Judge extends order halting campus drug tests

Wednesday, October 26, 2011

By JIM SALTER

Associated Press

ST. LOUIS (AP) — A Missouri college’s comprehensive drug-testing plan for students will stay on hold after a federal judge extended a temporary restraining order.

Linn State Technical College’s program calls for screening all first-year students and some returning students for cocaine, methamphetamines, oxycodone and eight other drugs. The American Civil Liberties Union filed suit last month challenging the constitutionality of the drug testing.

U.S. District Judge Nanette Laughrey in Jefferson City granted a temporary restraining order in September, and issued a ruling Tuesday that extends the restraining order through Nov. 8.

Kent Brown, an attorney for Linn Tech, did not return messages seeking comment.

Laughrey did not issue a written ruling but while speaking in court expressed doubt that the drug policy would pass constitutional muster, said Jason Williamson, an attorney for the ACLU. He said the extension was aimed at allowing Linn State time to decide how to move forward with legal proceedings.

“She had some pretty clear things to say about the problems with Linn State’s proposed program,” Williamson said. “I think they’d have to put on some extraordinary additional evidence to change her mind.”

The lawsuit was filed on behalf of six students at Linn Tech, a two-year college with campuses in the mid-Missouri towns of Jefferson City, Linn and Mexico. The suit claims the program violates students’ Fourth Amendment rights against unlawful searches and seizures.

The college sought to begin the drug testing this fall, saying it was necessary to ensure student safety at a school where the coursework includes programs like aircraft maintenance, heavy engine repair, nuclear technology and other dangerous tasks.

Brown has said the college sought a “responsible drug screening program that would protect both students and their rights.”

In addition to the injunction, the ACLU suit asks the college to return $50 to the accounts of students, money the school charges for the testing program.

The ACLU has said it was unaware of any college or university in the U.S. with a similar drug testing program. Brown earlier acknowledged that the scope and breadth of the program is unique, but “there aren’t many colleges as unique as ours.”

Under the program, students who test positive for drugs could remain in school if they have a clean test 45 days later. They also must complete an online drug-prevention course or would be assigned to other, unspecified “appropriate activities,” according to the school’s written policy. They would remain on probation for the remainder of the semester and would face an unannounced follow-up test.

More like this story

dvaughan 1 year, 7 months ago

I graduated from Linn State Technical College in August of this year. I believe drug testing is a good thing. Most of the programs use expensive equipment. Whether it be computers, bull dozers, or larger vehicles. Who wouldn't want to ensure the safety of the student and personnel of the school?! Oh, I forgot.... the ACLU. If a student does not want to submit to drug testing, then find somewhere else to go.

hipster_stash 1 year, 7 months ago

Please post an incident that took place while you were in school, where an individual was under the influence of drugs and destroyed equipment, or harmed others.

dvaughan 1 year, 7 months ago

There had not been an incident that I am aware of while I was in school; however, that doesn't mean there couldn't have been. Anyone who tells you they can control their drug habit is a liar. I am a parent and honestly can tell you that if my child (who is in college) was using drugs and I found out, I would no longer help with tuition or everyday expenses. If you want to use, "enjoy" the consequences. Why is it okay to use at school? What employer out there wants a drug user on their payroll? None that I am aware of. So if you test dirty at school, it should be a matter of permanent record. If you use, you lose.

hipster_stash 1 year, 7 months ago

wow you are an awesome parent. If your kid was to have a drug issue you would cut him off, and no longer help him with expenses? I wonder what phase in life you will soon be setting him up for...

dvaughan 1 year, 7 months ago

I would help with rehab, not help with paying for drugs.

hipster_stash 1 year, 7 months ago

and no one said you could use drugs at school. last time I checked the school is "Drug-Free"t. You fail to understand, that these students do not live at school. They have there own private lives, and should be allowed their privacy without the govt invading it with no probable cause.

dvaughan 1 year, 7 months ago

I don't fail to understand. I grew up there, went to school there so I know not all of the students live at school. They can use all they want at home, just don't come to school while high. It endangers their lives and others.

tonto 1 year, 7 months ago

There is a much greater danger from an operator that is too tired, or sick, or drunk, to work safely, and an instructor should be alert to that. So how would ONE drug test "ensure the safety of the student and personnel"?

gzc721 1 year, 7 months ago

Well if you are worried about them being drunk then why wouldn't you be worried about them driving equipment under the influence of a narcotic?? How does one drug test ensure the safety of the student and personnel? Well with the heavy equipment program it isn't just one test. They are randomly picked throughout the year just as they are on the job. I don't see what the problem is with the drug testing since they are all going out to work internships throughout their schooling there. The programs are designed to put real work practice into their schooling. I would say good for them. Maybe if more colleges did this we wouldn't have as much problems with drugs and alcohol as we do now. If you don't use drugs or alcohol then you have nothing to be afraid of. As for being unconstitutional that is a word that is tossed around waaay too much! I guess companies who require drug testing are also being unconsitutional?

