JFIFC    $ &%# #"(-90(*6+"#2D26;=@@@&0FKE>J9?@=C  =)#)==================================================y" }!1AQa"q2#BR$3br %&'()*456789:CDEFGHIJSTUVWXYZcdefghijstuvwxyz w!1AQaq"2B #3Rbr $4%&'()*56789:CDEFGHIJSTUVWXYZcdefghijstuvwxyz ?ŷSr L> 2c5&ڒYj+ H31o1Ȧ)gf=?:S|ښ\GxK{KYұQHǿt&꺵Ԗ(2@SXeTMZ؆TM(nr%L~$ #b+MP.\i0^H:t4Q4[@v#in-Xv{7D `;׈8^/&+"$/$t\{}:$V'Z62kPrTɤI`ҵKe.#BbJjGrY Tzm :`ZƜ^c BdSTQu'l4ECJVu+ka@%PWo׮kk]{ъ{onQoƶmI\1=zRiԲR,@Fڕ$t "٫,(Gʱ+l4S[-Dqtu'RI DiwqibI@Fyt;Ԅ:"=~t*S4-m9+23[3޴ֶe!.oOzglབ#[6ZtY=Z#MMԣZ~!__B;Q?CG:q$YN^G_@6WK{Ky3聮,.-eF+<q.NўCqmr0F^3tWh$r  +tF[hTnvӽywkw{pnVSr$ ? qoaF`R̂==CiU’Az%H Z&'Qr_3i/u ¡J$O}QJWh.e3滶N-ۨI0rN1x!hp#̮A({ƿMS+ m>[iwXg/9ǽUe8H=rܚ܎t ףYtۦT|{Wi/pJ.Zz;2,-[*?9Fz1C\=cñΣPӤ.gj˞WI{B"o%t.2F82 wR3 I3>=]rLoFw犻+YEkߴ$20GoQ׃xӴ/{g˭BD1tLbZޖ#AtweQqsVu0/;vｿƷ%[żmǭhCK_2#x擱p乓 t1$F"XdcEVn'M)v0W=[_Ԯ1^!ncߕy.MzI$/q4|״3+ %<6 %(<̠ *Z!撱xbRk3Q'vJ|A;j30 K `*NJrKGX}&6pu [2Oh$yysgZzMotWx f3R{WM2M5[n$6zc4EI *9<) dJᱏ\$T`DzQdiL$p=zϽ֍ΑW=Gz|%e]:yg$tEt@meML2aE_S[rʤfAYjzT==rHѮҮHTaL~NY?29Dg4쉍 us]ZK`z][!nYO|ߏFۮk,C}70p+H>dMT#o%kg8h Se3]95L5v1l@U\MXT%J*Fzg&qOZ)Uro1"絍rMn\NJ],=9\ПUg&(+hdp**-֞%XD.XYM d3+#aGlۭW4nvyжQ5y?r]cG2G^nF/AyPq+רqWfDե-M'PAvKٕoL`negApđkG[{2NS+Du[]I5ܱ ֯;skb/^XQĊ^xRԋ!|?ֹ_Vu͉.0QFtw9oEa`w v']Xխ֟ڔv0QIqDV=626i6Eż+UpGZwRdl(0OJTT4L[9ǡ^h0QaѹA g=Ãm@ziaUN=I}Gk[`Xn*9CCquwb$ E5۽=Mx{TI a\./utV  T~%iX'L9%8]pq]izFqp4Йf;VScV;[QڐOZq;kE*1֊E0+_ǬJ(q: W[qoV(Վ?/4Q][ԏEY}zI<'!?THW7{#\E!zx7_SBd<br>And the 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:  Does 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 interests 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 athletes, but to test total school population.<br><br>The teachers have developed a growing concern about drug testing and infringement on teachers rights for privacy. After the student survey went out, the Personnel Policy Com