Brown v. Shasta Union High School District: The Band Plays On

The California Court of Appeals for the Third District recently upheld a preliminary injunction preventing the Shasta Union High School District (“District”) from enforcing an expanded drug test policy. Several students brought suit claiming that the new policy, which broadened random drug searches to include students involved in various extracurricular activities, such as “choir, band, science bowl, triathlon, mock trial, and Future Farmers of America,” as well as athletics, violated their constitutional rights under both the United States and California Constitutions. As part of the drug tests, students involved in the various activities were randomly pulled from class and asked to go into a stall to urinate into a test cup while a monitor listened. A positive test or a failure to test resulted in a removal of the student from the extracurricular activity on varying degrees. The District stated that they had expanded the random drug tests based on numerous stories about drug possession, use and sales by students in these clubs.
The Court of Appeals found that the students demonstrated a likelihood of prevailing at trial, and, therefore, the preliminary injunction was justified. The Court emphasized that the California Constitution explicitly grants a right to privacy, which offers greater protection than under the United States Constitution. While under federal law, it is easier for schools to institute random, suspicionless drug testing for students involved in extracurricular activities beyond just athletics, under the California Constitution, students may have a higher expectation of privacy. Furthermore, the District was unable to show that it had a sufficient interest in the expanded drug testing policy. The District admitted that there was no reason to believe that the students involved in the extracurricular activities were more involved in drug use than the student body as a whole. The District’s proof of the drug problem was based largely on anecdotal information, and there was disagreement between the experts about whether drug testing actually reduces drug use at school.
Given these factual disputes, the Court of Appeals decided not to rule on the merits of the case, and sent the case back to the trial court for a full hearing. They did, however, leave the preliminary injunction in place, given the likelihood of students’ success at trial.
As an unpublished decision, Brown has limited precedential value. However, school districts should consult legal counsel for expanding any drug search policy based on this new ruling. KMTG will continue to monitor this case and will provide updates as they become available. The full case is available here

By Jessi Carriger