There are many precedents that support my client's decision to have compulsory drug testing for athletes who participate in school sponsored athletics. In the case Vernonia School District v. Acton the Supreme Court affirmed that Vernonia School District had a right to have mandatory drug testing for all students who wished to take part in school sponsored sports for several reasons. The first reason was that student athletes had already given up their privacy: school locker rooms are not known for providing it. The second reason was that public schools act in loco parentis while students are at school, and therefore pupils' constitutional rights take a backseat to making sure that the school environment is safe and healthful. As Justice Scalia put it in delivering the opinion of the court :
But a warrant is not required to establish the reasonableness of all government searches; and when a warrant is not required (and the Warrant Clause therefore not applicable), probable cause is not invariably required either. A search unsupported by probable cause can be constitutional, we have said, "when special needs, beyond the normal need for law enforcement, make the warrant and probable-cause requirement impracticable."We have found such "special needs" to exist in the public school context. There, the warrant requirement "would unduly interfere with the maintenance of the swift and informal disciplinary procedures [that are] needed," and "strict adherence to the requirement that searches be based on probable cause" would undercut "the substantial need of teachers and administrators for freedom to maintain order in the schools."
Another precedent that supports my client is Doe v. Renfrow. In this case it was deemed constitutional by a lower court for school officials to search the purse of a student to check for drugs, despite the fact that their was little evidence that the Student had ever used any illegal substances.
A final precedent that aids my client is New Jersey v. T.L.O. In this case, it was deemed constitutional by the high court for an assistant vice principal to search a girl's purse for smoking paraphernalia.
It should be noted that athletics are an optional activity, and therefore are subject to less strenuous standards than a required subject would be. A student choses to participate in these sports, and therefore has the option to not be tested for illegal substances by simply not participating.
Another important fact is that the samples will be collected in a way that shows an utmost concern for privacy; female students produce samples inside a closed stall, while a female staff member listens from outside the stall for signs of tampering, while male students produce samples while standing at a urinal while a male staff member watches for signs of tampering from behind.
My client's drug testing program does not violate Mr. Rodriguez's Fourth Amendment rights, and there are many legal precedents that affirm this.