One would think that being "President" of a small school district in a small town in a small state would be something hard to royally screw up, right? Wrong, bucko; very wrong. When you combine total ignorance, a low education level, and unbridled ambition -
anything and everything can go wrong. It could even lead to a case that could go to SCOTUS....
Back in May of this year, "President" Trigg et al. rammed through a new drug testing policy for Douglas County schools. Now kids can be tested 24/7/365, whether in school or not. But the testing is not for all kids in Douglas County schools; it's only for those who choose to participate in "extracurricular activities" which includes everything from sports to the debate team. In general these are the brightest and best of the student lot who choose to take on extra work and responsibilities to improve themselves and bring prestige back to their schools who have been singled out for drug testing.
Excluded from the 24/7/365 are "all other students". I won't paint this group with a broad brush and say they are the druggies and troublemakers but I do believe a lot of the drug problems in our schools could be traced to some in this group.
The problem which Trigg et al. have created (in my opinion only) is that she has discriminated against the class (i.e.: group, assemblage, section) of students who choose extracirricular activities by excluding all other students from random drug testing who do not participate in outside school activities. Discrimination case law precedent has clearly shown that discrimination against a class of people based on arbitrary and capricious standards (e.g., race, color, belief systems,
extracirricular activities) in patently unConstitutional in its discriminatory bias. In a further point of discriminatory random drug testing policy, Trigg et al. rammed through was that only students in grades 9-12 will be tested foolishly assuming younger students are somehow immune to the dangers of drugs.
To absolve themselves of any question of illegal search under the Fourth Amendment, the Douglas County School District requires parents to allow for random drug testing if they want their children to be able to participate in outside activities. Quite clearly this "consent" is obtained under
duress that if it is not signed, the child will be denied their provledges under the First and Second Amendments of free speech and assembly. Therefore, the "consent" is invalid as it denies U.S. citizens of other Constitutional rights.
As far as a search for drugs on a student goes, the same principles apply as for adults: A search must be reasonable at its inception, i.e., there must be ''reasonable grounds for suspecting that the search will turn up evidence that the student has violated or is violating either the law or the rules of the school". In a random drug search, no such "reasonable grounds" exist. Moreover, school searches must also be reasonably related in scope to the circumstances justifying the interference, and ''not excessively intrusive in light of the age and sex of the student and the nature of the infraction.
The quite old (1995) court case which apparently Trigg et al. based their decision is VERNONIA SCHOOL DISTRICT 47J PETITIONER v. WAYNE ACTON et ux., which was primarily based on the fact within that for the particular school district in question, "athletes were leaders in the student drug culture and concern that drug use increases the risk of sports-related injury". In reaching their decision in May, 2009, Trigg et al. offered no evidence whatsoever that this was the case in Douglas County schools. Or that any group, club, organization, or enity invloved in extracirricular activities were the main source of the drug problem in Douglas County schools. It would seem reasonable that if Trigg et al. had evidence that group(s) of students involved in extracirricular activites were, indeed, at the heart of the drug problem in Douglas County schools, they should have presented that data in support of implementing random drug testing only on this class or group of students; but they did not.
This June 25th, SCOTUS made another landmark ruling concerning drug searches of students in stating a strip search of an 8th grader violated her Constitutional rights. It does not seem a large leap of reason to compare the illegal search of one's person with the illegal search of one's body fluids. What is very impotant about this case - initiated by the ACLU - is that SCOTUS has become aware that
schools are not constitutional dead zones.I have, as of yesterday, FOIAed the Trustees of the Douglas County School Board as to just what legal opinions they employed in their unanimous vote to take the taxpayers into a quite gray area of constitutionality which the Reno ACLU has already expressed an interest in following. I doubt that Trigg et al. have the common good sense to review and possibly undo that which has been done. All it's going to take is one parent with a little courage to balk this set of ass-clowns and the Douglas County School District under "President" Trigg could become quite infamous in their collective stupidity.
