Lawsuit: A Texas District's Requirement For All Students Has Provoked A Constitutional Fight With Far-Reaching Implications. Perhaps it was inevitable. As worry over the drug problem in schools deepened, someone was sure to suggest sooner or later: Why not require all students to take and pass a drug test? That is happening in a little Texas town -- Lockney, not far from the panhandle city of Plainview -- where the school board has put into effect the nation's most rigorous testing program for public school students. [continues 1044 words]
A few weeks ago, the National Basketball Association congratulated itself on discovering that only 2.8 percent of its players - twelve of 430 - had tested positive this season for marijuana use. Since previous grapevine estimates had run to 60-70 percent, the revised totals (officially confidential, but leaked to the New York Times) seemed cause for celebration - at least until somebody pointed out that all the players had been warned of the scheduled tests in advance. That led to an obvious and embarrassing question: Did those twelve guys get the memo, or were they too high to read it? [continues 919 words]
The American Civil Liberties Union has followed through on a threat to sue Lockney Independent School District over their drug testing policy. Calling a news conference on Wednesday, March 8, ACLU lawyers were joined by Larry Tannahill, of Lockney. The ACLU is representing Tannahill, on behalf of his 12 year old son Brady in the suit against LISD. Filed in the U.S. District Court, the case will be heard by Judge Sam Cummings in Lubbock. Lockney approved a drug testing policy in November which would test all junior high and high school students and LISD faculty and staff. The first test will be a blanket test and all tests after that would be done at random. [continues 312 words]
Dear Editor, As a resident of Lockney, it has been humorous as well as sad to observe the actions of people regarding the drug-testing issue which the ACLU and media in Lubbock (and elsewhere) have blown totally out of proportion. I guess one good thing that has happened is that the issue has caused me to read the Constitution again, something I have not done since being a student at Lockney High School some 28 years ago. The ACLU is now suing LISD for violating Brady Tannahill's 4th Amendment rights against illegal search and seizure. Where have they been in the business world? What is so different about having to take a drug test prior to employment even with no prior proof or suspicion of drug use? No one seems to have protested that companies and the government have the 'right' to require this of their applicants. [continues 1318 words]
Even with the additional legal pull and support of the American Civil Liberties Union, opponents of the mandatory drug testing policy for students and teachers in the Lockney Independent School District face an uphill battle. The ACLU joined an LISD student in a lawsuit March 8 seeking an injunction against the mandatory policy. If recent similar rulings are any indication on the federal level, school districts are not in violation of the Constitution by conducting drug tests and imposing penalties for failure of such tests. [continues 187 words]
The American Civil Liberties Union is suing the Lockney school district after the parents of a 12-year-old refused to allow their son to be subjected to a new mandatory drug testing policy, an ACLU spokesperson said Tuesday. The suit will ask the district to drop their policy, which requires all sixth-through 12th-graders to submit to a urine screening, the ACLU spokesperson said. Larry Tannahill was the only parent in Lockney who refused the mandatory testing of his son. Refusal to submit a urine sample is considered a positive test and results in repercussions. Thus far, however, the school has held off on punishing Tannahill's son, Brady. [continues 378 words]
LOCKNEY - The Lockney Independent School District's policy of mandatory personnel and student drug testing has come under fire from the American Civil Liberties Union, while the school district maintains it has violated no rights. A letter dated Feb. 10 from ACLU attorney Michael Linz gave the school until Feb. 23 to rescind the policy or face legal action. An ACLU spokesman said the policy violates Fourth Amendment rights against illegal search and seizure. "It (the policy) is saying that we have to give up freedoms to be safe," said Harvey Madison, spokesman for the Lubbock office of the ACLU. "The ACLU thinks that's a bad trade." [continues 368 words]
Let's take a show of hands on this scenario. Your child comes home from middle school and says that unless you give permission for a test for drugs, alcohol or tobacco, he or she cannot attend classes. No, it's not for baseball or cheerleader tryouts. And he hasn't yet learned how to drive the school bus. What if policy called for in-school suspension and drug-counseling sessions for testing positive or refusing to take the screening test'? [continues 881 words]
Lockney should be ashamed of itself for not coming to the side of Larry Tannahill, whose son stands to be branded with a big orange "D" because of a well-intentioned but totally misguided battle in the drug wars that are tearing this country apart and filling our prisons with people who commit victimless crimes. Last week, Lockney students from grade six through 12 began submitting to mandatory drug, alcohol and tobacco tests at random - along with administrators and teachers. How humiliating. [continues 780 words]
I am employed in the transportation of a hazardous material, propane, and in that capacity subject to random drug tests by federal law. My last test came on the same day the Lockney school board's decision to test all students hit the papers, and a day before a column by Robyn Blumner ran in this paper. While factually correct, Blumner never addressed some of the best objections to suspicionless drug testing. First is abrogation of individual rights; second, unreliability; and third, cost benefit ratio, to which she did allude. [continues 719 words]
Dear Editor, The Lockney (TX) ISD School Board recently instituted mandatory drug tests for students and teachers. Refusal to take the drug test is an admission of guilt. Non-participants should be arrested, photographed, fingerprinted, and subjected to Warrantless Search by police. Their crimes should be entered as aiding and abetting rebellion, public defiance of political correctness, and seditious attempted use of liberty. The Drug War has mutated into a drug virus more deadly than HIV. It attacks the brain (speech center) and the spine (disconnecting it from the brain), and the eyes (destroying cognition). [continues 133 words]
