Pubdate: 23 Mar 1999 Source: San Diego Union Tribune (CA) Copyright: 1999 Union-Tribune Publishing Co. Contact: http://www.uniontrib.com/ Forum: http://www.uniontrib.com/cgi-bin/WebX HIGH COURT WON'T RULE ON TEEN CURFEWS Also leaves intact drug-test prohibition WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court declined yesterday to delve into efforts by cities and high schools to reduce teen crime through curfews and mandatory drug tests. Without comment, the justices left intact a Charlottesville, Va., curfew imposed on teen-agers to keep them off the streets overnight. The high court, also without comment, let stand a decision prohibiting an Indiana school district from requiring suspended high-school students to pass a drug test before they can be reinstated. The court's refusal to hear the cases sets no nationwide precedent, and does not mean the justices could not rule on these issues in the future. In the curfew case, the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Va., upheld a 1996 Charlottesville ordinance that bars anyone under 17 from being on city streets between midnight and 5 a.m. weekdays and between 1 a.m. and 5 a.m. Saturdays and Sundays. Charlottesville defended its law as "a reasonable, constitutional exercise of (its) authority to enact legislation to protect the welfare and safety of children." Parents and teen-agers who challenged the ordinance said it "deprives parents of their historically fundamental right to direct the rearing of their children" and deprives youngsters of the "fundamental liberties to come and go without a pass." The appellate court ruled, "Charlottesville was constitutionally justified in believing that its curfew would materially assist its first stated interest -- that of reducing juvenile violence and crime." Most curfews for minors have been upheld in state and federal courts, but there have been exceptions. Curfews in San Diego, Allentown, Pa., and the District of Columbia are among those that were struck down when challenged. The drug-testing case concerned the Anderson, Ind., school board's effort to reinstate its 1997 policy requiring students suspended for at least three days for disciplinary reasons to pass a drug test. High school freshman James R. Willis II refused to take a drug test after completing a five-day suspension for fighting and challenged the policy in court as a violation of his constitutional privilege against unreasonable searches. The Anderson Community School Corp., however, argued that the urine test is necessary to deter drug use by students. The 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago, overturning a federal District Court decision, agreed with Willis and invalidated the drug test. The Supreme Court in 1995 upheld the constitutionality of random drug tests of student athletes. In its 6-3 decision, the justices said students who participate in school sports are role models and that random drug testing of them is a legitimate method for deterring drug use by schoolchildren. In striking down the Indiana school's policy, the 7th Circuit distinguished student athletes from pupils who have been suspended and seek readmission. "Drug testing (of student athletes) could be construed as part of the `bargain' a student strikes in exchange for the privilege of participating in favored activities," the appeals court said. But suspended students have struck no such deal and may be tested only if they are suspected of using drugs, the 7th Circuit added. - --- MAP posted-by: Mike Gogulski