Pubdate: Mon, 16 Sep 2002 Source: Asbury Park Press (NJ) Copyright: 2002 Asbury Park Press Contact: http://www.app.com/ Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/26 Author: Rick Hepp TESTS LOOK FOR DRUGS' RESIDUE IN TOMS RIVER, SOUTHERN SCHOOLS The Toms River Regional and Southern Regional school districts quietly began testing for drug residue on commonly used surfaces such as locker doors and bathroom stalls in January with field kits long used by law enforcement agencies. Under a federally funded pilot program that examines the effectiveness of the kit in a school setting, the two Ocean County districts last semester tested dozens of surfaces in public areas where administrators suspected that students may have used drugs, school officials said. While results have not been released, an official for the company that produces the testing kits said drug residue was found in all participating schools. Law enforcement agencies have used the kits for a decade to test suspected drug users in the field, but Toms River school officials said their objective was different. "We're not using it for students or student discipline," said John Gluck, assistant superintendent for high school safety and security at the Toms River district. "We're trying to find out . . . where likely areas for drug trafficking are or where people might have stored drug paraphernalia." Toms River plans to continue the testing this school year under a more regimented schedule, but Southern Regional has decided to drop the program after finding the kits unreliable, according to Southern Regional High School principal Craig Henry. At a cost of less than $1 each, the drug-testing kit almost instantaneously detects trace amounts of marijuana, heroin, cocaine and methamphetamine on a variety of surfaces. To perform the test, a piece of paper is rubbed on a surface such as a bathroom stall or wall. The paper then is sprayed with an aerosol reagent that turns it a different color if drug residue is present. Henry said the cleaning agents used to clean the areas prior to administering the tests reacted with the sprays to cause false positives. "We saw no practical application because of it's lack of reliability at the stage that we last saw the product," Henry said. "There was no point in pursuing it." The kits have been modified since the problem was discovered, according to the company. While the testing kit is used commonly for crime scene investigations and motor vehicle stops, the National Institute for Justice, which researched crime control and justice issues for the U.S. Department of Justice, decided two years ago to examine its application in schools. The program was implemented in January, without notifying the public, in middle and high schools in the Toms River and Southern Regional districts, as well as in the East Windsor Regional and Mercer County Vocational districts. It also is being used in other states, including Virginia and North Carolina. "It's one tool that can be an effective way (to combat drug use in schools) as long as we go about it the correct way," said Robert Schlegel, vice president of the Washington D.C.-based Mistral Group, which manufactures the test. "It's testing the presence of drugs in schools." But at least one school district has decided to use the tests on students, causing an uproar among civil rights groups that contend its a constitutional violation. Schools in Wake County, N.C., plan to use the test on students who display outward signs of marijuana use. Officials said the test would be administered by school personnel and would not be used for criminal prosecution, although the results could lead to possible suspension. There are no such plans in New Jersey schools. "It's purely a research project to determine how it can be used," said Gluck. "We don't have any clearance to use it for any disciplinary reasons." He said that before the tests could be used on students, the program has to answer fundamental questions about the test's accuracy and whether it actually shows drug use. For example, a student could test positive for drug residue from shaking hands with someone who smoked marijuana, Gluck said. "We need to have some real clear legal definitions before we do anything, before we introduce it," he said. Those definitions would be developed by the state attorney general, said John Hagerty, a spokesman for the Department of Criminal Justice, but the program first has to demonstrate that the kits effectively indicate the presence of drugs on a person or in their belongings. "Right now you need a search warrant to get into a closed container such as a locker or book bag, and to get that you need probable cause," he said. "If the test comes back positive, does that lead you to believe there are drugs inside? I don't know." The New Jersey chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union, which has fought other drug testing procedures administered in schools, reserved judgment on the pilot program. "The question is whether they have a right to be in those areas," said Ed Barocas, legal director for the state ACLU. "If they are in legitimate public areas, then that could be considered permissible." Reaction about the program was mixed from parents and students who recently learned of the testing. "If they know about certain areas where kids are doing drugs on school grounds, it's good for them to confirm it in order to place security there," said Cheryl Fitzpatrick of the Manahawkin section of Stafford who has two children at Southern Regional High School. But Southern Regional sophomore Steve Whisten, 16, said having school administrators test the outside of his locker would be an invasion of his privacy, even though it's considered a public area. "If they suspected me and told me they were going to test it one day, that's different," he said. "But for me to be in class and they walk by and test my locker, that's not right. What if they find something and it's a (false reading)? That makes me a suspect." - --- MAP posted-by: Beth