Brown v. Shasta Union High Sch. Dist., No. 164933 (Cal. Super. Ct. May, 6, 2009)
A California state superior court has issued a preliminary injunction barring Shasta Union High School District (SUHSD) from enforcing a policy that requires students to submit to mandatory drug testing as a condition of participating in “competitive representational activities” (CRAs), which in practice includes not only extracurricular activities but also mandated curricular classes and co-curricular activities that are required and used for grading purposes in the mandated classes. The court concluded that the students challenging the policy were likely to prevail on their claims that the policy violates the California Constitution’s right to privacy and its search and seizure provisions.
The court rejected SUHSD’s argument that it should apply the line of federal case law addressing student drug testing, agreeing with the students that it should follow a line of California state cases, which are more protective of privacy rights because the federal cases are based only on the prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures and do not address the right to privacy under the California Constitution. The court determined that the students had a reasonable expectation of privacy and that their privacy interests were implicated by the significant personal information revealed from a urine sample and the fact they were required to urinate on demand within earshot of another person. Unlike participation in athletics, the court observed, participating in math club or chess club does not involve close scrutiny and regulation of bodily condition and physical fitness. While drug testing is a well-established part of athletic competition, “it is not a reasonably expected part of the life of a member of the choir or math club.” Moreover, the court found that in some instances there was insufficient advance notice and opportunity to consent to testing and that SUHSD’s determination of what constitutes a CRA was made on an ad hoc and arbitrary basis. In at least one case, the court also noted, a student was participating in an activity that was required for admission to the state university system.
Addressing SUHSD’s justification for the invasion of privacy, the court found that while the concern over drug use by students in general was legitimate, there was “no evidence of why drug testing is required of students participating in the targeted activities, but not required of students participating in regular curricular activities which present the same circumstances giving rise to the District’s legitimate concern of drug use.” The court also found that the policy violated the state constitution’s search and seizure provision because it did satisfy the minimum requirement of reasonable suspicion.
Brown v. Shasta Union High Sch. Dist., No. 164933 (Cal. Super. Ct. May, 6, 2009)