dbasnett 1 year, 7 months ago

It seems to me that our government operates under the policy of scare them and they can do anything. It wasn't to long ago that Mr. Bernake told everyone what was going to happen tomorrow unless we bailed out the banks. He didn't offer it as opinion, but as fact, and it worked. I am 100% certain that only God knows for certain what tomorrow holds. We should stop being afraid, and while we are at it a big dose of personal responsibility might go along way.

tonto 1 year, 7 months ago

Read the policy. There is no provision for repeat random testing through the year. mylstc.linnstate.edu/ICS/Drug_Screening.jnz The rest of your post is wishful thinking.

hipster_stash 1 year, 7 months ago

actually we would have more problems with drugs if every college drug tested

Marijuana has never killed anyone, yet it is the number one drug that is caught on drug tests.

alcohol,cocaine,heroin, and meth kill people everyday and their detection windows in drug screenings are in the 3 day range...how are you supposed to catch them?

hipster_stash 1 year, 7 months ago

"if you don't use drugs or alcohol then you have nothing to be afraid of"

I dont use alcohol or drugs, but I am afraid. I'm afraid of my rights being trampled on everyday in this country. And I'm sure your response will be nothing less than a simple comment such as "love it or leave it".

dbasnett 1 year, 7 months ago

I am a "non-traditional" (old) student at LSTC and related to one of the litigants. This discussion has to be about one word in the Fourth Amendment; "unreasonable". It is my opinion that we have been lax in our interpretation of that word. In one of the first meetings between the ACLU and the students I asked about other drug testing (Pilots / Doctors) and the ACLU attorney affirmed that it was OK for them to be tested. When I asked why, he said public safety, blah, blah... My follow up question about how many drunk pilots have we have heard about in the last year was met with disdain.

It should be exceptional for the Fourth Amendment to be violated, and since that is not the case, we are only splitting hairs at this point. It is OK to violate the rights of others, just don't violate mine;) A question I meant to ask some of the instructors today was do all employees of LSTC get drug tested? The LSTC drug policy would be untenable if they are not.

I hope that LSTC pursues this, it is a discussion, on many levels, that needs to be addressed.

hipster_stash 1 year, 7 months ago

The teachers are not tested by the way.

"exceptional for the Fourth Amendment to be violated" well who decides that? Also what are the factors for deciding? race, gender, wealth class?

as for doctors and pilots being tested...they are getting paid, unlike a college student...

dbasnett 1 year, 7 months ago

We, through our representatives, decided that many times. As I said, we are just splitting hairs at this point.

So is this how it reads,"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated unless you are getting paid,

Sequoia 1 year, 7 months ago

Some people on here seem to be confused about the Constitution. The Constitution protects our rights from GOVERNMENT over-reach. The Constitution does not restrict private action. This is why pilots and other employees can be tested on the job for any reason. It is not because they are paid... it is because the test is done by private actors. Once the Linn State students get jobs, they can be tested at any time for any reason as a condition of their employment.

Linn Tech's drug testing program is unconstitutional because the college is a government actor, and the 4th Amendment prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures by the government. The government cannot just go around searching everyone's home or business for wrongdoing without some probable cause to suspect illegal activity. The government is not a mom and dad who can just go into our rooms whenever it wants.

I suspect that many of the people here supporting the drug testing would change their tune if the IRS decided to audit them and their businesses every year, just to make sure they're on the up and up. Hey, if you're not doing anything wrong, what's your problem? What do you have to hide?

The point is not whether you "have something to hide." The point is that we are a free people, and we the people are "the government." The government helps us work together, like a team captain. It should not lord over us like a strict father. I guess we have a philisophical difference on this point.

dvaughan 1 year, 7 months ago

I want to make sure that my rights aren't trampled on by a coked-up person. Or am I wrong in that? Should I think it is okay for someone to be on drugs and threaten my safety or my children's? At no point and time is a drug user a useful, productive member of society. They should all stay home and stay blitzed. Oh wait, can't. If they are on welfare of any kind, they will be submitting to a drug test.......

