ed to sign, along with their parents, a form consenting to the drug testing. Athletes were tested at the beginning of their sports seasons and once a week during the season. The testing was performed on a random sampling of 10 percent of all athletes, and conducted in empty locker rooms under the supervision of a same sex adult monitor. Samples were given to independent laboratories for results: "Only the superintendent, principals, vice principals, and athletic directors have access to the results, which are not kept for more than one year and which are not shared with law enforcement authorities" (Zirkel, 1995, p. 187). If test results were positive, another sample was obtained. If the second sample tested positive the student was given the option of a six-week assistance program that includes weekly urinalysis or suspension from athletics for the remainder of the season and the next season.
In 1991, James Acton, a Vernonia seventh-grade student, was not allowed to play football because he and his parents refused to sign a consent form for the drug-testing program. The Actons filed suit, and were represented by the American Civil Liberties Union. A federal district court ruled in favor of the school district, but a court of appeals ruled that the drug-testing policy violated the Fourth Amendment's protection from unreasonable searches. The Supreme Court overruled the appeals court's finding and upheld the constitutionality of random drug-testing of student athletes.
The Supreme Court based its ruling against the plaintiffs on three premises. One, student athletes are subject to a decreased expectation of privacy: "The Vernonia Court argued that, because high school athletes have decreased expectations of privacy by virtue of their participation in extracurricular athletics, the suspicionless drug testing was constitutionally justified" (Shutler, 1996, p. 1265). Two, the school district drug te
...