COURT LIMITS ON SCHOOL'S ABILITY TO DRUG-TEST STUDENTS

HARRISBURG, Pa. (AP) -- A desire to discourage drug use among students is
not a sufficient reason to justify 'suspicionless' drug screening targeted
at student-athletes, parking-permit holders and extracurricular-activity
participants, the state Supreme Court ruled.

The justices turned down the Delaware Valley School District's attempt to
have a lawsuit in Pike County dismissed, meaning a legal challenge seeking
to block the testing filed by two sisters -- who had passed the drug
screening and have since graduated -- and their parents can proceed.

The family's lawyer said the ruling provides Pennsylvania students with
privacy rights beyond the limits of a 2002 U.S. Supreme Court case that
upheld random testing of participants in an Oklahoma school district's
extracurricular activities.

'What the Pennsylvania court did, is (it) said, 'Well, the Pennsylvania
Constitution does recognize the privacy right.' That is, it affords the
students (a) broader right of privacy than the U.S. Supreme Court held,'
said the lawyer, Robert N. Isseks.

The majority opinion, issued Thursday, said the school district has failed
to produce sufficient proof its students have a drug problem, has not shown
the targeted students contribute to any drug problem and has not described
how the policy addresses whatever problem may exist.

The Supreme Court attacked the northeastern Pennsylvania district's testing
of 'student leaders' as a means of setting an example for the rest of the
student body.

'The theory apparently is that, even in the absence of any suspicion of drug
or alcohol abuse, it is appropriate to single these students out and say, in
effect: 'Choose one: your Pennsylvania constitutional right to privacy or
the chess club,'' Justice Ronald D. Castille wrote in a 32-page opinion.

'What lesson does a program targeting the personal privacy of some but not
all students, and lacking both individualized suspicion or any reasoned
basis for a suspicionless search, teach our young?' Castille wrote.

He said a focused only on athletes and student drivers would have been a
closer call for the justices because it would raise safety considerations --
as opposed to 'students in the band, chess club, drama club or academic
clubs,' groups the court said ' 'simply do not pose the same sort of danger
to themselves or others.'