JFIFC    $ &%# #"(-90(*6+"#2D26;=@@@&0FKE>J9?@=C  =)#)==================================================}" }!1AQa"q2#BR$3br %&'()*456789:CDEFGHIJSTUVWXYZcdefghijstuvwxyz w!1AQaq"2B #3Rbr $4%&'()*56789:CDEFGHIJSTUVWXYZcdefghijstuvwxyz ?=à4޵:}i!$kOg9Nߵdͽy]Y0ONցgmoq)1.bD~"kqz1O닰G=CU185 "Ưm}3pe#OS`yMUWGW74ZLr2ž}JygbSF\>8n(.H|;gOzFa?8#ڗa2J3A.yXUEwokw$q̀nQ 8#*xC &Iˌc}av=bjR~1=?fJS$(QIC}72Y'9#pFjp/um]dgۇMVr&焴[B Y|D'g4kz%>\ ]s}&Ho^I:n^G95c"gH9Fݼ=>[VtHtk[Mp79}_KV!H\L7?1foje6MG^?‚#' n,nbӼ?z<&Jʓ_52cjsZĚ%R8?&F"?-.|.9sN-=oy.mˇEpp ⳵=2Y{AiQxoOJ _ {x_,f2?,ךYyRV i^2(31o$~%'>drH;88U!Y/L+<ۄ +uîyV#mYaSm=IgϚy\wkO=jуi:UA5oNm~}B8?{^@qSZG-裵V@MWmT٠j~jg7>YT˔Ɨ WG=H|Hn쨹 hF?x(V =scnwBzקX>,m3_K𣞖PD wd~W\IK+y7]:f48gFP~fQ%C*1V#--}Ʉ!bcdgW ԣf ashx[C̪1ȓ#b>+WMYZo, $}8zh&ΏHnAF)w_Zv@#JZ46wvQc?t/kx1{Q=tmiSPK Vܧ;o.O<{ %vdk>UP:‘Y|V*]H#"!F^@ Kᖽ5G x'=?CFΓӕ'dlO=OavŦ]c|dW kvRC+,ᶀ15gZGѦr0ђQe.otEG:1+hU@16@n~TLd䑁Vxv~S.=(Ԗծ|5qTYG)nȮz oEs)}Z }݋)6/@ ؾ)P6/ҝE7bRl_AO}Syk(Syk(Ohwo. Firu ~jrS,q=>KǕpA X0FJ8(f>i|=UDOb"6]8O#IUW,($+TEj AnYc8Imے\/Ywv0ھyo!6=2whYd^&ᝠ'; { 8Sb=ksa q)">\< VFr8/ƫ4d6jkM;rxҠ# UH~ְ .2f5G<ޭΉ)ePz`5) :*ffE3d&~=v2݁YDF<br>Weight Room Safety VyK1@n[Zۥ$dzVgl|W`G nq #4-cpzCIg0r^gj^7Ѵ0gVc5NdtvEyxi'"_1𢯕sΫ, # y0k6-MXSʘJzݫQ j2"U=;I+\vnGv&_*;p, ZX躝,97qss(JGN} KaYX|woruYQA{ֶGA™#\a_l+8nFOs5c59gI$+^Dk/̯v&:FcWvMM a5 T0X[vhjB=mX/x0ʻڦZh^?fE,L)>vT =yuދx/$ؖr>]_aŒKoP+'ۊHg#&41* gH.E3 Ѡ4Vh|zSD*3 COʝdAvLgR? +{S4SGz]qXf{_%NJ~0.Q@ƪUl R%\1ޔ܃K@8۟mt%Y?µ*VWrF+{1Kf )FGJ#i6@} 8Rm>=~4ޛS[v:Rn8Kԥ[#99loJQLФXXvj L*'Ɗb3CzJ>MNO4pm<>jy#*JK##R0)j}v:=NT?Q𦐛+2/*3L#;9z &=eU$N*!8u %1t+{ v =:Hz+S`ԊHcS4 tv1ԫI 7AiNzfNVހ+RO dhe 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 priva