515 U.S. 646 (1995)
Vernonia School District 47J operates one high school and three grade schools in the logging community of Vernonia, Oregon.1
In the mid-to-late 1980s, teachers and administrators observed a sharp increase in drug use among students.2 Between 1988 and 1989 the number of disciplinary referrals in Vernonia schools rose to more than twice the number reported in the early 1980's.3 A Vernonia high school football coach had observed suspicious steroid use by his athletes.4 The District's wrestling coach had witnessed students sharing steroids and had discovered steroids in a school locker.5 The District had a drug testing policy for student athletes since before 1989, but it had not been enforced for lack of funding.6
In the fall of 1989, the District received funds for a drug testing program and approved a Student Athlete Drug Policy.7 The Policy authorized random urinalysis drug testing of students who participated in the District's athletic programs.8 The Policy applied to all students participating in interscholastic athletics.9 It required students and their parents to sign a consent form agreeing to drug testing as a condition of participation.10 Athletes were tested at the beginning of the season and then randomly throughout the season.11
The testing procedure required students to provide a urine sample in a bathroom stall with an adult monitor of the same sex standing outside the stall.12 The monitor listened for normal sounds of urination.13 The samples were sent to a laboratory for analysis.14 A positive test result led to a meeting with the student and his or her parents.15 The student was given the option of participating in a drug assistance program or being suspended from athletics for the remainder of the season and the next season.16
In the fall of 1991, respondent James Acton, who was then a seventh grader, signed up to play football at the District's middle school.17 He was denied participation because he and his parents refused to sign the consent form for drug testing.18 They then filed this suit in the United States District Court for the District of Oregon, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief from enforcement of the Policy on the grounds that it violated the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and Article I, § 9, of the Oregon Constitution.19 After a bench trial, the District Court dismissed the suit on the merits.20 A panel of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed, holding that the Policy violated both the Federal and the State Constitutions.21 The Supreme Court granted certiorari.22
Whether the Student Athlete Drug Policy adopted by Vernonia School District 47J, which requires random urinalysis drug testing of students participating in interscholastic athletics, violates the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments?23
The Fourth Amendment prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures by state actors, including public school officials.24 In the public school context, a search is reasonable if justified at its inception and reasonably related in scope to the circumstances that justified the interference, taking into account the schools' custodial and tutelary responsibility for children.25 Special needs beyond normal law enforcement can justify suspicionless searches when the warrant and probable cause requirements are impracticable.26
No. The established facts demonstrate that Vernonia School District 47J confronted a sharp increase in drug use.27
Disciplinary referrals more than doubled between 1988 and 1989.28 Coaches observed suspicious steroid use by athletes.29 Students shared steroids, and steroids were discovered in a school locker.30
Student athletes possess a reduced expectation of privacy because they voluntarily subject themselves to additional rules, preseason physical exams, minimum grade requirements, and communal undress in locker rooms lacking individual stalls or curtains.31 The urine collection procedure under the Policy occurred in a locker room or bathroom stall with a same-sex monitor standing outside listening only for normal sounds of urination.32 This process is comparable to everyday public restroom use and therefore minimally intrusive.33 The governmental interest in deterring drug use among student athletes is compelling because athletes serve as role models for the student body.34
Drug use heightens the risk of sports-related injuries.35 The District Court found the disciplinary crisis had reached epidemic proportions fueled by alcohol and drug abuse.36 The testing screened solely for amphetamines, cocaine, and marijuana through an independent laboratory with strict chain-of-custody protocols.37 Positive results triggered only a choice between a six-week assistance program or athletic suspension rather than criminal penalties or academic sanctions.38
Balancing the diminished privacy expectation, the limited character of the intrusion, and the severity of the demonstrated need under the special needs doctrine applicable to schools, the Policy satisfies Fourth Amendment reasonableness.39
The Student Athlete Drug Policy does not violate the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments.40
Related opinions on this issue
Justice Ginsburg joined the Court's opinion and added a brief statement to emphasize the limited scope of the holding.41 The decision applies only to student athletes who voluntarily participate in interscholastic athletics and therefore have a reduced expectation of privacy.42 The District demonstrated a serious drug problem among its students, particularly its athletes, which supported the reasonableness of the Policy.43
The Court does not hold that routine, suspicionless drug testing of all students required to attend school would be constitutional.44 She noted that the most severe sanction under the Policy is suspension from extracurricular athletic programs rather than broader academic penalties.45
Joined by Justices Stevens And Souter
Justice O’Connor dissented on the ground that the Fourth Amendment's strong preference for individualized suspicion cannot be dispensed with here.46 She argued that the Policy constitutes a suspicionless search unsupported by any showing that individualized suspicion would be impracticable.47 The District's anecdotal evidence of drug use was insufficient to justify blanket testing of all athletes.48
A suspicion-based regime would have been workable given the close supervision already present in schools.49 She further noted the significant privacy intrusion of monitored urination.50 She concluded that the policy sweeps too broadly to be reasonable.51
Whether the Ninth Circuit erred in holding that the Policy violated both the Federal and Oregon Constitutions?52
Yes. The Ninth Circuit reversed the District Court's dismissal by holding that the Policy violated both the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments and Article I, section 9, of the Oregon Constitution.55 Because the Supreme Court has determined that the Policy is reasonable and therefore constitutional under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments, the Ninth Circuit's federal constitutional conclusion was erroneous.56 Its state constitutional conclusion rested on that flawed federal premise.57
The judgment of the Court of Appeals must be vacated and the case remanded.58
The Ninth Circuit erred in holding that the Policy violated both the Federal and Oregon Constitutions.59