High court rejects Wahkiakum drug testing policy

Legal News Center

[##_1L|1150015902.jpg|width="131" height="91" alt=""|_##]The state Supreme Court ruled Thursday that random drug testing of student athletes is unconstitutional, finding that each has "a genuine and fundamental privacy interest in controlling his or her own bodily functions." The court ruled unanimously in favor of some parents and students in the lower Columbia River town of Cathlamet who were fighting the tiny Wahkiakum School District's policy of random urine tests of middle school and high school student athletes.

The high court wrote, "we can conceive of no way to draw a principled line permitting drug testing only student athletes."

"If we were to allow random drug testing here, what prevents school districts from either later drug testing students participating in any extracurricular activities, as federal courts now allow, or testing the entire student population?" Justice Richard Sanders wrote for the court's plurality. Joining him were Chief Justice Gerry Alexander and Justices Susan Owens and Tom Chambers.

Two families with high school students sued the district. Wahkiakum County Superior Court Judge Douglas Goelz ruled in 2006 that testing students was reasonable after less-intrusive methods failed to address the drug threat. The case was appealed directly to the state Supreme Court.

Messages left with the school district and with the lawyer for the school district were not immediately returned.

The American Civil Liberties Union of Washington represented the parents. ACLU spokesman Doug Honig said the case was precedent-setting for the state, and "as a result of this ruling we don't expect to see other districts pursuing suspicionless testing programs."

However, the nine-member court was split on whether the plurality ruling was too sweeping. There were three separate concurrences, and at least one justice said random suspicionless drug testing would be OK under "carefully defined circumstances."

The sticking point between the ruling by Sanders and a concurrence written by Justice Barbara Madsen was over a "special needs exception" as in federal law, which would allow random searches in some circumstances.

Sanders' ruling says there is no need to create that type of exception in Washington law.

"Simply passing muster under the federal constitution does not ensure the survival of the school district's policy under our state constitution," Sanders wrote.

"In the context of randomly drug testing student athletes, we see no reason to invent such a broad exception to the warrant requirement as such an alleged exception cannot be found in the common law," he wrote.

Related listings

  • Santeria priest's case will go to U.S. court today

    Santeria priest's case will go to U.S. court today

    Legal News Center 03/10/2008

    A federal judge will hear arguments today about whether Euless' ban on cruelty to animals infringes upon religious freedom. Jose Merced, a priest in the Santeria religion, has sued Euless, saying the city is infringing on his religious liberties by f...

  • ID Lawmakers Push to End Equipment Tax

    ID Lawmakers Push to End Equipment Tax

    Legal News Center 03/05/2008

    Dozens of Idaho lawmakers are backing a renewed effort to cut as much as $120 million annually in taxes on business equipment.The House Revenue and Taxation Committee voted Tuesday to debate a bill that would phase out the taxes over five years as lo...

  • Court upholds whale protection in Navy exercises

    Court upholds whale protection in Navy exercises

    Legal News Center 03/02/2008

    A federal appeals court has ruled that the Navy must protect endangered whales from the potentially lethal effects of underwater sonar during anti-submarine training off the Southern California coast, rejecting President Bush's attempt to exempt the ...

Grounds for Divorce in Ohio - Sylkatis Law, LLC

A divorce in Ohio is filed when there is typically “fault” by one of the parties and party not at “fault” seeks to end the marriage. A court in Ohio may grant a divorce for the following reasons:
• Willful absence of the adverse party for one year
• Adultery
• Extreme cruelty
• Fraudulent contract
• Any gross neglect of duty
• Habitual drunkenness
• Imprisonment in a correctional institution at the time of filing the complaint
• Procurement of a divorce outside this state by the other party

Additionally, there are two “no-fault” basis for which a court may grant a divorce:
• When the parties have, without interruption for one year, lived separate and apart without cohabitation
• Incompatibility, unless denied by either party

However, whether or not the the court grants the divorce for “fault” or not, in Ohio the party not at “fault” will not get a bigger slice of the marital property.

Business News

New York & New Jersey Family Law Matters We represent our clients in all types of proceedings that include termination of parental rights. >> read