DRUG TESTING CASE REVISITED IN DOCUMENTARY

That was the case three years ago in nearby Lockney, when Larry Tannahill, a
third-generation cotton farmer, took a stand -- alone, except for family
support -- and refused to give the school board permission to ask his son to
give a urine sample and be tested for drugs.

Once the source of newspaper headlines, the court case is the subject of the
one-hour documentary "Larry v. Lockney," made by Jim Schermbeck and Mark
Binbaum and televised on KTXT-TV Channel 5 (Cox Cable Channel 4).

Final screenings this month are at 2 p.m. today and 10 a.m. July 20.

To the credit of the filmmakers, Tannahill's lonely route through the court
system is followed until the day in March 2001 when U.S. District Judge Sam
Cummings ruled that Lockney's drug-testing policy was unconstitutional.

However, the cameras also capture the viewpoints of school board members,
teachers, students and journalists in Lockney, with Tannahill's opponents
pointing out they did not give up.

They just lacked funds necessary to file an appeal.

The documentary, like Cummings' ruling, also may not influence anyone to
change sides in this controversial matter. At least not in Lockney. But it
is bound to open a few eyes and make a lot of people think.

Tannahill was treated like a pariah in his hometown; that much is made
clear. When he and an attorney approach the school board a final time, it is
at a meeting moved to the high school gymnasium to accommodate townspeople,
many wearing T-shirts reflecting their support of the drug-testing policy.
Tannahill's spokesman asks the board a final time to reconsider.

The next day, Tannahill is fired from his job. His dog is shot with a paint
gun, and a note is left indicating that the next time it won't be a paint
gun -- and the target may not be a dog. Tannahill loses his home. All
because he refused to go with the flow, and because he wanted both of his
sons to know he trusted them.

Tannahill repeats that he is not against volunteer drug testing, but he
could not abide with the school district testing the urine of students who
were not even suspect. His attorneys with the American Civil Liberties Union
said that the drug testing defied the Constitutional right to freedom from
unlawful search and seizure.

At one point, Tannahill even says that the Constitution was the only victor.