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated." Also, a warrant
based on probable cause must be issued prior to the search. However, this
amendment was weakened for students when in the school building in the
Supreme Court Case New Jersey vs. TLO. This case established that
reasonableness, not probable cause, would dictate searches for students.
"Under ordinary circumstances, the search of a student by a school official
will be justified at its inception where there are reasonable grounds for
suspecting that the search will turn up evidence that the student has
violated or is violating either the law or the rules of the school. And such
a search will ... not (be) excessively intrusive in light of the student's
age and sex and the nature of the infraction," according to the Supreme
Court of the United States of America.

Since entering a dance is not a violation of any laws or school rules, there
are no grounds which would constitute reasonable suspicion. That would make
any type of search a violation of student's rights. A test like the
Breathalyzer is very intrusive as it measures blood-alcohol content. Such an
intrusive test should not be performed based on the infraction. If a student
or adult has performed an act that would raise suspicion that he or she is
under the influence of drugs or alcohol, the school then has a reason and a
test would be warranted.

In another Supreme Court Case related to the Fourth Amendment as it applies
to school children, Vernonia School District v. Acton, it states that random
drug testing of athletes is permissible. The reason the Supreme Court of the
United States of America concluded this, was due to extraneous circumstances
that were in that particular school. According to the court, Vernonia High
School had a tremendous increase in drug use. This extended drug use caused
several disruptions in the educational process. It was determined that the
athletes not only used drugs, but were the leaders of the drug culture. The
district saw many drug-related sports injuries. In order to curb drug use,
several alternative steps were taken, such as special classes, speakers and
presentations.

Westport High School does not have the same problems that this district had,
or the degree to which it had them. First of all, there was such a
substantial use of drugs that it disrupted class and increased the number of
disciplinary transgressions threefold. I do not think that three people
getting caught drinking at a dance puts Westport Community Schools in the
same position as Vernonia. Also, the district saw many sports-related
injuries, whereas Westport has seen few, if any, prom-related injuries.

Another legal issue that should be kept in mind is Article XIV of the
Massachusetts Declaration of Rights. There has not been any court case that
has challenged this article regarding blanket or random searches.

I would also like to mention that at the end of the legal document from
Dighton-Rehoboth, it states that the law offices of Long & Long advise
against the blanket testing for ingestion or possession of drugs. They also
advise against a pat-down search. This sounds like the law firm is
contradicting itself and opening the schools who use it to several potential
legal problems. The question that the School Committee has to ask itself is
why it is OK to do a Breathalyzer test, but not a drug test. The Supreme
Court case mentioned above related to drug, not alcohol, testing. To clear
up all potential for legal problems, it would be best just to do
Breathalyzer and drug tests based on suspicion.

As for logistics, it is just not practical to administer a Breathalyzer test
to more than 200 people in a reasonable amount of time. For example, at the
previous School Committee meeting, it took approximately five minutes for
Chair Deana Chase to get an accurate reading from a Breathalyzer. If you
multiply five minutes by 200 people it comes out to 1,000 minutes to
administer the test to all students. If there were only one Breathalyzer, at
this rate, it would take just under 17 hours to complete the testing; with
six testing stations it would last over two hours and forty-five minutes.
Keep in mind that this is a best-case scenario; it will take additional time
if someone tests positive on one machine and they have to be retested.
Another concern is, how many parents know this is going to happen? As far as
I know, no one has made an effort to inform parents. No parents would know
if the students did not take it upon themselves to tell them. A decision of
this magnitude should not be made without informing all of the people who it
affects.

I also have a question as to when do you stop editing a policy and start
creating a new one. In my opinion, this proposed policy, JICH-R, is the
creation of an "-R" policy, which means that this potential change should
have gotten three reads as opposed to the two, which the School Committee is
giving it.

A large problem that I have with the passage of the policy is the date on
which that is going to happen. The scheduled date for the School Committee
to vote on this is Monday, April 27. That is only nine days before the prom.
This is unfair to students because some of them, like myself, are awaiting
this decision before they decide whether or not they will attend. Since the
purchase of prom tickets must be done prior to April vacation, it appears
that my supporters and I will not attend the prom, due solely to the fact
that WHS, and Westport Community Schools administrators procrastinated.

As far as the policy goes, as it stands right now, there are several
unanswered questions and inaccuracies. First of all, on the second page of
the informational agenda packet from the April 6, 1998, School Committee
meeting, the memorandum from Dean Ron Pacy states that he received a
"favorable response from students." I would like to know which students he
asked because when I polled several of my classmates, it seemed to be almost
a 50-50 split.

On the third page, where the policy begins, it states that the purpose of
the Breathalyzer is to make sure that no alcohol was used prior to arriving
at the event. I was under the impression that the purpose of the
Breathalyzer was to stop students from hurting themselves or others by
drinking and driving. If someone arrives at the prom sober, who is to say
that because they were sober when they arrived that they would not leave
drunk, or vice versa.

An area of the policy that is unclear is the sentence that states, "We will
take additional precautions to ensure that drinking does not occur." This
sentence is a vague statement that gives the adults at the dance the power
to do whatever they want, including, but not limited to, random tests at any
time during the event. This sentence should be cleared up to say exactly
what the "additional precautions" are. Another area where an explanation is
needed is the definition of a "school-sponsored event." Graduation is a
school-sponsored event; is a Breathalyzer going to be administered there?
The statement, "Testing may be done at the conclusion of the event, as
well," creates a great deal of controversy to me. It is another part of the
policy that gives the people at the dance the freedom to do what they want.
The policy needs to be clear and say either it will be given at the
conclusion or it will not.

It states in the policy that WHS staff will administer the Breathalyzer. My
problem with this is those people are not properly trained in the use of the
equipment. Not to mention that it would significantly change a teacher's
view of a student if the teacher found out that this student was drinking
before the event. In other words, it brings up the concern that the
student's right to privacy is being neglected.

The last issue that I have with the policy is the timeline on which it is
supposed to be ratified. On the timeline, it states that the Student Council
was supposed to be approached on two different dates. Neither of these
meeting took place. The other problem I had with the timeline was mentioned
above, regarding the obvious lack of time between the actual decision and
the prom.

Based on the several false premises used to come to the conclusion that the
Breathalyzer is legal and the many questions that have arisen, it is my
opinion that the School Committee should decide not to implement WHS
education policy JICH-R. When making this decision the School Committee must
keep in mind the serious potential for a lawsuit.