ACLU files suit over Mo. college’s drug testing

By The Associated Press

Originally published September 14, 2011 at 2:55 p.m., updated September 14, 2011 at 10:29 p.m.

The American Civil Liberties Union filed suit Wednesday to halt “suspicionless” drug testing at a Missouri college, saying the tests violate the constitutional rights of students.

The lawsuit filed by the ACLU of Eastern Missouri in U.S. District Court in Jefferson City does not seek financial damages but asks for an injunction to end drug testing at Linn State Technical College. It also asks that the college return $50 to the accounts of students, money the school charges for the testing program.

The college instituted the widespread program this school year, saying it was necessary to ensure student safety at a campus where the coursework includes aircraft maintenance, heavy engine repair, nuclear technology and other dangerous tasks.

“Suspicionless drug testing violates the Fourth Amendment,” which protects against unlawful searches and seizures, ACLU attorney Tony Rothert said. “This goes beyond what has been permitted before.”

Rothert cited cases where the U.S. Supreme Court allowed drug testing in schools, such as for students involved in extracurricular activities, “but nothing remotely like what’s happening here. We’re not aware of any high school that has this sort of drug testing, much less a college.”

Kent Brown, attorney for Linn State, did not return a message seeking comment. He told The Associated Press last week that the scope and breadth of the program is unique, and “there aren’t many colleges as unique as ours.”

Linn State is a two-year college with 1,200 students. It has campuses in the mid-Missouri towns of Linn, Jefferson City and Mexico.

The testing program requires all first-year students to comply, along with returning students who took a semester or two off and are seeking a degree or academic certificate. Physical therapy students enrolled in cooperative programs between Linn State and two community colleges also must be drug-tested.

The lawsuit, filed on behalf of six students of the college, claims Linn State has never had a history of students with drug problems. It said the college “can demonstrate no legitimate special need for drug testing its students that is sufficient to outweigh the students’ individual privacy expectations against the state.”

The tests screen for 11 drugs, including methamphetamine, cocaine and marijuana. Students who test positive can remain in school if they have a clean test 45 days later. They also must complete an online drug-prevention course or are assigned to other, unspecified “appropriate activities,” according to the school’s written policy. They will remain on probation for the remainder of the semester and will face an unannounced follow-up test.

New and prospective students were advised about the testing program in the spring and during fall orientation.

More like this story

Comments

wow 1 year, 8 months ago

Geez what BS.....now it's a constitutional right to get an education or at least attend a Technical College and use illegal drugs in private? What a freakin crock. It's simple...people who use illegal drugs are an accident waiting to happen. Stop complaining, clean your act up or don't attend Linn Tech. Besides passing the drug test is part of the admittance criteria nothing more nothing less. Kinda like achieving a certain SAT or ACT test score. It's kinda like the Military deal...if you can't pass a drug test...you don't get to be part of "The Few, The Proud, The Marines or The Army of One, or the Coast Guard, Navy or Air Force". Not everyone is cut out for the "HIGH STANDARDS"....but there is nothing wrong with having HIGH STANDARD'S either...especially when in order to meet them all you have to do is pass a drug test. The only thing I don't like about it is that it doesn't address if the faculty and staff are being tested as well. If that were occurring then I'd say Linn Tech hit a home run. IMHO everyone wishing to work for or get benefits from the government should have to pass a drug test first and then be tested randomly thereafter...from the Governor on down to the lowest and newest Custodian. If that happened I betcha we'd clear a lot offices....and to that I say good riddance to bad rubbish!!!!!!!

0

FreeFromDumb 1 year, 8 months ago

This is not about using illegal drugs at all...This is about respecting the Constitution, and promoting the values of a school who respects their student's privacy and their Constitutional rights.

0

fishbowl72 1 year, 8 months ago

C'mon Bill Clinton...we all know you inhaled. There's a reason they are called illegal drugs. It's a criminal activity. My son shouldn't have to further his education surrounded by criminals. That's what you call someone who participates in an ILLEGAL ACTIVITY.

0

FreeFromDumb 1 year, 8 months ago

Actually you have no proof that I am a criminal, good luck with your police state.

0

muleman 1 year, 8 months ago

I suggest starting at the top, say the white house and congress.

0

usmc007 1 year, 8 months ago

It doesnt matter that the AcLu is filing suit in regards to this issue....but why wouldn't they file suit against the institution when I was the victim of daily racism as well as to being assaulted and having the N word written on my desktop. Mind you that I am a Marine Service connected disabled veteran. Everyone here is connected so won't anything happen especially when you have all the proof its all about who you know, and not about whats right, and the justified thing to do....So this will get swept under the rug like everything else. and Linn State will have its way..

Semper Fi

0

Gabrielle 1 year, 8 months ago

Where did this happen? - Linn Sate? What did the ACLU give you for a reason to not pursue this?

0

usmc007 1 year, 8 months ago

They did not give me a reason, they just stop taking my calls....typical

0

FreeFromDumb 1 year, 8 months ago

That makes me sick to my stomach to hear about students using racial hatred so openly to a fellow classmate (especially a service member), and the school not doing anything to address it.

