1. Dear Drugs-Forum readers: We are a small non-profit that runs one of the most read drug information & addiction help websites in the world. We serve over 4 million readers per month, and have costs like all popular websites: servers, hosting, licenses and software. To protect our independence we do not run ads. We take no government funds. We run on donations which average $25. If everyone reading this would donate $5 then this fund raiser would be done in an hour. If Drugs-Forum is useful to you, take one minute to keep it online another year by donating whatever you can today. Donations are currently not sufficient to pay our bills and keep the site up. Your help is most welcome. Thank you.

Suspicionless drug testing for public college students ruled unconstitutional

  1. 5-HT2A
    A US district court judge in Missouri ruled Friday that a technical college violated the Fourth Amendment's protections against unreasonable searches and seizures when it ordered all students to submit to mandatory, suspicionless drug tests. The judge did allow the drug testing of students in a small number of programs where school officials could make a reasonable argument that public safety was at stake.
    The ruling by Judge Nanette Laughrey in Jefferson City came in Barrett v. Claycomb, a case filed by Linn State Technical College students against the college and its president, Donald Claycomb, after the college announced in 2011 it would require all incoming students to undergo drug testing.

    Federal courts have traditionally held that drug testing by government entities without particularized suspicion that an individual is using drugs is unconstitutional. The federal courts have upheld only limited exceptions -- for minor school students, for certain law enforcement personnel, and for public safety -- but Linn State had argued that its policy was constitutional because some of its students were training in professions with public safety implications.

    But citing the school's own admission that there had never been a drug-related accident in the 50-year history of the campus and closely reading previous federal court decisions on the public safety exception, Judge Laughery found that in only three academic programs of the 28 offered by the school was there a sufficient public safety interest that would allow suspicionless drug testing.

    The judge issued a permanent injunction barring Linn State from conducting suspicionless drug tests of students except in those three programs. She also ordered the school to destroy all existing urine samples from students who are not in those programs and to refund the $50 drug test cost to all those students.

    The students in the case were represented by the ACLU of Eastern Missouri, which challenged the drug testing policy in a 2011 lawsuit.

    "Like most Americans, Missourians are tired of the War on Drugs and policies that assume that everyone is guilty of illegal drug use," said ACLU of Eastern Missouri executive director Jeffrey Mittman. "The court recognized that illusory safety concerns can be used 'to mask unconstitutional purposes.'"

    "Forcing students to provide urine samples violates their constitutional rights," said Tony Rothert, legal director of the ACLU-EM. "To make matters worse, students had to pay the college $50 each for the tests that violated their privacy."

    By Phillip Smith

    September 13, 2013



  1. Guppe
    This article just simply makes me mad! The war on drug just seems to be endless. I would be livid if I was a student after paying tuition, and had to pay $50 for a unneeded drug screening when I wasn't showing signs of drug abuse. It's not like most students have extra room in their budgets, especially for something so unnecessary.

    I completely understand and even agree with drug testing if the student hold important jobs that require that they must be sober, for everyone's safety's concern. Some people simply are just not responsible with drugs.

    The fact that their hasn't been a drug-related incident on campus in 50 years shows to me that their are alternative motives at work here, not just the students safety is being thought about. Their is a reason for everything I believe, and their has to be a reason that this recently just taken into effect.

    In my opinion, completely of course, college students are the one who mainly should have access to these drugs. Just having the ambition to want to go to college shows to me that you have some form of responsibility, plus its harder to lose your life to drugs when you have many responsibilities to keep up with. These drugs can be very enlightening and useful to the right people, and it seems like such a waste to have this policy.
To make a comment simply sign up and become a member!