|
|
Jeremy Hurd
School Law
Case Review #2
2-19-04
I. Origins
A. Name, location, and date of
the case.
The name of the case is Hedges v Musco decided in the US 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals in the state of New Jersey. The case was argued on November 17, 1999 and filed on February 22, 2000.
B. Level of Court that issued
the decision.
The 3rd Circuit United States Court of Appeals in the state of New Jersey issued the decision for this case.
C. Level of control of the
school over the conditions of the case.
The school had a very small level
of control over the conditions of the case.
The case pertained to a New Jersey state statute policy of search and
seizure when a student appears to be under the influence of drugs or
alcohol. The school followed the policy
that was dictated by the statute and acted as it sought fit in this case.
I. Analysis of Conditions
A. What area of school law does this
case relate to or involve. How?
The area of school law that this case is relative to is a possible violation of the Fourth Amendment of the US Constitution and student’s rights to illegal search and seizure. The case is relative to a blood test that was conducted by the school after suspicion of possible alcohol or drug use, thus relative to search and seizure.
They allege that the NHRHS
(Northern Highlands Regional High School) Defendants subjected their daughter
to an intrusive search, including the testing of bodily fluids, without
reasonable suspicion, in violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments'
protection against unreasonable searches and seizures and in violation of the
New Jersey Constitution. Plaintiffs further contest that defendants disclosed
the results of the search to NHRHS students in violation of their daughter's
right to privacy under the Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments. Plaintiffs' third
claim is that the NHRHS drug testing policy is unconstitutionally vague.
Finally, plaintiffs assert a pendent state-law claim for assault and battery
against the medical defendants.
C. What are the major arguments
for the defendants?
The defendants in the case and the state of New Jersey insisted that the statute in question was relative to a scheme that the state had designed to combat the problems of drug and alcohol abuse in New Jersey schools. The defendants claim that they acted appropriately in their search of the student and acted to insure the safety of the school and its students. The state statute was very clear about the process that would be taken if a student were suspected of alcohol or drug abuse, and the school acted in accordance with the state statute.
The court concluded that the searches of the girl in this case were
reasonable under all the circumstances. The also established that there was no
federal constitutional violation, and that the school districts policies under
Article I, paragraph 7 of the New Jersey Constitution is constitutionally sound
and legal and the plaintiffs in this case must accept the decision made by the
school.
II. Personal Reaction
A. What is your personal reaction to
the decision made in this case?
My personal opinion in this case is that the court was right to side with the school district. I think that the school created a policy that was very sound constitutionally and sought to follow the law under the Fourth Amendment of the US Constitution. The search was done so under the impression that the student was unable to act in an appropriate manner that would indicate the student was not under the influence of some type of drug or alcohol. The student acted in an unusual manner and the teacher had every right to indicate the student was not in a sober state. The student was sent to the office, and further evaluated by the principal and school nurse. They then called the parent of the student, who came to the school to discuss the procedure the parent must take to allow the student back into school. The parent took the student to a private clinic, where she was tested. When the tests came back negative, and the clinic of the parent’s choice made errors in the blood taking process by not finding an appropriate artery, the student and parent felt the school district was wrong in their findings. I think that for the safety of the student and others in the school, the actions of the school were appropriate and that the school was looking after the overall good of everyone at the school and followed the state statute to a tee and was not out of line in its procedural process. The school had a good case because they took the appropriate steps and did not stray from the correct procedure. I agree with the decision of the court.
B.
What are the implications of this case for you as a
future school
administrator?
The implications of this case further support the
fact that administrators and schools can set search and seizure rules based on
state statutes and under the legal parameters of constitutional law. As long as the guidelines of the policy do
not violate or intrude on a person’s Fourth Amendment rights, the school has
the right to protect the students in its schools and have the ability to insure
the safety of all in its building. I
think that in this area, schools have a great amount of pull and power over
students as long as they act appropriately.
Searching for drugs, requiring drug testing, and other areas give
schools the ability to place limitations and consequences for students who
bring illegal drugs to school, or who are themselves under the influence. I think it is a good thing for the school,
its students, and society in general.