A high school principal was alerted by police that there was a substantial amount of crack cocaine being sold and used at the school. He therefore ordered that every candidate for a sports team at the school submit to a drug test before becoming eligible to play, and ordered random searches of student lockers at the school.
A basketball star, who had no record of drug use or possession, declined to take a drug test and brought suit to compel the school to permit him to play on the basketball team. The trial court denied relief, and the basketball star appealed.
When the school officials made a random search of the school lockers, they found small quantities of crack cocaine in the locker of a student, and he was charged with unlawful possession of the substance. The student made a motion to suppress the evidence of crack cocaine. The trial court denied the motion. The student was subsequently convicted and appealed.
The appellate court should decide in favor of:
A. The basketball star, but not the student.
B. The student, but not the basketball star.
C. Both the student and the basketball star.
D. Neither the student, nor the basketball star.
{ 11 comments… read them below or add one }
b- BC DRUG TEST ON STUDENTS IS LEGAL AND UNDER ADMINISTRATIVE SEARCH AND REAS SUSPICION A SEARCH OF LOCKERS IS A WARRANTLESS SEARCH EXCEPTION.
B cannot be the answer because the facts state that the high school principal ordered random searches of student lockers after he was alerted by police that there was a substantial amount of crack cocaine being sold and used at the school. Therefore the school had reasonable grounds for the search. This is in line with the reasonable suspicion requirement under New Jersey v. T.L.O, 469 U.S. 325 (1985), and gives the school the right to search the lockers. D is a better answer
Answer B is correct. The student will prevail on appeal but the basketball star will not. School authorities under New Jersey v. T.L.O, 469 U.S. 325 (1985), have the right to search school lockers providing they have a reasonable suspicion that there has been a breach of school rules. In this case the search was random without any reasonable suspicion that there was a breach of schools rules and the search was random in nature. Therefore the search was invalid. On the other hand, the Court in Veronia School District 47J v. Acton, 515 U.S 646 (1995), upheld the authority of school officials to require drug tests as a condition of participation in school athletics. Therefore the basketball star will not prevail. Therefore, A, C, and D are incorrect.
Answer “D” for the reasons below.
In New Jersey v. T. L. O., 469 U.S. 325 (1985), the Supreme Court ruled that searches in public schools do not require warrants, as long as the searching authorities have reasonable grounds for believing that the search will result in the finding of evidence of illegal activity. Therefore, the trial court ruled correctly and the appellate court should not decide in favor of the student.
Drug testing is a required element for participating in the sports program, it applies to all who choose to participate. If the ball player chooses not to take the drug test he is also choosing not to participate in the sports program and is not entitled to relief. Therefore, the trial court ruled correctly and the appellate court should not rule in favor of the basketball star.
D is the best answer. Drug testing of students who participate in extracurricular activities does not violate the 4th Amendment. Reasonable grounds (substantial crack selling and use at the school) seem to be present here to allow a random search of school lockers.
Answer is B. The Basketball player is involved in a school sport which are subject to drug tests. School lockers are subject to a reasonable expectation of privacy, since they are school property, and the school can do random searches since they suspect that there is a substantial amount of crack cocaine being sold and used in the school.
answer D.
Answer D
D – the basketball star does not have an equal protection claim and the student does not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in his locket. Both actions will fail. If the facts had taken place in college, the student may have had a privacy expectation
B
–
Random is no go, but the basketball player consented at least constructively to the search.
B – Students lockers have REP unless otherwise notified that schools are going to search, which is silent here. There is no REP for drug tests even though I hope the best for the basketball star…