Was this Linn State as well?

0

usmc007 1 year, 8 months ago

I was born seven years after the passing of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, So I guess I am part of the era that suppose to be diversed, where as prior to that it wasn't. I think Linn State needs to become or introduce more DIVERSITILTY into its system because lets face it although some are still stuck in that era, the world is steady leaving them behind. Even some of the instructors have made derrogatory comments as well, so like i said before I wasn't the only one who experienced this type of treatment there, the only difference is I reported because i was under the impression as A mature Adult that I had Rights, not to be humiliated daily and giving the institution the opportunity to handle it. Mr.Brown's Law firm is a JoKe as well, my story has never changed and never will I don't Lie. I am also wondering is Kent Brown (linn States Attorney) related to Earl Brown(VA Voc rehab counselor Ft. Leonardwood)? If so that would explain why nonthing happend with my True and Accurate account of events that i had to endure daily.

0

Gabrielle 1 year, 8 months ago

ah, the lessons of the world. Many of us know, what you say - what mature adults do.....yeah, I know that one.....LOL!

0

tonto 1 year, 8 months ago

Thank you for your service to our great country. Discrimination complaints are ususlly addressed by the NAACP or the Missouri Commission on Human Rights. The ACLU is not so much involved with that.

0

usmc007 1 year, 8 months ago

Yeah the NAACP went and did and investigation found that I was wronged but that has been the End of it, but how can you get results when the President is also a Lawyer for the State. Missouri Commission on Human Rights know the people at Linn State so there's No Way I am gonna get any Justice.

0

usmc007 1 year, 8 months ago

At this point I am thinking I should have been like all the other Vets that have been wronged and INTRODUCED them to MARINE CORPS COMBAT TRAINING 2011. MIGHT HAVE GOTTEN BETTER RESULTS.

0

FreeFromDumb 1 year, 8 months ago

Liberty mmmmmm Love It! Shame on Linn State for violating student's Fourth Admendment.

0

fishbowl72 1 year, 8 months ago

The Fourth Amendment covers UNREASONLABLE search and siezure. Is it unreasonable to expect students to obey the law and not use ILLEGAL drugs? You have to take a drug test for most jobs anyway, so unless you're studying to be assistant manager at Burger King you're going to be screened for drugs prior to employment. Is that unreasonable as well?

0

tonto 1 year, 8 months ago

fishie, what's UNREASONABLE is testing all the students "just in case" someone might be using illegal drugs.

0

bluesfan13 1 year, 8 months ago

Are you against it because Linn State is a public college, or are you against it for private schools as well?

0

tonto 1 year, 8 months ago

I am personally opposed to such indiscriminate drug testing in all cases, but that would be a question to ask an attorney. A private school might have more leeway.

0

FreeFromDumb 1 year, 8 months ago

Fishy, Do you understand that LSTC never had any probable cause to test these young adults? That is what makes this an unreasonable search and seizure.

0

Gabrielle 1 year, 8 months ago

It is sad you see this country as a 'warped and depraved society'. Where would you rather live? We/you/I have alot to appreciate here in this country. Yeah, we have these discussions about the stuff that is goinng on. Let me be clear - I am very glad I am an American. I also enjoy other countries. The United States of America is my home. We have soooooo much going for us. Yes, there is wrong doing - likely on all levels. We can handle this and deal with it - and we are and we will continue to do so. The things that need to be addressed are being addressed. Differing opinions, discussions, filing lawsuits, etc... are all part of the process. THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA'S BEST DAYS AWAIT HER! HER FUTURE IS BRIGHT! America and its citizens are blessed. Remember people come here from other countries and love it!!! Maybe you aught to look at the USA through their eyes, Grace.

0

wow 1 year, 8 months ago

Heard about this racism issue with Vet some time ago and wondered what ever became of it. Appears as if the vet got the short end of the stick. It would not surprise me as I'm sure there are some knuckle Klan members in the Linn area. Mr./Ms. USMC007...don't give up pursuing this deal. if you were truly wronged...make a stink about it until somebody listens and does you right. You served this nation and earned your right to get an education. No freakin dumkauf &^%^%$%$#&^%%#$%#%$@#@%&^#%$@$%%$@#@!$ racist can be allowed to deny you that! I hope this racial issue get's resolved the right way....but I still agree with the drug testing.

0

Mr_Grimm 1 year, 8 months ago

Last time i checked drugs were illegal. Now go ahead and give me some BS about how its only illegal to possess and not consume. so unless there is some way to use drugs without holding it or the device used to ingest it there is now way to consume without possessing. there IS NO clause in the constitution that says you have the right to break the law. If you dont like it DONT DO DRUGS......its simple. i dont want a heavy equipment operator on my roadway high on anything. People make me sick.....its my right to get high and drive to school or work that way and if i kill someone from it its my right too. No different than drunk driving. Personally i say search the belongings of anyone found to be dirty while on school property and if they have it on them charge them with possession within 1000 ft of a school, have a nice day felon!