The Lockney school board recently instituted mandatory drug tests for students and teachers. Refusal to take the drug test is an admission of guilt. Nonparticipants should be arrested, photographed, fingerprinted and subjected to a warrantless search by police. Their crimes should be entered as aiding and abetting rebellion, public defiance of political correctness, and seditious attempted use of liberty. The drug war has mutated into a drug virus more deadly than HIV. It attacks the brain (speech center) and the spine (disconnecting it from the brain) and the eyes (destroying cognition). [continues 124 words]
Policy Says Students Who Don't Get Screened Face Punishment LOCKNEY, Texas - For Larry Tannahill, the issue of testing Lockney students for drug use is a constitutional one. "To me, they're telling these kids they are guilty until they prove themselves innocent," he said. But for many in this South Plains community of about 1,200, drug testing is no more invasive than a tetanus shot, and every bit as necessary. "You can't get a good education when somebody who is drunk or under the influence of something . . . is disrupting your class," high school junior Jeffrey Hunter said. [continues 876 words]
The Lockney school district recently instituted a policy whereby all Lockney students in the sixth through 12th grades are to be drug tested. The school board additionally decreed that all parents must sign a waiver granting permission to do this. One family, the Tannahills, stood up against unreasonable search and seizure, against the usurpation of the authority of parents by the schools and against the hysterical voices of the uninformed. Superintendent Raymond Lusk touted these drug tests as a way to encourage students to resist peer pressure. Yet he clearly exhibited a double-minded reliance on peer pressure from the community to bludgeon dissident parents into going along with his plan. In fact, like the father who beats all of his children until the one confesses, he punishes the children of parents who do not sign regardless of whether they are guilty or not. [continues 96 words]
I notice the Lockney School District has instituted a policy whereby all Lockney students are to be drug tested. Apparently, in order to give this new policy a more legal appearance, the school board has additionally decreed that all parents must sign a waiver granting permission for the school to do this. Refusal of the parent to sign is automatic grounds for the school to immediately suspend the student as if the student had tested positive. By the way, people who believe this is the way to fight a drug war may find themselves in somewhat of a pickle. For instance, consider that drug testing is not a precise indicator of drug use -- or of the absence of drug use. An error rate in the range of five percent would produce 50 wrong results in a student body of 1,000. Not only that, but the more dangerous drugs such as cocaine and heroin may be detected only for a few days. Marijuana, which has never been implicated in causing an overdose death, may be detected for as long as one month. [continues 55 words]
LOCKNEY,Texas- A father launched an appeal Friday challenging the suspension of his 12-year-old son for refusing to take a drug test required of every student in the school district. The Lockney district has decided to punish sixth-grader Brady Tannahill, the only student to refuse the test, as if he had tested positive. He faces a 21-day suspension from extra-curricular activities, at least three days' suspension and substance abuse counseling. Brady could also be required to take a drug test every month for a year. Each time he refuses, it will be considered a repeat offense, and the punishment escalates. [continues 252 words]
LOCKNEY, Texas - A father is challenging the suspension of his 12-year-old son for refusing to take a drug test required of every student in the school district. The Lockney district has decided to punish sixth-grader Brady Tannahill as if he had tested positive for illegal drugs. He was the only student to refuse the test. Brady faces a 21-day suspension from extracurricular activities, at least three days' suspension and substance abuse counseling. He also could be required to take a drug test every month for a year. Each time he refuses, it will be considered a repeat offense, and the punishment escalates. [continues 276 words]
LOCKNEY, Texas (AP) - A father launched an appeal yesterday challenging the suspension of his 12-year-old son for refusing to take a drug test required of every student in the school district. The Lockney district has decided to punish sixth-grader Brady Tannahill, the only student to refuse the test, as if he had tested positive. He faces a 21-day suspension from extracurricular activities, at least three days' suspension and substance abuse counseling. Brady could also be required to take a drug test every month for a year. Each time he refuses, it will be considered a repeat offense, and the punishment escalates. [continues 313 words]
I am appalled by Superintendent Lusk's decision to test students and teachers indiscriminately for drug use. He is setting a precedent for a blatant violation of the Bill of Rights that has already drawn national attention and is sure to face enormous backlash. Where does he find the authority to violate the civil rights of so many students that have been entrusted to him? His decision presumes the criminal intent of everyone involved. Is this the sort of climate he wishes to conduct his business in? His blatant disregard of the Fourth Amendment proves he has reduced the foundations of our country to a travesty. [continues 162 words]
Re: "Lockney district to test students, teachers for drugs," Texas & Southwest, Jan. 30. So, "students from sixth through 12th grades and all teachers in the Lockney Independent School District will be tested for drugs." Whatever they teach in Lockney, it's not the Constitution. The most basic right of a free people is the right to be left alone -- no nonsense about "probable cause" for Lockney. "'It's a long story, but society has just brought us to this point,' (said) Superintendent Raymond Lusk." And apparently their leader is not big on personal responsibility. [continues 90 words]
