SUPREME COURT TO HEAR ARGUMENTS IN CASE PITTING POLICY AGAINST PRIVACY

Lindsay Earls doesn't fit the profile of a drug user.

At high school in tiny Tecumseh, Okla., the articulate teenager was on the
school's academic team, in the choir and the marching band. Her high grades
won her a spot at Dartmouth College, where she now is a freshman.

But three years ago as a high school sophomore, Ms. Earls was picked
randomly for a school drug test, and required to fill a cup with urine,
while a teacher stood outside the bathroom stall listening to make sure she
was providing her own sample. Her test was negative, but she was angry.

"I felt it was an invasion of my privacy, stepping into realms where only
my parents needed to go," she says. So Ms. Earls and another student sued
the school, saying such testing violated their Fourth Amendment protection
against "unreasonable searches and seizures."

The Supreme Court, which hears arguments in the case on Tuesday, must
decide whether a compelling policy goal -- curtailing teenage drug use --
takes priority over students' privacy rights. Although teenage drug use is
down from the epidemic levels of the 1970s, use of illegal drugs, mostly
marijuana , is still high, with about 54% of high school seniors reporting
that they had used some illicit drug, a number that has held steady during
the past five years, according to a study by the University of Michigan in
Ann Arbor.

In 1995, the Supreme Court ruled that an Oregon school district where there
was heavy drug use could randomly select high school athletes for drug
tests. The justices decided that the Fourth Amendment could be trumped
because student athletes there were heavy drug users, were at high risk of
injury if they played under the influence of drugs, and already had given
up some privacy by joining teams and undressing in locker rooms.

In the Oklahoma case, involving a school with less drug use, the high court
will decide whether to push the legal boundaries to include students who
participate in any competitive extracurricular activity -- from
cheerleading to Future Farmers of America and Future Homemakers of America.

"If the court says that at a school like this, drug testing is OK ... that
means you can drug test 24 million kids in America," says Graham Boyd, an
American Civil Liberties Union lawyer who is representing Ms. Earls. He was
referring to the number of students nationwide in grades six through 12.

Tecumseh middle school and high school, with a total of about 1,000
students, serve a rural community dotted with small cattle farms. Many
residents make the 45-minute drive each day to Oklahoma City to work at a
big General Motors Corp. plant or Tinker Air Force Base. School
Superintendent Tom Wilsie says crime isn't much of a problem.

"I never felt unsafe in my high school," says Ms. Earls, who describes the
school as "a place where everyone knows everyone else."

That familiarity contributed to her embarrassment when she was told over
the intercom to report to the school's alumni hall one morning in early
1999. Everybody knew that is where the drug testing took place, she says.
After filling out paperwork listing her doctor's name and any prescription
drugs she might be taking, Ms. Earls and two other girls were escorted to
the bathroom for a urine test. "It was humiliating and uncomfortable," she
recalls. "This was my English teacher and academic team coach monitoring it."

In its filings to the Supreme Court, the school district said the random
testing is a response to "a longstanding problem of drug use" among
Tecumseh students. At a board of education meeting in February 1998, a
parent discussed drug use involving her son and other students, according
to the filing. In September 1998, at the beginning of the school year, the
district began random drug testing of children participating in
extracurricular activities.

The test results showed no widespread problem. Of the 243 students tested
during the 1998-99 academic year, only three tested positive. The following
year, only one student of 241 tested positive. The school argued that the
testing itself was "effective in deterring drug use."

A U.S. district court upheld the school's program, but was reversed by the
U.S. Appeals Court in Denver. Relying on the Supreme Court's ruling in the
Oregon case, the appeals court said that "while there was clearly some drug
use at the Tecumseh schools, such use among students subject to the testing
policy was negligible. It was vastly different from the epidemic of drug
use and discipline problems" at the Oregon school.

For many educators and parents concerned about teenage drug use, that is a
statistical distinction without a difference. They worry that they won't
detect drug use among teens until they are confronted with a serious
problem. "Drug testing has two values," says Calvina Fay, executive
director of Drug Free America Foundation, which provides information to
parents and others. "It serves as a very strong deterrent and it serves as
an excellent detection tool."

Referring to the national statistic on drug use by high school seniors, she
adds: "If we had 50% of our children contracting AIDS or tuberculosis,
everybody would be up in arms."

Not all parents see the issue that way, according to a brief filed to the
Supreme Court. A group, including 19 parents and grandparents of children
who attend, or will attend, Tecumseh high school, argued that the drug
testing "takes parenting away from the parents ... unfairly targets
children who are unlikely to use drugs ... stamps a badge of shame onto
children whose parents might wish to approach the issue of drug use without
imposing mandatory urinalysis on their children."

During the past three years, only about an average of 5% of schools give
random drug tests to student athletes, according to a limited survey
conducted by the University of Michigan's Institute for Social Research.

But that number could grow rapidly, says Lloyd Johnston, of the institute,
if the Supreme Court broadens the category of people who may be tested.
"That certainly would make school administrators feel more free to test
other students," he says.