ITs like Jim Carey in liar liar....."QUIT breaking the LAW A-****!!!!!!"

0

Gabrielle 1 year, 8 months ago

I am all for following the laws. Here's the 4th amendment to the Constitution?

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

How do you square away this amendment with your statement, MrGrimm? If it is important to follow the laws - aught this one be followed too?

1

fishbowl72 1 year, 8 months ago

It has nothing to do with being secure in their persons, houses, papers (well, maybe rolling papers) and/or effects. It is a qualification to study at this perticular institution. People like you are ruining this country... and encouraging other degenerates to help you in your cause. Linn State isn't required to accept every student that applies for enrollment and has every right to set the standards which the students have to abide.

0

tonto 1 year, 8 months ago

fishie, Did you miss the part about "secure in their persons"? That means no peeing in the cup requirement without some reasonable suspicion of a law violation. Nothing in state or federal law gives the administration the authority to impose an unconstitutional requirement.

0

tonto 1 year, 8 months ago

Nothing has changed in that regard. Graceful. Testing everyone just in case someone might have used drugs is still unreasonable and unconstitutional.

0

Gabrielle 1 year, 8 months ago

Which federal judges don't give a rip what the Constitution says or even why it exists? This is a pretty serious statement. AND what is the basis for such an allegation?

0

Gabrielle 1 year, 8 months ago

what is a degenerate, fishbowl72?

0

Gabrielle 1 year, 8 months ago

Also - setting aside the constitutional aspect of this - it is a false sense of security to think that having everyone prove they are 'drug free' at a given moment in time. That moment in time does not represent all the other moments in time that follow. Do you understand that, fishbowl?

0

Gabrielle 1 year, 8 months ago

So you disagree, freedumb? What is your point?

0

Gabrielle 1 year, 8 months ago

Grace: here is the 4th amendment:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Explain how this does not apply to the ACLU recent filing in Cole Cty?

0

tonto 1 year, 8 months ago

Good post. We are all waiting for Graceful's explanation of how the fourth amendment doesn't apply in this case.

0

Gabrielle 1 year, 8 months ago

radical? - or different than yours?

0

Gabrielle 1 year, 8 months ago

this is odd. There is nothing the ACLU has ever supported that you agree with? so, for starters, who does get to speak freely according to your understanding of the Constitution?

0

tonto 1 year, 8 months ago

She's the only one; the rest of us still love this country with all her faults.

0

suzyjax 1 year, 8 months ago

I think Westboro BAPTIST is considered pretty right wing.

0

tonto 1 year, 8 months ago

Graceful, that's a first amendment issue. If someone wanted to search the Westboro Baptist Church protesters, the fourth amendment might prohibit that. What most of us want is for them to shut up, but they don't have to because of the First Amentment. At least that's what the courts have said.

0

FreeFromDumb 1 year, 8 months ago

"The ACLU has never advocated Christianity, ritual animal sacrifice, trading arms for hostages or genocide. In representing NAMBLA today, our Massachusetts affiliate does not advocate sexual relationships between adults and children. What the ACLU does advocate is robust freedom of speech for everyone."

0

Gabrielle 1 year, 8 months ago

I am with you, mrGrimm: ' i dont want a heavy equipment operator on my roadway high on anything'.

This whole thing of drug testing doesn't stop anyone from doing the above. What it does is stop them from using during the time of testing. The best dopeheads can do that!

What is far more effective is test when there is a reason. Maybe staff, educators, etc... can be educated on how to notice the signs of someone who is using drugs. A good eye can spot an occassional marijuana user, given the proper 'tools'. More 'hardcore' stuff would be even easier.

0

FreeFromDumb 1 year, 8 months ago

"A good eye can spot an occassional marijuana user" Of course. Almost every time I see a cancer patient, I stop and think about how I spotted a MJ user, and it makes me feel great knowing that someone going through so much pain can have a NATURAL substance to HELP with his/ or her pain. Natural Medicine, its great...

0

Gabrielle 1 year, 8 months ago

so you disagree, Freedumb? What is your point?

0

FreeFromDumb 1 year, 8 months ago

Though I agree with you on here with a lot of your statements, one thing that I do not agree with is giving the teachers the power to single out students who they believe is on drugs.

One solution is to give the students literature about the topic, and let them educate themselves on the issue

From my experience the typical heroin or meth user usually has a hard time making it to class and passing.

0

Gabrielle 1 year, 8 months ago

You have identified the 'etc', --- informed students are the best. Good caring staff and instructors are as well. It sounds like you are concerned about the power structure - if you will - of the intructors singling out students who they believe are on drugs. Good caring people do that and do their best to be tactful about it. You are right, though, that the students can do well with the info.

Thanks for further dlineating the solution. So. what is everyone's problem that this isn't the plan of action? I just do't get it.

