"Theodore vs. The Delaware Valley School District"

Paper Summary:

This paper explains that the Delaware Valley School District (Pennsylvania) implemented Policy 227 stating that all middle and high school students who seek to participate in extracurricular activities or request permission to drive to school would be required to submit themselves to random drug and alcohol testing; thereafter, Louis and Mary Ellen Theodore, parents of two exemplary students, filed suit to prevent the School District from continuing to drug test students by stating that Article 1, Section 8 of the Pennsylvania Constitution, which prevents unreasonable searches and seizures, protects their daughters and all students from Policy 227. The author reports that the United States Supreme Court ruled against the school district stating that a drug testing policy without suspicion will survive constitutional challenge only if the school district makes some actual reasons for the specific need for the policy and gives an explanation for believing that the policy would address that need, rejecting any such symbolic purpose as an appropriate reason for drug testing any group of students. The paper argues that Policy 227 is a fine policy with good intentions; instead, the paper contends that Policy 227 should be changing to only test athletes and student drivers, allowing the school district to cite the "Earls" and "Vernonia" cases as being more comparable thus possibly changing the outcome.

From the Paper:

"Another pro for the appellees were their ability to further distinguish themselves from "Vernonia" in the fact that case concerned a "strong drug culture in that school led by student athletes who had a lower expectation of privacy than the general body or even students involved in non-athletics extra-curricular activities." Appellees noted that the District had not even attempted to justify its program by proving the existence of an actual drug crisis in the District, much less within the targeted class of students" (J-97-2003, 7). In fact, since Article 1, section 8, provides greater protection than the 4th amendment, the appellees where able to further argue that "even showing of special need could not be viewed as justifying the sort of random, suspicionless searches conducted under policy 227" (J-97-2003, 7)."

More papers on "Theodore vs. The Delaware Valley School District":

• Essay # 67769 : "ELL Programs in the Modern California School District"
• Case Study # 125605 : "San Antonio School District v. Rodriguez"
• Term Paper # 127597 : "Leadership in the L.A. Unified School District"

APA Citation:

MLA Citation: