Pennsylvania School Drug Tests: Girl, 11, Sues District Over Student Policy

LANCASTER, Pa. -- A central Pennsylvania middle school student is suing her district over a drug testing policy that's required if she wants to participate in choir and other activities.

The American Civil Liberties Union of Pennsylvania said Wednesday it filed the lawsuit on behalf of the 11-year-old girl and her parents. They say the policy violates privacy rights under the state constitution and want a county judge to prevent the Solanco School District from enforcing it.

The lawsuit says the Peach Bottom sixth-grader at Swift Middle School was removed from the orchestra and chorus, and can't participate in athletic or academic teams, because she won't consent to having her urine screened on a random basis by school officials.

A message left for district Superintendent Martin Hudacs wasn't immediately returned.

Comments

[micheleslilsis3]

09:59 AM on 03/29/2012

Ok...this has already been taken to the Supreme Court before with a young lady in Tecumseh, Oklahoma. She lost that court battle....they ruled that the schools could conduct random drug testing. You either submit to it or you don't do anything extra curricular....it's that simple.

I conduct random drug testing on students....and let me tell you....it IS needed. We have at least 30 or more positive test each month. The whole purpose for the testing is to get these kids help if it is needed for an addiction. These kids are not only in high school, but middle school as well. We get positives for THC, Cocaine and many other drugs!! These young kids shouldn't be doing this....and the schools are trying to help them.

Someone asked in a post what is tested for.....we test for 6 drugs on our test....THC, Cocaine, Amphetamine, Methamphetamine, Opiates and Benzodiazepines. All which are needed to be tested for at this time.

Kids now days are having what is knows as "farming parties" which is where they bring everyone else prescriptions, throw them in a bowl and mix them up take them by the handfuls. Many kids have died from this....so tell me again....do we need student drug testing? YES....because if the parents are going to wake up and see the problem...then the schools will!!!!

[Dileas]

07:36 PM on 03/26/2012

You go girl!!! I don't know what the sudden surge in drug screenings is about. Sheesh! I guess the Republicans have bought up all the stock in drug testing companies. Or... does CWA do the screening so that they can just do a direct route to jail? Money money money!!

[ssassy78]

09:33 PM on 03/24/2012

Good for her and her family. The 4th amendment is there to protect us from illegal search and seizure. I bet most people don't realize that Wal-Mart and Target get tax subsidies for circumventing these rights for the government. It's equally obtrusive to demand drug testing in schools, and offensive when insinuated for the unemployed.

[Beef Wellington]

09:26 AM on 03/24/2012

"the Peach Bottom sixth-grader at Swift Middle School"

i am sure there is another way to say that without sounding creepy.

[Quinny]

03:27 AM on 03/24/2012

The ONLY people who will benefit from this ridiculous
school policy is the drug testing companies. I applaued
this young lady for her courage in standing up to these
spineless "school officials"....

Selah

[ZetaReticuli]

02:13 AM on 03/24/2012

We have the CIA and the NSA now spying on us openly or, if not, allowed to purchase personal date from Facebook and Twitter, Pataeus saying that he can spy on your house via the electrical lines whenever he wants, the US Patriot Act which is activated based on "providing material support," the NDAA 2012 which is invoked on the basis of "beligerancy," still undefined, and underage kids -- in this case a girl -- being poked with a needle to intrude in on them, kind of like rape.

Rightwinger control freaks are piling on. What's the rush all of a sudden? What do they expect, that the Occupy Movement wants to topple their corporate/military ivory towers of oppression?

[Anoop Kammaran]

12:34 AM on 03/24/2012

Now, this is no different than what people go thru to get security clearances. All of them require background checks(invasion of privacy) and most of them require regular drug test(mostly involving blood samples) to keep the clearance. Now, for those who have been complaining about violation of rights, doesn't this qualify as one?
So, why is it that people have no problem following the rules at work, while they don't want follow the simple rule of the school?

[Someone Out There]

04:57 AM on 03/24/2012

There is a big difference between security clearance, where a person could potentially be blackmailed, and a girl who wants to sing in the school choir. If we can't differentiate between these circumstances what hope do we have as a nation?

[ssassy78]

09:35 PM on 03/24/2012

I think people should have refused that as well. Why would you voluntarily provide someone your bodily fluids?

[Anoop Kammaran]

12:29 AM on 03/24/2012

For those of you who think the drug-test is a violation of the 4th amendment. Heres what you need to understand. The 4th amendment doesn't even apply here. That law applies only if you get searched or your property seized without your consent or without a warrant. NOthing of that kind happened over here. Nobody has cuffed, ties her up to a chair and forcefully took the blood/urine sample from her body. If that had happened, I can understand the violation. But here, nobody has forced the girl to do anything she doesn't want. The schools policy is kept the random drug-testing to detect drug users if possible and to give the students, the fear of getting caught using them. And its not even mandatory, unless the girl wants to participate in the extra-curricular activities. The point of testing then is to make sure that the participants don't use any performance enhancement drugs or steroids. There is always a choice here. The girl can refuse taking the test. However, since the school policy is that they require random tests for those activities, its no surprise that the school won't let the girl participate.

[Quinny]

03:19 AM on 03/24/2012

WTF? Performance enhanching drugs....for choir practice?
Perhaps they should drug test kids just to allow them to attend
school too..."May your chains rest lightly upon you".