0

Gabrielle 1 year, 8 months ago

As I reflect upon the discussion here, I am really appreciative of you bringing up the benefits of marijuana. It isn't clear to me how it became illegal many years ago, though not that long ago. Many people can benefit from it in addition to people with cancer, though not all with ancer would necessarily find it helpful to their situation. Nevertheless,'smoked marijuana 'provides relief from migraine headaches, depression, seizures, insomnia and chronic pain.' It also provides 'symptomatic relief for a number of medical conditions, including nausea and vomiting, stimulating appetite, promoting weight gain, and diminishing intraocular pressure from glaucoma.' AND those who have experienced a spinal cord injury are relieved of muscle spacity and people with MS have less tremors.

I have yet to understand why 'we' as a society deprive people of these benefits. Senseless.

Dare I add ? yes I dare - setting aside the legalities of each - what is the difference between someone enjoying a nice glass of wine after dinner - or two - and enjoying a marijuana cigarette?

0

Gabrielle 1 year, 8 months ago

A Dreamer - I like it!!!! NO - Iove it!!!!!

I didn't see it at first - you went in a totally different direction than usual. Just an add on - and this is part of what confused me - many people receiving treatment for cancer are doing sooooo - much better b/c the process of giving the chemotherapy has been so refined as have the drugs thenselves, many people go about things alwfully close to 'business as usual'.

It sure would be nice to be free to use marijuana in its natural form for ailments. We are getting there - some states -as you may know - have passed medical marijuana laws. The federal government is getting in the way..... so, are there state's rights?.....or not?

0

FreeFromDumb 1 year, 8 months ago

This is not about promoting students to use illegal drugs at all...This is about respecting the Constitution, and promoting the values of a school who respects their student's privacy and their Constitutional rights.

0

Gabrielle 1 year, 8 months ago

Freedumb: is this the part of 'the Constitution' you are referring to?

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

It is apparent from the actions of Linn State that they do not have values to promote that respect their student's privacy. That is why the ACLU has file the suit.

0

FreeFromDumb 1 year, 8 months ago

You nailed it! but lets break this down for the simpletons who don't quite get it yet.

Was there probable cause for the drug test? No. LSTC clearly states this in the student handbook.

Were the students searched? Yes

Were any seizures enforced? Yes (the urine samples)

Does anyone on here bashing the ACLU realize that thousands of US Soldiers have died in defense of the Constitution? How do you think they would feel about their own county violating these Admendments?

0

Gabrielle 1 year, 8 months ago

explain how it is being expanded far beyond what it was intended.

0

Gabrielle 1 year, 8 months ago

when did this happen? - 'Until the Supreme Court got the wild idea that somehow the 14th Amendment made the fourth amendment applicable to the states it did not.'

Was there a specific decision made?

0

fishbowl72 1 year, 8 months ago

Line by line common sense replies to your liberal drivel...

Probable cause does not apply if the test is a requirement for enrollment.

Searched??? Is it Linn State or the TSA???

Siezures??? I'm sure the students can get their pee returned if desired.

Just admit you're a pothead.

0

Gabrielle 1 year, 8 months ago

fishbowl: 'just admit you're a pothead' is really quite presumptious on your part. Some people are actually beyond having to justify their personal actions - rather they work to understand the foundation of this country and how to apply it - critical analysis. If it were 'common sense' we wouldn't be having this discussion; nor would there be a lawsuit filed by the ACLU.

0

Gabrielle 1 year, 8 months ago

At times I am in awe of the Founding Fathers' forsight to write the documents which are the foundation of this country. IN AWE!! that they knew to do this. Such wise men. They know people - they know governments!! AMAZING!!

0

suzyjax 1 year, 8 months ago

Even if that was (as in past tense) the case, the 14th amendment has been interpreted by SCOTUS as stating the Bill of Rights also apply to the states.

0

usmc007 1 year, 8 months ago

No my issue was never handled, and I have be alienated. My va counselor who is suppose to be for the Vet offered to play good Cop Bad Cop for me just reporting the issues like an adult is suppose to do Well a Well disciplined Marine two Good Conduct Awards so that tells any and ALL the nature of My Character as a Man. IN short my VA counselor/ Along with Linn State Has made me lose all of my Chapter 31 benefits in pursuing my issue with every organization(chain of command) that's suppose to Right the Wrong but since its here in the 'Ol Capitol I am assuming and the small community everyone has swept me under the rug sort to speak while stripping me of my pride in a way for FIGHTING TO PROTECT THIS COUNTRY, I volunteered for unlike the people I protected in Order to get this type of treatment. But its the way of America. I just want to live the American Dream, and I have done my part to prove that. I am a mature Adult, and it just amazes me how when you are right and just want to live life, and people see this Positivity and then the do everything to strip you of everything for it. So Who's really Gonna Support the troops. If like in my situation you have a veteran reporting the issues to his voch rehab counselor and he encourages the Vet to stay in the Hostile Learing environment, while at the same time setting the Vet up for failure, while stripping the VEt of his benefits? This is how Va Programs works for Vet's first hand experience, thank God I Pray for a better Day each day fore I can only imagine how the SyStem is working for those who has MENTAL issues due to the service or the services they're receiving. So like I said previously WHO'S REALLY GONNA SUPPORT THE TROOPS?

