The facts of every case are different. We'll have to see where HAwaii ACLU case goes. Regardless, I doon't see what happened in Hawaii becoming a national trend.

I'm still waiting for corroboration on your post #44.

The case is being disputed on constitutionality. Why would any facts on those grounds be any different for a group of teachers than say a group of office workers? Does the Constitution have seperate protection for the teachers than it does for other groups? I don't think any of us believe that. So, what types of facts can be presented contesting the constitutionality of drug testing that would be different in each case?

I highly doubt this case will go anywhere. This matter has already been decided. We have minors that are randomly drug tested in schools, why should the treatment of adults be any different?

Supreme Court Broadens Drug Testing of Students



That was from 2002. I doubt any district court will find differently from the SCOTUS.

This is highly demeaning Amlord. While we're at it we might as well demand that teachers do detention and other things we impose on students. It seems you have so little confidence in teachers that you wish to treat them like children. Is this how you treat your doctor, dentist, lawyer or employees? This is quite an authoritarian statement, if I may say so.

Seriously, Fort Worth ISD does extensive criminal background checks on all employees. If a person gets to be 25 or 30 with no criminal record, has achieved a degree and a state issued teaching certificate, then that should distinguish them from students.


Your predictions tend to minimize almost everything you don't agree with. Do yhou remember trying to minimize the impact of George Allen's "macaca" statement.



Most of us know what happened to him.

Just a suggestion...

Some of you need to read John Dean's book, Conservatives Without Conscience.

http://www.amazon.com/Conservatives-Withou...8419&sr=1-2

Oh, that helped things along, we could go back and forth for days listing political books. What is your point?

Well, you won't know unless you read it, but it was just a suggestion so you are free to ignore it.

You have proven a point. Can you explain to us, why constitutionality of random drug tests have never been successfully contested, and how you expect the ACLU to win this case?

Yep, there are plenty of cases. The city of Hollywood's drug testing policy was struck down after an accountant who wanted to work for the city filed a lawsuit. The city of Chattanooga laso had their mass drug testing program turned back. A random drug test policy for bus dipatchers and other city workers was also declared unconstitutional as well. A required one for political candidates was also snuffed out. The court precedence is there. However, the 1980s has seen a sway based on questions that have nothing to do with the 4th amendment and personal rights, but rather, the rights of schools as "custodial authorities" and what not. If the question isn't posed right.........



Well, a teacher who is high or drunk most days, won't have enough sick time or personal leave to "mask" it or cover up the problem. He/she will be found out quickly and adequately sent out the door. Random testing isn't responsible for that.



Not really, cases have overturned random testing in the past. Not only that, administrators can find out very easily if someone comes to school high. Teachers and students will NOT keep that a secret. "Psssst!, did you see Mr. Jones smoking the J??"



See the above, already provided.

It seems scubatim that nebraska29 has given us an adequate number of cases. You must remember that this will start in a Federal District Court in Hawaii, a fairly liberal blue state. I don't have a crystal ball, tarot cards or a Gypsy soothsayer to guide me, so I'm not going to guess how it will turn out, at least in the initial phases.

Once again, items on you are protected, but not items in you?

There is legal precedence for counting bodily fluids as personal effects. Consider;

Forced extraction of parolee blood was struck down under grounds that the state failed to prove "individual suspicion" A case involving the extraction of blood from an unconscious accident victim was also ruled to favor the 4th amendment line of reasoning as outlined above. Other fluids such as saliva have also been found to be considered personal effects.

This is an article written by the ACLU. As you will see from what I found in another of your examples, the ruling may not have necessarily been on the constitutionality, but other factors. Do you have the actual judges opinion on this?


This doesn't seem to me that this type of search is unconstitutional according to this quote from your link.




This case, as I refered to in my first response wasn't decided on constitutionality as one would think.


So far, I have seen nothing that says drug testing is unconstitutional.



Actually read the links and my response before you put your victory hats on.

The following groups SHOULD be randomly drug tested:

Police officers, judges, attorneys-at-law, district attorneys, baseball players, members of Congress, The President of The United States of America, air traffic controllers, doctors, nurses, fire fighters, politicians, light house operators, rappers, everyone in Hollywood, anyone who has access to information that if it fell into the wrong hands would jeopardize the national security of the United States.

The following groups SHOULD NOT be randomly tested: Everybody else.

ESPECIALLY not the teachers. Test the parents of the children before you test the teachers.

Ummmm, you cited the comments of the DISSENTING OPINION by Ralph B. Guy. Sorry, but the firefighters won that case. Click here for an academic source that is based on the case. Look under "Employee drug testing" and you'll find the reference.


