Opinion ID: 2507169
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Defining The Nature of a Secondary Student's Privacy Interest

Text: ¶ 66 First, we must consider a high school student's asserted privacy interest. The United States Supreme Court has repeatedly held that school children do retain some rights but do not enjoy the full extensive constitutional protections of adults in our society. If school children had all the same rights as adults, the administration of our schools would creak to a halt under the twin burdens of due process and probable cause. For example, a teacher-ordered school detention would cease to be an effective disciplinary measure and instead be converted into a lawsuit for tortious imprisonment. ¶ 67 Although Washington's Constitution does contain an enhanced right of privacy in article I, section 7, this strict provision was written by our founders with the understanding that the affairs of school children are not so private as those of adults and may be treated differently from those of adults. [3] Common sense dictates this outcome and our jurisprudence supports it. ¶ 68 The separate and important constitutional provision in article IX that basic (K-12) education is the paramount duty of the state also supports the conclusion of lower privacy expectations for school children. WASH. CONST. art. IX, § 1. A student in a regulated educational environment, where the school stands in loco parentis, clearly does not have the same reasonable expectation of privacy as an adult. The majority acknowledges this proposition: [g]enerally we have recognized students have a lower expectation of privacy because of the nature of the school environment. Majority at 1002. School districts have the statutory authority and responsibility to maintain order and discipline in their schools and to protect the health and safety of their students. [4] In my view, the majority does not fully recognize the necessary corollary; school districts are allowed tools and programs to combat rising drug problems and to fulfill their responsibility as protector of students. ¶ 69 Additionally, in addressing the nature of these student's privacy interests, we should recognize that athletes, whether at the middle school, high school, college, or professional level, have a lower expectation of privacy. [5] Secondary school athletes here, with their parents' consent, have voluntarily subjected themselves to rules and regulations that are not enforced against the general student body. The record shows, for example, these students (also with their parents' consent) who play sports in Wahkiakum District agree to an annual invasive physical examination to determine their health status before participating. Indeed, the appellants conceded at argument that these examinations are valid requirements by schools. Wash. State Supreme Court oral argument at 8:50, York v. Wahkiakum Sch. Dist. No. 200, No. 78946-1 (May 8, 2007), audio recording by TVW, Washington State's Public Affairs Network, available at http://www.tvg. org. As the Court in Vernonia School District 47J v. Acton, 515 U.S. 646, 657, 115 S.Ct. 2386, 132 L.Ed.2d 564 (1995) observed, [s]chool sports are not for the bashful. They require `suiting up' before each practice or event, and showering and changing afterwards. Public school locker rooms, the usual sites for these activities, are not notable for the privacy they afford. The majority acknowledges that male athletes at Wahkiakum High School have less expectation of privacy since there are no dividers between urinals, or between the showers, and athletes routinely undress in each other's presence. Majority at 1002 n. 8. Somewhat like adults who choose to participate in a `closely regulated industry,' students who voluntarily participate in school athletics have reason to expect intrusions upon normal rights and privileges, including privacy. Acton, 515 U.S. at 657, 115 S.Ct. 2386; see Skinner v. Ry. Labor Executives' Ass'n, 489 U.S. 602, 627, 109 S.Ct. 1402, 103 L.Ed.2d 639 (1989); United States v. Biswell, 406 U.S. 311, 316, 92 S.Ct. 1593, 32 L.Ed.2d 87 (1972). ¶ 70 The nature of athletic competition also supports the conclusion that athletes have a lower expectation of privacy in regards to drug testing. Athletes face enormous pressure to excel in competition and may turn to performance-enhancing drugs such as steroids. [6] Taking performance-enhancing drugs, or doping, is not only dangerous to the user, but potentially to out-matched opponents. Such drugs also undermine the integrity of athletic competitions. Even the taking of recreational drugs while playing sports raises safety issues. Certain drugs may keep athletes from awareness of pain from injury, allowing severe  even career-ending or life-threatening  problems. The Acton Court recognized that in athletic competitions, the risk of immediate physical harm to the drug user or those with whom he is playing his sport is particularly high. 515 U.S. at 662, 115 S.Ct. 2386. Justice Ginsburg in her dissent in Board of Education of Independent School District No. 92 v. Earls, 536 U.S. 822, 846, 122 S.Ct. 2559, 153 L.Ed.2d 735 (2002), similarly noted that [s]chools regulate student athletes discretely because competitive school sports . . . expose students to physical risks that schools have a duty to mitigate. The legislature has expressly entrusted school districts with responsibility to control, supervise and regulate the conduct of interschool athletic activities. . . . RCW 28A.600.200. Our constitution allows school districts adequate avenues for proper programs to fulfill these responsibilities and to thereby protect students and avoid potential school liability.