SEMPER FI is All I know. P.s. Because I reacted to the duressed sitution in a positive manner in each incident, where as anyone else who was imature might have reacted in different way. I hold no grudges against no one but I am frustrated with a system that only Works when it wanna work. I just want to live my dream here in Jefferson City, Mo I've been all over the world but I think I've found my corner of the earth here. But how can I live the Dream if its partially taken due to me doing the correct thing Cause everyone has a choice and consequences that are to follow afterwards.

0

usmc007 1 year, 8 months ago

Although, I have my own issue's with Linn State, I do conqure with the drug testing policy, there's a lot of dangerous equipment, vehicles, and mostly chemicals being used there. Just like no-one would want the pilot of the Air Plane to be stoned, or the Policeman, and definately not the Fireman although they are well rested at times lol. Love them all to death Hand Salute to each and everyone of you's who make this community what it is.

Semper Fi

0

suzyjax 1 year, 8 months ago

Cheers to the six students who stood up against the Linn State beuracracy and for their civil rights!

0

fishbowl72 1 year, 8 months ago

Go ahead and cheer these subversives. America is circling the bowl and will be flushed very soon. Leave it to liberals to place importance of drug use over the value of an education. I kinda hope the ACLU wins so druggies can get automotive repair training so they can work on the brakes of your Prius. Make sure to say hello to the ambulance driver for me... and pray your EMT isn't high as well.

0

FreeFromDumb 1 year, 8 months ago

Fishbowl, I really hope that I never meet you in person, you are scary.

0

Gabrielle 1 year, 8 months ago

Freedom - fishbowl is just roaring a little with his scare tactics. Fortunately, that's all it is. Of course, you may already know that. Maybe he can experience the goodness and kindness of people in a transformative way.

0

FreeFromDumb 1 year, 8 months ago

safety over drug use? you do realize students can begin taking drugs after the tests. Its very clear that this lawsuit has nothing to do with promoting drug use.

0

suzyjax 1 year, 8 months ago

Radical individualism was exactly what was contemplated by our founders!

0

suzyjax 1 year, 8 months ago

IF America is "circling the bowl" it is because we so freely give up what the forefathers fought hard to secure--our rights!
Your argument is moot....who is to say that the person fixing my brakes was drug free in school but now an addict? What if the person fixing my brakes (btw, on my American made by American company vehicle) was drunk? What test would cover that? It's all a big ruse in the name of "safety"...but as one of our forefathers said: "Those who are willing to give up liberty for security deserve neither"

0

Gabrielle 1 year, 8 months ago

I have often wondered this: 'they had every intent and purpose to control what occured in their own state'.

Seems they knew opression - wanted to prevent it here - and, logically, would also have a clear idea of what they did want - what was 'right'. How much did their 'religious beliefs' shape their ideas --> founding documents?

0

online_editor 1 year, 8 months ago

General reminder just so we don't get too far off the topic of discussion that the article is focused on and the purpose of this forum... Please remember the scope of the article is the ACLU's suit against Linn State over drug testing students and the general issues related to it. The purpose of the forum is to discuss your opinions about those general issues. It is not designed to tackle nor distinguish the validity of details of individual accusations of wrongdoing that aren't the subject of the article, so please make sure additional posts conform to the purpose of the forum by focusing on the general issues. Thank you. --Rick Brown, online editor, News Tribune

0

usmc007 1 year, 8 months ago

so are You related to Kent and Earl Brown?

0

usmc007 1 year, 8 months ago

They say the truth hurts, and sometimes we as HumanS do not want to deal with it in itself. So, I can not comment on the subject and speak of my actual facts (DOCUMENTATION) AS TO THE RACIAL DESCRIMINATION I endured as a(n) African American along with the other 1% of minorities at Linn State, and the plus for me well its suppose to be is that I am a Marine Veteran which is suppose to mean something. Like I said I see your last name is Brown and from my experience here, you are related to either my voch Rehab counselor or the lawyer Kent Brown. Is this the reasoning for your post to say shame on me for telling the truth, and having the documents to varify the TRuth? This is nothing fictional here, and this is my Life that these ignorant people have messed up and continue to do so. So what happened to FREEDOM OF SPEECH hell, what happened to FREEDOM PERIOD.

0

online_editor 1 year, 8 months ago

No, not related. Just asking you to now focus more on the general issue of drug testing since it's the main topic of the article and what most participants are addressing, now that you've already successfully addressed your civil liberties case in several posts. Thanks.

0

usmc007 1 year, 8 months ago

Ok sir, no problem and as A Man, I apologize in my assumption sir.

Semper Fi usmc007

0

gofish 1 year, 8 months ago

It amazes me how hard people have to argue in support of the 1st and 4th amendments to the narrow minded law enforcement advocates who want to rule with an iron fist. Okay, I get it. Don't do illegal or illegally obtained drugs. Drugs are bad. Drugs result in bad decisions. Just say no (thanks Nancy). The only way that I can think of to establish this iron clad drug testing policy is to be a private institution that accepts no federal funds, federal student loans, pell grants, etc. If you play pick and choose with who gets tested, someone will argue they have been profiled or discriminated against, unless you have something in stone to justify why you picked them instead of someone else.

Never in any other time in history have our 1st and 4th amendment freedoms been challenged so harshly under the guise of homeland security, for our own protection, and to not offend literally any ONE person. Is it worth x-ray strip searches at the airport? Maybe it is. Especially if the TSA will hire physicians to screen me for colon cancer at the same time.

When history is forgotten it is doomed to repeat itself. Hitler was one of the most adept leaders at infringing upon the freedoms we take for granted under the US Constitution. The man was a genius...granted an evil genious, but never-the-less he wiped out an entire generation of people all because "he said so" and people went along with it. Red China has been doing a marvelous job of restricting free speech for generations. I can assure you not one internet provider from China will screw up and let my leftist opinion get through the grid.

No one wants a drunk heavy machine operator on the road, but seriously, isn't that the most ludicrous thing you've ever heard. Does anyone keep statistics on the incidence of drunk collegiate road grader offenses? I'd speculate that the number per 1000 is pretty low indeed.

So, if I have nothing to hide, why shouldn't I submit to drug testing everywhere? Maybe preventative airport screenings will prolong my life. Or maybe I don't want strangers eyeballing my colon from the other side of the glass. Then what? I can't get on a commercial airliner? If you ask me, the whole darn worlds gone crazy. And that's all I have to say about that.

0

FreeFromDumb 1 year, 8 months ago

Thank you for being an educated individual.

0

Mr_Grimm 1 year, 8 months ago

Petunia....i didnt read all the posts yet between the one you asked me and here so if this is a repeat than sorry. yes thats what the law says...but ask any attorney or judge...its not just what it says its how its INTERPRETED. that stands for your home and anywhere you have an expectation of privacy (your home, car, bedroom, ) not school. and here is a little tid bit:

"The Supreme Court defined students' reduced Fourth Amendment rights in New Jersey v. T.L.O. (1985), where it ruled that schools do not have to follow the customary requirements of having PROBABLE CAUSE or a WARRANT in order to carry out searches. Instead, school authorities must follow only a simple standard based on "the dictates of reason and common sense." (quoted from VV VV VV.enotes.com/everyday-law-encyclopedia/drug-testing)

This also applies to high school. teachers also MAY ACT as officials and search students based ONLY on suspicion NOT probable cause.

0

Gabrielle 1 year, 8 months ago

Thanks for answering my question. I appreciate it. Yes, it is in the interpretation. I will read the case you cited as well as the referenced website.

You mention high school. While reading this article and the posts, I have often thought of the high school students in Ashland. My best recollection is that if a student wanted to park a car in the student parking lot, they needed to pass a drug test. It has never sat right with me. What is the goal? If the concern is students using illegal drugs or abusing legal drugs, maybe there are more productive ways to accomplish this, though nothing is fullproof here. Maybe we can educate children - you know - treat them as if they have a brain because they do and they know how to think. I am of the line of thinking that - generally speaking - children will rise to the expectations given them.

0

muleman 1 year, 8 months ago

The lawsuit, filed on behalf of six students of the college, claims Linn State has never had a history of students with drug problems. How could they know that?

0

tonto 1 year, 8 months ago

The ACLU people have lots of attorneys. They have access to court records and the ability to analyze them, They probably talked with the prosecuting attorney who is pretty busy trying to keep up with all the meth cases in Osage County.

0

muleman 1 year, 8 months ago

If they had a drug use problem during college but were not arrested while attending LSTC there will be no records. In this day and age no college anywhere in the country can clain to never had a student with a drug problem

0

FreeFromDumb 1 year, 8 months ago

Read the LSTC Student handbook...

0

Mr_Grimm 1 year, 8 months ago

Fish. If they make colon exams that simple compared to the other way........I'll fly everyday!!!

0

gofish 1 year, 8 months ago

As long as they're playing Frank Sinatra in the background I think it will be a huge success. "Come fly with me, let's fly let's fly away"

0

Mr_Grimm 1 year, 8 months ago

NICELY played! well done...lol !!! Its much better than "I'll never be the same" at the Doctors office!

0

Gabrielle 1 year, 8 months ago

The drug testing is not part of the admission requirements. It is done AFTER the semester has started.

0

JCLifer 1 year, 8 months ago

I don't understand why anyone would think they have the RIGHT to do drugs and endanger others while getting an education.

0

tonto 1 year, 8 months ago

No one is claiming a right to do drugs or endanger others. They are claiming a right to be free from unreasonable searches and to be secure in their persons and possessions.

Petunia was kind enough to post the fourth amendment above:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

I like Petunia's version. Apparently, you and grimmie and gracie and fishie have a United States Constitution in mind that's different from the one in Washington, D.C.

0

Gabrielle 1 year, 8 months ago

Why do you specify Madison, Hamilton and Jay?