(from the above hyperlink)

From the last paragraph of the Lovvron case:




Scubatim's 2nd point of contention:


It was a constitutional matter, it was one of privacy. Text of decision.


My hyperlink isn't working on the third case, will have to handle that one after chasing my kiddos around.

I concede to my error. As I have said before, there may be cases, and I am glad someone was willing to actually have an intelligent debate.


I am curious as to why teachers get such a status.

Anyone could make that mistake, quite frankly, I had a hard time picking out the majority opinion from the dissenting opinion myself. The people who published the decision online could've done a better job on that. As for the second case, they did talk a lot about certain jobs being tested, as opposed to blanket testing for all jobs. So yes, there are other factors and these cases do contain a cluster of other issues, surrounded by the one or two big ones that they decide on at the same time. Kinda weird, but if you wore black robes all day and were geriatric, you would be odd too drinking your V-8 juice.

I still can't find the third link-got me there bro. I'm still digging...........DOH!

From what you have pointed out, and from what I have read, I would be willing to change my position that the facts of individual cases can make a determination of what is reasonable or not. Obviously, for a cop to be even smoking a joint off the job, there would be a large amount of hypocrisy, not to mention a danger that is posed if he decides to light up while sitting at a speed trap. It is my opinion that those that have such an influence on children as well as are constantly interacting with children should be drug free, and we as a society should ensure it.

1.)Should teachers be randomly drug tested? If so, why would this or why would it not violate the principle of "probable cause."?

I don’t have a problem with a pee test in order to get hired, but I do have a problem with random drug testing. If a teacher is obviously impaired, or is observed drinking/doing drugs, then there is probable cause to test them; otherwise, it’s a violation of probable cause.

It seems that the whole issue is at a stalemate. The Board of Education has voted to deny funding for the program, and the governor refuses to retract it and threatens to take away teachers’ raises.

I agree with the Board that the money is better spent on educating, and not randomly testing teachers. Isn’t it hard enough to encourage people to join the teaching profession without this?

In a letter to the governor, the teachers make an excellent point: “Leaving teachers with the false impression that they may stand up for their civil rights only at the expense of their salaries treads on their constitutional freedoms.”


That's hysterical!!

2.)Is this law really necessary? Or should administrator monitoring suffice?

I wondered what prompted the idea, and whaddya know, some teachers were found to be drug users, so the knee jerk reaction is “let’s test all the teachers!” It seems to me they found the teachers who were abusing drugs and got rid of them. That tells me the system works fine as it is without penalizing innocent people and without violating teachers’ constitutional rights. (Source)


3.)If you are tested due to what others might think you are taking, is it the equivalent of an "improper search and seizure" of your bodily fluids?

They’d better have a damned good reason for “thinking” that. If I was obviously impaired, and didn’t offer a reasonable explanation as to why, then there is a probable cause for me to be tested. Otherwise, MYOB.

Because the job of a teacher is to educate children. Not to crack their chests and massage their hearts like a doctor or operate a motor vehicle in a high-speed pursuit in a running gun battle that goes through a school zone like a cop might.

Until someone can prove to me that a teacher who snorts a line of coke or shoots up heroin or smokes cigar-sized joints is MORE dangerous than a teacher who guzzles a bottle of vodka during lunch or smokes five packs of cigarettes I don't see any practical good that comes from making 60-year-old Miss Grundy tinkle into a cup for a urine sample.

When drug testing can identify which teachers are sexual predators and pedophiles exploiting children, I'll back it 100 percent. Until then, I think it's an ineffective and unwise usage of my tax dollars.

If drug testing makes it possible to get rid of unprepared, unmotivated, poorly trained and blatantly incompetent teachers I'll sign the petition to make it mandatory, but not a moment sooner.

I'm weary of surrendering the rights of the individual to satisfy the stupid impulses of the mob to conduct witch hunts, violate the privacy of people and further degrade and devalue the profession of teaching more than we already have.

Our educational system has many problems but being overrun with drug fiends shaping the minds of our next generation is so far down the list as to not even being on the list.

I like that idea. If you're a parent and you're randomly caught using and you have kids in the house, then they have to live with someone else for a year.

I'll pass. Every day.

Which is why I expect nothing less from a state employee whose job it would be to educate my kid.

C'mon, Nighttimer...

How about instead of MORE dangerous, even EQUALLY dangerous?

There's a reason you're not allowed to guzzle vodka. Or do coke or heroin.

Without drug-testing, where is the proof that they did any of it?

So being alert in front of kids is not important. Is that what you're suggesting?

But Nebraska made the most interesting point, IMHO:

That's a great idea. Taken to its illogical conclusion, the cook at McD's could be fried out of his mind and serve you a double McE-coli value menu, and it's his right to do so? He wouldn't even get punished. His employer would get sued, and that same employer who is liable has no right to correct the problem, much less know about it until someone gets hurt?

