Pottawatomie v. Earls | BRI’s Homework Help Series

0:01 Have you ever wondered what rights you have as a student when it comes to drug testing in school? You might think you’re covered by the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution, which states the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated and no warrant shall issue but upon probable cause.

0:22 This amendment ensures the government meets certain standards in order to search a person or their property. But when students sued their school district for violating their Fourth Amendment rights, the case made its way to the Supreme Court. This is the story of Pottawatomie versus Earls

0:47 in 1998 in rural Oklahoma, school officials feared that it’s students were taking recreational drugs. So the Pottawatomie County School District adopted a controversial new policy. If middle and high school students wanted to participate in extracurricular activities first, they would have to consent to drug tests. The results were kept confidential, except

1:09 the parents of those who tested positive would be notified. The school district believes the policy would deter students from taking drugs. But Lindsay Earls and Daniel James believe that it violated their Fourth Amendment rights and they challenged it in the courts. The verdict did not go their way. The district court ruled

1:30 that the policy did not violate the student’s constitutional rights. But the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals then reversed the decision, claiming that the school district failed to provide evidence of drug use in the school and they ruled in favor of the students. The school district appealed to the Supreme Court and they agreed to hear the case.

1:50 It was close, but in June 2002, the court ruled 5 to 4 against the students, determining that the policy did not violate the Fourth Amendment and was therefore constitutional. It concluded that the drug testing was reasonable because students should expect a lower level of privacy when it came to voluntary extracurricular activities.

2:13 In his majority opinion, Justice Clarence Thomas argued that the invasion of students privacy was not significant and that preventing drug use by school students was an important governmental concern. Representing the four justices who dissented Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg argued that the student’s right to privacy outweighed the goals of the school district

2:33 and that the policy was ineffective because it could steer students at greatest risk for substance abuse away from extracurricular involvement. Ultimately, Pottawatomie versus Earls empowered school districts across the United States to initiate similar policies, providing they followed the general framework of the Fourth Amendment. But it also set new parameters on the rights of students

2:56 that are still relevant today. Why is the court often interpret the Constitution differently for students than for adults?