JFIFC    $ &%# #"(-90(*6+"#2D26;=@@@&0FKE>J9?@=C  =)#)==================================================T" }!1AQa"q2#BR$3br %&'()*456789:CDEFGHIJSTUVWXYZcdefghijstuvwxyz w!1AQaq"2B #3Rbr $4%&'()*56789:CDEFGHIJSTUVWXYZcdefghijstuvwxyz ?<V}kEv9Oe*7$qZ`JsI8qԛN}8rȴ#veVe|să|nN`rcްsi:^k]QacpӂyT y*{?jD7,p'=+'+-+uk%ʬt0&֌:BmK_=/n$qP۽6vsLWmZZ2i{8#bbĿqt#JʓN4шM%GV{=Z+VN-ϏpTp#kNv ZJӜKuf5JOC@zhszLǻg2[2^6em;0CqtW E$C}k䁸ףq[=KR8#<IW!Ps+|cs*D$ xWmq'pg?Tu+w݃Pi/ޟg– PR~gckIYPȠ*`~j΁duwD=;ft}SĢRA3 ņRdx{4K 9a3"R\+:rOsa3Cw$bZeַqƪ 9{W!>%-),cF#f}+_Dۙ`2¬YgǛa-վ4DX{W{D@8㎿ӿjMjV#+v}VMKOyBB܃vZhs9Oxno x 7Qg$r!ac#ZCiliBZ Wr;m.ԋSiOw|zƖ~DG?άxI4[X]-2tI8n=QOwY @ g5R[WgMW̑_݅\;i8aeJɻ^+ ;gMi.D>!4FKK\é|3էyOcSCAa2]YWKYʘל%%v (\ֺk\]x!smA<8 ,'$m"ky 05 #gF4;[FԖ@}?Ah&tx~l8 2"^Ku i*AAI(nN}q-k4l&;PL/6c[TzFY9<fFvZKBF6==:{Yw;*|'ZyIHXaK@joFI|/ #3\MFުy1[_x-!RfeKcnKylZʨʹHTyj.qk6_X'0Ąa?-s:zڢ<([<7T2[WrGgh/)Xn77+s- -2[ij]KfBO 9aRZeryλō;[Vta"[7zJaX>!խf)G f8ȮQ [6+YPt߽:+9Vek vz^u$`6m~XhG_i6W0'cc j:ҫ;udٮiچjžcc2Aa8ULRiaihAsjb;V4Ԍl}KoA$`dwwp R¤'i}:5]aEZ"d$}}+*ҵdm :F-uq-$o23?*ve{C[УoES95k3Z:5[11}:o3,lclI9&''{.Tg qTI%(eA "p{ls qZa?L~x]fѻ9RL Xg)| il-?waw.*Ek-Q@(((((١i>WVv-V[H)Slv[.\h vLs#i:+g0 ȶr4T5$zkIMN=1O 7]G2v)Y &@Vcj] A#2GWL)ghU[iUЯ78nYa1:i9^JL Nxt钌Sy,snM Im$v&BQ'Gm:تT#&񑜐;)Ï(tYGP>c R_'|dZJ7PHmj0a?«IU<2GZc9x~XG~7JԮґ!2-݈b)D.Udh,Ms+ "A<|.-m`B`pR\$!;dSv.TZ4hd]J|ۑ2"Oӭt]@}(V2㯥Im+y ] *(żs(aWҚ{SwFeݾu >D66ItߟX#UWGq(/YDH|dƭϨnnHy$}.2zҕJC#[]V[H5mΨ22OS`$==jO4#o#,rqSE-4;8t C`u?Z)K8ƊUe Court Says...<br><br>In 1995 the Supreme Court ruled that drug testing student athletes was legal. The case name was Veronia School District vs. Acton. An official investigation led to the discovery that the high school athletes of Veronia School District participated in the use of illegal drugs. School officials were concerned that drug use increased the risk of sports related injury. The school district adopted a student athlete drug testing policy which authorized random urinalysis drug testing of its student athletes. James Acton, a student, was denied participation in his high school football program when he and his parents refused to consent to the testing.<br><br>The constitutional question was:  oes random drug testing of high school athletes violate the reasonable search and seizure clause of the Fourth Amendment? The conclusion by the court was that it did not violate these rights. In the case of high school athletes, under the state s supervision, during school hours, they are subject to greater control than other free adults. The privacy inteests comprised by urine samples are negligible since the conditions of collection are similar to public restrooms, and the results are viewed by limited authorities. The court also stated that governmental concern over the safety of minors, under their supervision, overrides intrusion of the student-<br>athlete s privacy.<br>This case answers the question about drug testing student-athletes, but the question of testing the total school population is still open to the court.<br><br>Summary<br><br>More and more schools, in Arkansas, have been going to the drug testing program, not only to test athl