Your car mechanic could sell the new car parts he was originally going to put on your car for his coke addiction, and slap cheap used parts in your car. After all, what HE does on his free time doesn't matter, and is none of ANYBODY's business.

How about bus drivers and taxi cab drivers? Still none of our business? I'd argue that if the manager has even the faintest HINT of suspicion, it's his job to protect the company he works for, the customers, and his own job for that matter.

What you're saying is that none of these guys' employers have a right to know if they have a safe workplace, yet the employers MUST fix the problem regardless, IF it is discovered, regardless of whether or not people were injured in the process.

Drugs are for losers. I'm shocked people are defending them, especially when it comes to being under the influence around children.

And yeah, I have a problem with a joint, or a line, or whatever. You did something illegal by buying it, and then another illegal action by doing it, and obviously, that's more important to you than the priority of being a responsible role model. You should keep your state job, but at the Dog Parks picking up poop.

It only takes one day to do something REALLY stupid or unintelligent in front of kids. I didn't realize we already had an influx of inebriated teachers coming to school every day that we were going through to conclude logic like this. If it's soooo "random" that we'd catch someone, then let's do it and weed out the losers before some kid actually gets hurt.

But a Teachers Union will defend every teacher tooth and nail. And then there's the whole "Passing The Trash" link I posted about how disciplined teachers end up in a classroom down the street with high praise and recommendations when they should have been a "Will Not Rehire" status like the rest of us. Lucky us.

If I was drug tested and failed, I'd be out the door, and out of my entire industry. Nice to see that State Employees have the right to get loaded without the fear of consequence.

And influence. That would implied by us putting our children under their supervision for at least 8 hours per day.


Oh, now I understand, since teachers are all 60 year-old little ladies, it all makes sense to me. I mean, I wouldn't let my kids hang out with the street junkies that only get high under bridges downtown, but teacher that get high are just fine? I don't see any difference between the two. They are both junkies.


No, they don't. They do however find the drug addict teachers, who of which I would not want around my children. Again, a junkie is a junkie. Get someone addicted to heroine or crack and their motivations in life tend to get focused on one thing, no matter what their profession is.


I don't see concerned parents wanting their children to be around drug free adults as "the stupid impulses of the mob to conduct witch hunts", but that might be where you and I differ.


A statement of opinion. I don't think it is the biggest problem, but I don't think it needs to be ignored.

As a libertarian, I am against all drug screening, with the exception of job performance question- but random screening has always been unconstitutional to me, and I believe the supreme court decisions allow it are wrong. The exception is those that operate on public roads or airways.

However, unless the test can be proven to be over 98% accurate in showing impairment ON THE JOB ONLY- in otherwords- the mere presence in the blood stream- no, can't use it- but if it can show you were high at the time of an accident at work or something, or that you are impaired on the job, it should not be allowed to be used at all. What a person does away from the job in terms of recreationally getting high- should not be allowed to be any of the employers business, EVER.

Schools really only treat teachers and students equally when they're logged on MySpace. Inappropriate pictures will get an instructor in as much trouble as the scholarship pageant winner. The school injects itself into the lives of students, why shouldn't it be expected to do the same for the people it employees? People who choose to be there. People who aren't required by law to be in attendance? It's a bit totalitarian to say "police the children, they need a firm hand" and then not control the staff. The fact-of-the-matter is that the bus stop isn't really school property, but kids still get expelled at times for what goes on there[ A.) They're not on school-time, which most sets of rules acknowledge as the only time for disciplinary action other than field trips which require a written form of consent for the rules to apply; B.) There are no desks] I digress.

Teachers shouldn't have immunity from the same violations we as students face daily. Teachers are employees of the state and should thereby be subject to laws existing for FBI Agents, Police Officers, and Firefighters. They don't carry guns, but they carry integrity and intellectual security of a generation and should be held to the standards of their fellows. It's a bigger security risk to have a meth-head as a teacher than it is a student, because students get to play hookey with no monetary threat looming.

I'm not a big fan of indiscriminate drug testing of students either. The one place we've pretty much boxed ourselves in on this one is athletics, where performance enhancing drugs is a raging issue.

My guess is that laws differ dramatically from one state to another and will continue to do so.

That would be an interesting parallel study. I just think there needs to be a requirement from the government that makes teachers comply with drug-testing. To work in a slaughter-house you have to comply. Heck, if we require that labour market to take drug-tests, we can at least compel those charged with prodding children in the right direction to do it. They're not that invasive, and as a Libertarian I'm shocked to say, especially if you have nothing to hide.