0

Gabrielle 1 year, 8 months ago

I have 'started' to read them. There are only 80 some....is it a good idea to prioritize which to read first?.... or in the numerical order given to them?

0

Mr_Grimm 1 year, 8 months ago

i have the one in mind that was quoted to me in multiple "search and seizure" classes by more than one prosecuting attorney. THEY are the ones who follow the supreme courts INTERPRETATION of that amendment and have passed it to us. It has changed numerous times in the last few years but on this topic has pretty much remained the same. you cannot read ANY law word for word and expect it to be exactly as written, stupid but its the way our system is.

0

Gabrielle 1 year, 8 months ago

In what ways has it changed in the recent past?

0

Mr_Grimm 1 year, 8 months ago

It changed in regards to searches of people and places. The supreme court turned over a long standing rule of search after arrest and things like that. Example if a parent believes a child has drugs in their room but there is a lock on the bedroom door a warrant will have to given due to expectation of privacy even though the parent is the guardian and homeowner their permission is not enough. same rule for hotel rooms. my understanding is that on school property this does not apply due to that lack of privacy and a locker for example is always accessible by the school at any time.

0

bluesfan13 1 year, 8 months ago

So at what point is drug testing acceptable? Linn State (in theory) instituted this policy because of their coursework that ends in students being employed in the airline, heavy construction, nuclear, etc. industries which ALL require initial and random drug testing. If it's ok for those companies to drug test for employment, why can't Linn State drug test?

0

Gabrielle 1 year, 8 months ago

I am not familiar with anyone having challenged private industry in the court system. Does anyone know if this has been done?

Personally, I disagree with anyone being drug tested unless there is a reason = probable cause. All positions in the private sector have drug testing - even administrate assistants can be asked for unine specimens to test for drugs. Unreasonable!

0

bluesfan13 1 year, 8 months ago

Why? Why do these same industries (aircraft, heavy equipment, nuclear, medical, etc.) require background checks, up to and including fingerprinting and full FBI investigations? Why shouldn't they just assume "innocent until proven guilty"? That's because the government can't (in a legal/criminal process) test or investigate without probable cause. The constitution says nothing about a private entity (or really meaning anything other than a criminal proceeding) being able to (test/invesitgate/assume guilt) before allowing employment, involvement, or membership. What's the difference between random testing of college athletes, and random testing of all college students anyway? What makes it ok to do one subset, but not the entire population?

0

Gabrielle 1 year, 8 months ago

YEEEahhhh! I am with you - WHY - maybe because 'we' have 'allowed' this.

0

JCLifer 1 year, 8 months ago

So, do you have the same position on the required vision testing when you get your driver's license renewed? You haven't done anything to cause the government to have reasonable suspicion that you have poor vision, but yet they are testing your vision before they will give you a driver's license.

Same for fingerprinting new teachers. There is no probably cause that they have molested children or committed any other felony, but still the government requires that their finger prints be submitted.

If there are no problems with fingerprinting teachers or vision testing driver's license applicants, then there are no problems with drug testing to take classes at Linn State Technical College.

0

Gabrielle 1 year, 8 months ago

You bring up some very good points, JC. I am glad you asked - it really makes a person think - well, it makes me think. I grew up with vision testing as the way things are done and have accepted it as that. I will visit this in more depth. Is it an intrusion or a few people have spoiled it for the rest of us and it is really 'ok'?

As for the teachers. I see it much the same as the drug testing. From a legal/Constitutional standpoint, yes - an intrusion. Also, another point it is a false sense of security to fingerprint someone and then think 'all is well'. What has really been learned? Given the fingerprints come up clean, we know the fingerprint owner has not been convicted of whatever the concern maybe. It doesn't mean they haven't commited crime in question. Maybe they have and have not been caught. Lets think about some of the school officials - not just teachers - that have been in the news for harming children. I am guessing their fingerprints were checked.

So, back to the vision part - was accepting vision testing for a drivers license the beginning of 4th amendment violation? I wonder if, when this began as the 'law of the land', there was a ruckus about it then. Anyone know?

0

tonto 1 year, 8 months ago

Vision testing has a legitimate and logical connection to driving - a driver has to be able to see the road and other vehicles, and must be able to see and read signs. It's not comparable to drug testing for tech school students.

0

Gabrielle 1 year, 8 months ago

okay tonto - my perspective is probably clear. Given that, there are questions we must ask - as JC has pointed out. So, thinking along those lines, people at certain jobs must be mentally clear to safely do their job and drug use gets in the way.....just like not seeing signs clearly 'gets in the way......so, now what comes to mind is sleep deprivation.....should we monitor everyone's sleep? After all, sleep deprivation is crucial for mental clarity.....just thinking 'out loud'

It's really quite a mess....

0

tonto 1 year, 8 months ago

You are right about the mess. Thinking clearly also requires the ability to evaluate relevance. As an example; illegal drugs are just that - illegal, but should everyone be subjected to random testing? You know, just in case?

I would say no but a lot of people would say yes. Is that because the drugs are illegal, because someone using drugs might hurt us, or because we have a deep-seated emotional fear of those drugs?

