03-04-2001
ACLU Newsfeed -- ACLU News Direct to YOU!

		IN THE ACLU NEWSROOM



FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Friday, March 2, 2001

LUBBOCK, TX -- US DISTRICT JUDGE Sam R. Cummings
"...made it clear that 'general concerns' about 'maintaining
drug-free' schools OR 'desires' to 'detect illegal conduct' 
are insufficient as a matter of law," the opinion said."

"The court's ruling sends an important message to 'school 
districts' across the nation that they CANNOT TREAT STUDENTS
 LIKE SUSPECTS," said Graham Boyd, Director of the ACLU's 
Drug Policy Litigation Project."

"The Texas policy was unique because it 'targeted' EVERY 
SINGLE STUDENT, 'not' just 'athletes' OR 'participants' 
in 'other activities'," Boyd added. "The [FEDERAL] court 
AGREED that 'the school' WENT TOO FAR with this UNPRECEDENTED 
'policy'."

Larry Tannahill lost his job and became an outcast in his Texas hometown
of Lockney after suing his son's school over the rule. Someone even shot
his dog with a paint gun and left a note saying, "Next time it won't be
your dog."

Tannahill said he knew his son Brady would pass the drug test but opposed
it on principle.

Under the policy, any student who tests positive or declines to be tested
is subject to punishment, including in-school suspension and suspension
from extracurricular activities. Unlike other policies that have passed
constitutional muster, the court noted in its opinion, the Lockney School
District tested all students, not just athletes, and failed to present
evidence of serious drug use in the school.

In his ruling, federal district judge Sam R. Cummings said that he
understood the motives of the school district, but found that its
mandatory, "suspicionless drug testing" violated the Fourth Amendment.

"Such an intrusion also comes at a great price to citizens'
constitutionally guaranteed rights to be secure in their 'persons, houses,
papers and effects,'" he said in a ruling issued late yesterday.

Significantly, Judge Cummings cited case law from the U.S. Supreme Court
and the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in rejecting the policy. "Numerous
cases have also made it clear that general concerns about maintaining
drug-free schools or desires to detect illegal conduct are insufficient as
a matter of law," the opinion said.

That finding, said the ACLU's Boyd, could make it difficult for the school
district to appeal the case to the Fifth Circuit, which includes Texas,
Louisiana and Mississippi.

Tannahill and his wife Traci were the only parents in the school district
who refused to permit officials to test their 12-year-old son for drug,
alcohol and tobacco use.

Tannahill himself, as well as his father and grandfather, was a student at
the school his son now attends. Tannahill said that many of his neighbors
have told him privately that they oppose the policy but don't feel they
can speak out."

An ACLU special feature on student drug testing is online at:
http://www.aclu.org/features/f083000a.html