Sequoia 1 year, 7 months ago

You're not wrong. We have a whole system of criminal and civil laws enforced by police and other agencies to protect you and your rights from other wrongdoers, whether they are "coked up" or not... I mean, you don't want your rights trampled by a sober person either, I assume. As for your point about the productivity of people who have used drugs, I suggest you go throw away all your records, tapes and CDs, and never listen to music again. A lot of the musicians you like probably used drugs at some point. Also, you should probably avoid any Apple products or any medical technology based on the structure of DNA, since both Steve Jobs and Francis Crick claimed to have found inspiration from illegal psychadelic drugs. Oh, and you should probably stop watching professional sports. Should I mention that our three most recent presidents have admitted to using illegal drugs?

You seem to be focused on the fact that we're talking about illegal drug users, a group you clearly have a lot of stereotypes about. But remember, the constitution does not give us our rights. Our rights come from our Creator. The Constitution protects those rights from the government. This is not a case about whether people have a legal "right" to use drugs. Clearly they do not. The case is about the Fourth Amendment's limits on government power.

dvaughan 1 year, 7 months ago

I completely understand that we have free will from our Creator. I know that many people who are in the music industry, sports and Government have used or do use drugs. I am not hiding my head in the sand here. I probably know people who have used and I wasn't aware of it. No, I don't want anyone trampling on my rights. I guess I am unsure of why it matters to them so much about whether they are tested now by the school or by the employer when they start working.

Sequoia 1 year, 7 months ago

It matters because the distinction between the school (a government actor) and a job (a private actor) is at the heart of the Constitutional issue.

Beyond the legal and philosophical issues, this drug testing policy would probably fail a cost-benefit analysis as a practical matter. A single drug test is probably not going to reduce drug use or accidents, and there is no evidence that the school has a problem with either of those things. Based on my research, it seems like the school just did a survey, and a majority claimed to support drug tests, so the school instituted one. There seemed to be no study on what problems exist at the school, how this test will solve the problem, or any effort to narrowly tailor the test to only students who operate heavy machinery.

It's pretty classic government do-gooder-ism... a solution in search of a problem. Sure, we don't like most illegal drug users, but dislike is not enough to justify any government action that some bureaucrat comes up with. There needs to be some rational, reasonable basis for the government action besides "drug users are bad."

Just like the way a lot of people don't like banks right now. That dislike doesn't justify any old govt action just to "stick it to the banks." Government action should always be a reflection of rational analysis, not people's emotional feelings.

hipster_stash 1 year, 7 months ago

hmm drug users are never a useful and productive member of society...

Do these names ring a bell? Obama, Bush, Clinton, Carter...should i keep going?

hudson 1 year, 7 months ago

clinton did not inhale.

JCLifer 1 year, 7 months ago

He did not have sexual relations with that woman either.

dvaughan 1 year, 7 months ago

I am sincerely sorry I started in on this conversation. I think the drug testing is a good idea, I totally support it. I am sorry that the Government is what it is, a dysfunctional body. That doesn't change the fact that if there is some small measure that can protect my kids, my family, my friends from a student who is high or out of their mind while attending school..... yep I am all for it.

Sequoia 1 year, 7 months ago

I certainly respect your opinion. It is understandable. Fortunately, our Founders designed a Constitution that protects every citizen's rights from government abuse, even if the majority is "all for it."

Sequoia 1 year, 7 months ago

Generally, Supreme Courts have said that a search is "unreasonable" under the 4th Amendment if it is conducted without a search warrant supported by probable cause and signed by a magistrate. There are a number of exceptions to that... a big one is that police may conduct a limited search if they have "probable cause" to believe that the search of a specific place will yield eveidence of specific criminal activity. Simply put, the government just can't go "fishing" by searching anyone, anywhere, at any time. You can see how that would be ripe for abuse.

It is true that the case remains to be decided, but Linn Tech's policy looks like the kind of unsupported fishing searches that the Supreme Court has long held to be unconstitutional. In general, the ACLU doesn't like to pursue cases unless they have a very good chance of winning, and it looks like they will win here.

Sequoia 1 year, 7 months ago

The Constitution is over-reach? I don't understand your point. As for the ACLU, over the years they have opposed Japanese relocation camps, racial segregation, equal rights for gays and lesbians, and they have supported the idea that the Constitution applies to all American citizens equally, even if the citizen in question is someone that most people don't like. Certainly there were always people who thought the ACLU was on the "wrong" side, but history has generally proven those people wrong instead. Today, most people think that racial segregation, discrimination, and government punishing people for their polticis is wrong. Don't you?

Sequoia 1 year, 7 months ago

As for than Town Hall article, well... it's kinda weird. You realize, don't you, that the writer of the article you cite is an attorney for the Liberty Counsel, the legal group directly opposing the ACLU on many of these cases? Do you really take articles like this at face value?