We know that frightened people will do or say anything they think might reduce their fear. I am not very afraid of someone who smokes a little marijuana but I am aafraid of overanxious do-gooders who "want something done" regardless of whether it might work, or be logical or legal, or have an impact on others.

0

JCLifer 1 year, 8 months ago

Shouldn't there be probable cause that a driver has poor vision first? Shouldn't there be probably cause that a teacher is a child molester?

What is the difference?

0

Gabrielle 1 year, 8 months ago

you make valid points JC. so, if I say no next time my license is to be renewed, my guess is I won't get it. What a hassle that would be. so - go along so not to be inconvenienced?

0

muleman 1 year, 8 months ago 

  Personally, in todays economy with the high unemployment and jobs for new graduates almost out of reach. I think that attending a tech school that is well known for drug testing would be a big plus towards landing a job. LSTC could guarantee that its graduates were drug free while attending classes.  JMHO
0

FreeFromDumb 1 year, 8 months ago

The job site will not care, if they believe in testing they will test you either way.

If you want to impress a drug testing friendly employer, how about starting up a Job Safety class, instead of this stupid drug test

0

wcywing 1 year, 8 months ago

Drug testing is dumb. The last 3 presidents did drugs, and did no jail time. Use resources for real criminals.

0

FreeFromDumb 1 year, 8 months ago

Even the Governor's son wouldn't be allowed at LSTC

0

wcywing 1 year, 8 months ago

But he can be President. They should decriminalize the drug laws.

0

suzyjax 1 year, 8 months ago

But, people DO have objections to these things! Some people just gloss over it because they are in need of employment.

SCOTUS has never upheld across-the-board drug testing. Any drug testing that was upheld in public schools (read minors, not full adult citizens) were only for those participating in some sort of school extracurricular activity. They have NEVER EVER EVER upheld across-the-board, no suspicion based drug testing of students.

0

Gabrielle 1 year, 8 months ago

You are exactly right - people do object and then go through the drug testing for the needed job. I personally know people who have done this. they didn't like - still don't - and feel intruded upon. So, we have this lawsuit with the ACLU representing several Linn students. What else can we - those of us that think it is wrong - do?

0

tonto 1 year, 8 months ago

Ranken Tech costs three times as much, and is not eligible for the A+ program.

0

tonto 1 year, 8 months ago

Petunia, this was someone's "big idea" and the administration will have a lot of its ego tied up in the program. They will want this to look like it works.

You could apply to the governor's office for one of the vacanies on the governing board, and you could go to their nexxt board meeting. You'll find that on the Governbor's home page on the state website.

0

Frankenstein27 1 year, 8 months ago

I think this requires an analysis of public education in general, and schools like Linn Tech in particular. This may surprise many of you, but state-subsidized education wasn't developed for the benefit of the students attending those schools, but for the benefit of society as a whole in producing adults capable of contributing to society. Linn Tech's mission is to produce adults capable of filling positions in various skilled occupations. Someone who cannot pass a drug test required to maintain a position in a skilled occupation does not benefit society. If that student doesn't go on to benefit society, society has just wasted a fair amount of money in subsidizing that person's education for 2 years. (the guy above mentioned Rankin is more expensive - this is largely because as a private school it doesn't receive nearly the level of subsidazation that Linn Tech does) The drug screening cases I'm aware of that require reasonable suspicion involve COMPULSORY education. Linn Tech is not compulsory. No one is legally obligated to attend Linn Tech. (To prevent the TSA sidebar - I think the airport security screenings are also constitutional - a horribly bad idea and huge waste of money - but constitutional.) Would it be a cleaner legal arguement if the drug screening was part of the admission process - sure. However, there is no protection against search and seizure where there is no reasonable expectation of privacy. Maybe the kids this first year can argue they had a reasonable expectation of privacy, but no future class can make that claim. Further, those testing positive aren't subject to criminal sanctions, or even school discipline - just treatment. In short, it's not a 4th amendment violation, and it's probably a pretty good idea. (The safety aspect of making sure kids aren't high around equipment is a nice touch, but more frequent screenings are needed for that argument to fly; that could get really expensive really quick though.) I frequently side with the ACLU, but they're wasting dues fighting this one.

0

Frankenstein27 1 year, 8 months ago

To prevent the other irrelevant sidebar - while I've never so much as tried pot, I think it should be decriminalized. I don't care if people want to spend their own money on drugs to make themselves act stupider, I just wish the government would stop taking my money to try to stop it. As long as drug screenings are a part of employed life though, I am behind LSTC's policy. Further, even if drugs were legal, I would support LSTC's testing of students. Many accrediting bodies include restrictions on things like student employment outside of school to limit students distractions from their education. As long as my tax dollars are subsidizing LSTC I don't mind LSTC enforcing policies to limit the ways their students waste their education.

0

Please review our Policies and Procedures before registering or commenting
Advertisements

http://jeffcity.media.clients.ellingtoncms.com/static/newstribune/images/wheretogo.jpg