Issue
The education laws stipulate that drug testing of teachers is “a search for Fourth Amendment purposes” (Imber and Geel, 2009 p. 413). To be more precise, in case “school officials have reasonable grounds to suspect that an employee is intoxicated or possesses drugs or alcohol at school, required testing does not violate the Fourth Amendment” (Imber and Geel, 2009, p. 413).
In this regard, the Knox County Board of Education has introduced the new policy for pre-testing the applicants on drugs and alcohol before accepting them for a particular position. The introduced action was negatively accepted by the Know County Education Association that represented the rights of professional employees because it violated the Fourth Amendment’s prohibitions “from unreasonable searchers and seizures” (Search and Seizure Issues, 2008, n. p.).
In the course of juridical procedures, the US Courte of Appeals in the Sixth Circuit supported the constitutionality of drug testing procedures held in school (Search and Seizure Issues, 2008, n. p.). The justices expressed their consent with the school district that administrators and teachers should hold “safety-sensitive” position in the school. Only in this case, they may undergo blood testing under specific circumstances (Owings and Kaplan, 2003, p. 213).
According to the International Labor Office (1993), drug testing will be carried out “in pre-employment physical examination of persons to whom a conditional offer of employment has been made” (p. 349). Therefore, “If a person show evidence of current use of drugs or abuse of alcohol, such person will not be employed.” (International Labor Office, 1993, p. 349)
Question
Does Know County Board of Education have sufficient legal underpinnings for violating the Fourth Amendment?
Rules
- The Fourth Amendment of the US Constitution
- Education Law
- Employment Law
Analysis
It is imperative to focus on the analysis of the Board decision and reasons for introducing such policy and to pay attention to such words as “safety sensitive” position and “suspicion-based testing”. Also, the violation of the Fourth Amendment does not have reasonable grounds in the case under consideration. Therefore, their actions were too broad and vague and failed to take into consideration the rights of employees in the workplace.
Points are necessary to pay attention to
- First of all, the term “safety sensitive” was considered to be ambiguous and broad to be considered a reasonable identification. None of the discussions clarified the reasons for defining this position as such.
- Second, there were no specifications concerning the term “suspicion-based testing” and, therefore, it was hard to accept along with a challenge for the Fourth Amendment. Thus, any discussion that touched upon the analysis of suspicion-based testing was not provided in the case.
- There was no discussion about the circumstances under which the Board’s initiative for drug testing was justified. To be more precise, there were no clarifications concerning reasonable grounds according to which the blood and drug testing did not violate the Fourth Amendment.
Reference List
Alexander, K., and Alexander, M. D. (2005). American Public School Law. US: Cengage Learning.
Imber, M., and Geel, T. V. (2009). Education Law. US: Taylor & Francis.
International Labour Office (1993). Worker’s Privacy: Testing in the Workplace. US: International Labour Organization.
Owings, W. A., and Kaplan, L. S. (2003). Best Practices, best thinking, and emerging issues in school. US: Corwin Press.
Search and Seizure Issues. (2008). Department of Elementary and Secondary Education. Web.
Walsh J., Kemerer, F., and Laurie M. (2010). The Educator’s Guide to Texas School Law: Seventh Edition.