JMO 1 year, 7 months ago

Thank you asb, I wasn't going to get into this fight and still won't, but I can't get over anyone thinking the ACLU wants to undermine democracy. It's sole purpose for existing is to defend individual liberties and the Bill of Rights. They would defend the KKK as quickly as blacks and Westboro as quickly as homosexuals.

If you don't think the US Constitution applies to the States, then how about the Missouri Constitution, Article I, Section 15?

JMO 1 year, 7 months ago

I will never, ever, understand how all people having equal rights takes away the rights of the individual to govern themselves. In fact, I see it as the exact opposite. You don't have to agree with it, you simply have to accept the fact that other people do. I don't agree with picketing funerals or burning American flags. I do accept that the law allows it as freedom of speech. I'd love to see reasonable restrictions on those activities, but not ban them outright. It frustrates and angers me to see it happen, but I accept that restriction may not be possible under the constitution. I read your TJ quote to support just that. "..the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect.." It doesn't matter who the minority was he was speaking of. It matters that their rights, whoever they may be, are protected. Sounds to me he disliked, but sadly accepted, that a majority vote will always win...which is why there were protections placed in the constitution to prevent the minority from being oppressed by majority rule.

With that, I'm out of here. I know Graceful disagrees with what I've said. I agree to disagree.

On-topic, I generally agree that without probable cause, a state school shouldn't be able to require drug testing. I see no danger to the public which would override that rule.

Sequoia 1 year, 7 months ago

Hey, I read your Townhall thing, so please check this out when you have a chance. It was written in 1986, and its more true now than ever. imaginativeconservative.org/2011/10/enlivening-conservative-mind.html

Sequoia 1 year, 7 months ago

"So it is that thinking folk of conservative views ought to reject the embraces of the following categories of political zealots:

...Those who, imagining that all mistakes and malicious acts are the work of a malign or deluded “elite,” cry with Carl Sandburg, “The people, yes!”"

tonto 1 year, 7 months ago

Lazy minds just don't get it.

Sequoia 1 year, 7 months ago

Believe me, I know the ACLU can be terribly obnoxious, self-righteous, pointlessly argumentative and fairly annoying. I think they're mostly a force for good, Christian (as opposed to Christian-ist) values, in that they generally fight for the marginalized and despised, but like anybody else they have moments of prejudice and over-reach.

The idea that the ACLU is bent on toppling the American government and replacing it with a communist dictatorship is absolutely ridiculous. You should go to an ACLU board meeting sometime and listen to them argue among themselves the whole time. Then tell me again how you think those people are going to overthrow capitalism and Christianity in America.

Sequoia 1 year, 7 months ago

The 14thA states in part that "...no State shall deprive any person of life, libery, or property without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

The nature of exactly what restrictions that language imposes on state governments has been a major issue in Constitutional law. If you're angling to return to pre-incorporation, well... I think that ship sailed a few decades ago. You may be right, but I bet you a Coke that this case will not be decided by unincorporating the Fourth Amendment.

Regarding the ACLU, can you cite a specific case? I realize a lot of people dislike the ACLU. That feeling is somewhat justified, I think, because the ACLU often takes a stand against things that most people support... for example, the ACLU's defense of the Westboro Baptist Church in striking down Missouri's funeral protest bill. Everyone hates WBC, and the bill was the legislature's attempt to respond to people's concerns. It was lawfully passed and based on the will of the majority, so it seems undemocratic to strike it down.

On the other hand, our democracy is carefully crafted to prevent the majority from imposing its unchecked will on the minority. "Free speech" means free speech for everyone. These principles get tested at the extremes, like the WBC, and that makes for hard questions. Historically, though, I would argue that racial segregation, discrimination, imprisoning people for being Japanese, German or communist... all those things are "undemocratic" even though they may be supported by the majority at the time. Perhaps we disagree as to whether "democracy" is the same thing as "majority rule."

Sequoia 1 year, 7 months ago

Yikes.

asb 1 year, 7 months ago

Here's a thought. Typical drug testing looks for trace amounts of substances to determine recent use. "Recent" can apply to days, weeks or months; depending on the substance. How about rather than testing for past use, an invasion of privacy, students are only tested for intoxicating levels along the lines of the alcohol breathalyser. Isn't the school's purported reason for the testing safety only? Testing for being high is constitutionally defensible for a girl about to head out on a D9 Cat, but what she did last night or last week has no bearing in the present and should not be tested for.

hudson 1 year, 7 months ago

Just say no to more goverment !

tonto 1 year, 7 months ago

Next thing ya know, them students'll be smokin' that mari-joo-onna stuff and runnin' aroun' with scissors. They could put someone's eye out!!

Please review our Policies and Procedures before registering or commenting

Or login with:

OpenID