Opinion ID: 2507169
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Random Suspicionless Drug Testing of Athletes

Text: ¶ 87 Although I believe that the random testing program as conducted here was invalid, I do not think that random suspicionless drug testing of middle and high school athletes is categorically unconstitutional even under Washington's protective constitution article I, section 7. [13] Many drugs, especially performance-enhancement drugs, present substantial risks but are not easily detected under an individualized reasonable suspicion scheme. Some physical manifestations of these drugs, e.g., increase in muscle mass and acne, also occur naturally among some high school and middle school students. [14] As mentioned infra, drug use among athletes not only affects the integrity of athletic competition but also entails safety concerns not inherent in other activities and for which the district has some responsibility. A steroid or methamphetamine-using athlete may pose both a much higher risk of harm to himself and threat of injury to others, including his opponents. ¶ 88 Although random suspicionless drug testing is a significant invasion of privacy, the privacy expectations of minor school students, of minor student athletes, are less than those of adults. Under certain circumstances, the balance between the government's interest in suspicionless drug testing and student athletes' privacy rights might weigh in favor of testing. It is premature, and the record is insufficient, to articulate the specific circumstances when a suspicionless test would be upheld. We leave the important issue unresolved. [15] The Washington Legislature may be the appropriate place to consider this issue at length; the drug testing arena would benefit from legislative consideration and fact finding. ¶ 89 In my view, a constitutional program of random suspicionless drug testing of student athletes should advance compelling interests, show narrow tailoring, and employ a less intrusive method of testing. [16] The United States Supreme Court in Acton recognized the test for a compelling interest is not some fixed, minimum quantum of governmental concern but rather whether the government's interest is important enough to justify the specific invasion of the constitutional right at issue. 515 U.S. at 661, 115 S.Ct. 2386 (emphasis omitted). (Though Acton discusses the different federal constitutional protections, this test is also appropriate under our constitution's enhanced privacy protections.) Thus, the greater the intrusion into constitutional rights, the more compelling the interests must be. Since we have established that random mandatory urinalyses here are significant invasions of privacy, [17] even of minor students, the standard to prove compelling interest is high, although not impossible. ¶ 90 The Acton Court noted that the importance of deterring drug use by our nation's school children can hardly be doubted. Acton, 515 U.S. at 661, 115 S.Ct. 2386. I agree. But in addition to evidencing a general drug problem among minor students nationally, findings of a local school drug problem are likely required to meet the compelling threshold. Some factors relevant to determining whether a compelling interest in suspicionless drug testing of athletes exists include an abnormally high rate of or a sharp increase in drug use, and a higher drug rate or impact among athletes. In Acton, there was even evidence that the athletes were the leaders of the drug culture. 515 U.S. at 649, 115 S.Ct. 2386. Objective evidence of the school's drug problem, through student surveys or reports by teachers and other school officials of student drug use, and also evidence of the drug problem's effect on the functioning of the school might prove compelling. [18] ¶ 91 Although the Supreme Court in Earls, 536 U.S. at 836, 122 S.Ct. 2559, suggested that it makes little sense to insist a drug problem become severe before it is addressed, that is not proposed for our schools. Drug problems can be addressed early through means other than suspicionless drug testing. Because of its invasive nature, alternative programs such as individualized suspicion possibly may need to be supplemented by a proper program of random suspicionless drug testing. ¶ 92 Narrow tailoring is also likely required. There must be a close fit between the testing proposed and the drug problem. Determining whether the tailoring is sufficiently narrow requires looking beyond the formal justification to the actual reason for the drug testing program. [19] ¶ 93 Although Wahkiakum District did present evidence of a school-wide drug problem, there was no showing that athletes used drugs at a higher rate than other students or that testing the athletes would address the drug problem among the general student body. CP at 486 (the district alleged only that athletes are involved in the use of illegal drugs and alcohol at least to the same level as are non-athletes.) The district also acknowledged that there is no evidence that student athletes were leaders in [any] `drug culture' in its school. CP at 25, ¶ 1.119; cf. Acton, 515 U.S. at 649, 115 S.Ct. 2386. In the instant case, the district subjected the athletes to random suspicionless testing not because of a higher incidence of drug use, but merely because athletes have lower expectation of privacy. Wahkiakum's random suspicionless drug program was not narrowly tailored to a compelling government interest. ¶ 94 Although some federal courts seem unconcerned with the indignity of urine collection, Washington courts recognize our heightened protections from Washington Constitution's article I, section 7 explicit safeguard for private affairs. See Acton, 515 U.S. at 664, 115 S.Ct. 2386; Robinson, 102 Wash.App. at 822, 10 P.3d 452 (decrying that all of the citizens who apply for employment . . . must submit to a humiliating procedure in order for the City to learn the chemical content of their urine). As this case indicates, how a drug test is administered is one important aspect of its constitutionality and a showing of a less intrusive method should be required. See, e.g., Jacobsen v. City of Seattle, 98 Wash.2d 668, 675, 658 P.2d 653 (1983) (finding warrantless pat-down searches of patrons attending rock concerts unconstitutional but noting that the City might establish less instrusive and more formal procedures for determining the presence of contraband). Wahkiakum District's drug program was more intrusive and humiliating than necessary to achieve its stated goals. A randomly selected student athlete was publicly removed from class, sometimes by having his or her name called over the intercom, and transported by a school official to the Wahkiakum County Health Department for a sample. CP at 39, 91. Although the urine sample was given in a closed bathroom stall, a health department employee stood outside the stall aurally monitoring the process. CP at 39-40. ¶ 95 There are less intrusive ways of conducting a drug test. Schools (or the legislature) might even consider other technology for drug testing such as saliva samples or sweat patches, which are significantly less intrusive and humiliating. [20]