Selah

[Anoop Kammaran]

11:03 AM on 03/24/2012

When you make rules, especially at schools, you can't be partial towards a particular category. Instead they have to be general. This is because, some day someone else would sue the school saying that the school doesn't allow equal opportunity by letting one student participate in one activity while banning another from participating in a completely different activity, especially if(heavens forbid), the banned kid is a member of the minority.

[blomeup2day]

09:27 AM on 03/24/2012

since when do courts take such narrow views? what about the 5th? the right not to incriminate yourself? if you have the right to stand silent, shouldn't your body and its fluids be entitled as well?

[Anoop Kammaran]

11:00 AM on 03/24/2012

Like I said before, nobody has taken her urine by force here. She has every right to refuse to take the drug test. So, nobody has taken away her rights. But whats wrong is that they expect the school to allow her to violate the school policy.

[themangymutt]

08:49 AM on 03/23/2012

I've read the article several times and to me it seems the school didn't go to her directly and ask her to take a drug test. They have a policy that if you are doing an after school program such as choir ( it could also be any other after school program like football/track/baseball/band/debate club/etc.) in order to be allowed to participate you have to 'agree' to random drug tests. Not that this girl was approached directly and told she needed to have a drug test done. I assume she didn't agree to the possibility to have a random drug test so that is why she was removed from the program. I really believe it was her parents rather than an 11 year old who had issues with the drug testing. These are rules set forth by the school that say if you want to be able to be in one of these after school programs these are the rules you have to abide by to be able to attend. It's no different than saying you have to keep a certain GPA to also be in these clubs. Well isn't that also violating kids' rights by excluding the ones who don't have a high enough GPA from participating in these same clubs? Tests are administered to kids to see how smart they are, thus a test result shows a positive or a negative GPA, just like a drug test.

[Anoop Kammaran]

11:12 AM on 03/23/2012

Finally, found somebody who has a functioning brain... Well said there... Almost nobody who is commenting over hear seems to get the point about following the school rules. They somehow think that its their right to bypass the rules no matter what and they see rules as a violation of their rights... Crazy...

[Jessica Roman]

03:43 PM on 03/23/2012

However, the Constitution prohibits unnecessary search and seizure. I fail to see the point in randomly screening these students for drugs. If anything, it will possibly exclude more children, which gives them more free time to do drugs.

Requiring a certain GPA to participate in clubs is NOT the same. School is there for learning and your grades should be the main priority (contrary to what a lot of football coaches believe, but I digress). Hence, it is logical that students must retain a certain GPA to prove they can handle extra commitments on top of their required workload. Explain how you can compare that to random urine screenings.

[trekie70]

09:51 PM on 03/22/2012

This "prove your innocence" attitude is appearing more and more across our country. One of these cases will make it to DC and then that will be the end of it. I don't believe SCOTUS will think much of drug testing w/o cause, esp for choir.

[hard2swallovv8]

09:27 PM on 03/22/2012

I'll take their test! And I'll fail it gloriously! BWAHAHAHAHA! Wait...what were we talking about? I could use a pizza right now...

[kent56p]

08:20 PM on 03/22/2012

Consider me more conservative than not, but liberal on some issues where common sense should dictate. To me, this smacks of over reach, and small time bureaucratic tyranny at worst, by the school policy in question. I do support drug testing of students if there is sufficient reason or evidence to suspect illicit drug use, however random testing of this nature is a waste of time and money. I applaud the young lady and her parents for standing up against this insensible policy. I hope they win their case.

[ssassy78]

09:37 PM on 03/24/2012

Thank you. Probable cause is another issue altogether. But fishing??? That is simply a violation of rights.

[rwsmetros]

07:44 PM on 03/22/2012

The whole problem of testing and drug abuse would be a moot point if we made all drugs legal! Treat them just like regular drugs are used today thru perscriptions and doctors recomendation. In a short amount of time we would be able to control addiction and usage. We waste so much time and money on the "war on drugs" that could be used on programs to get people off drugs and to get people to not start. As far a a urine test for an 11 year old, I say piss on it!

[Rideropurplesage]

05:20 PM on 03/22/2012

I have a documented case where tested person was fired because a blood pressure med was detected under prescribed conditions and it had nothing to do with hypertension it was for another condition and wasn't revealed for fear of dismissal by the individual. And another that can't drive because of diabetes med uninalisys results, so don't tell me where this is headed.....it's the loss of individual freedom as a group and if you go along for the slaughter....people died for what you threw away in the name of righteousness!

[Anoop Kammaran]

06:46 PM on 03/22/2012

But what has your examples got to do with the story in the article. The girl was not tested for any kind of illness, but for illegal drugs usage.

[Rideropurplesage]

07:32 PM on 03/22/2012

You don't know what they test for They can test your wizz for a number of things and your meds tell all.

[El Chingaso]

03:05 PM on 03/22/2012

Sue, sue and sue some more.

[Anoop Kammaran]

06:38 PM on 03/22/2012

People these days are just looking for a reason to sue someone, rt?

[Snafu]

08:23 AM on 03/23/2012

When rights are involved, yes, sue. Do you think people should just roll over when their rights are trampled.

[amd52]

12:14 PM on 03/23/2012

For anything you can. But, everybody will get their day one way or another.