Mandatory urine testing was seen as a violation of student' reasonable expectation of privacy
by courts.For instance, the following case were there in school settings.

Case: Odenheim v. Carlstadt-East Rutherford Regional Sch. Dist. ( 211 N.J. Supper. 54, 510
A 2d 709,1985 )
○　Key points:
　・The Superior Court of New Jersey struck down a school district that required all students
　　enrolled in the district to undergo a urine test for medical purpose. It is not reasonable
　　under all the circumstances.
　・The court called this policy "and attempt to control student discipline under the guise of
　　medical procedure"( Cited," the Law" p.27 )
And in Anable v. Ford, 1985 was the same. It was similiary halted by the courts as repugnant
to the Constitution,as well as to our common sense of students' integrity. ( From" their Property" )

But the situation changed recently, and courts are split on drug testing. The next case is the
typical one.
Acton v. Vernonia School District 47 J (115 S.Ct. 2386, 132 L.Ed 2d 564, 23 F.3d 1514, 1995 )
○　Key points: 　　　June 26, 1995 U.S. Supreme Court
　・ Student Athlete Drug Policy which authorizes random urinanysis drug testing of students who
　　participate in athletics programs.
　・ Acton was denied participation in his school football program when he and his parents refused
　　to the testing.
　・ The school authorities admitted that Acton was not suspected of drug use, but claimed that
　　their urinnalysis policy was the result of their being at their "wits end" over how to solve their
　　perceived growing drug problem.
　・ The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with the Acton. The Court found it to be "unreasonable
　　search" and stated that " children, students, do not have to surrender their right to privacy in
　　order to secure their right to participate in athletics."
　・ But, the U.S. Supreme Court did not agree and in a 6:3 ruling, reversed the lower courts and
　　found that the district's policy confirmed with the 4th and 14th Amendment.
　　Justice Scalia, writing for the majority. First, students have a lower expectation of privacy in
　　communical locker rooms and restrooms. Second, the program was designed to be as
　　unobtrusive as possible.
　　Third.the Policy served an important interest in combatting drug use. ( Cited: "their Property" &
　　"the Law" & "3 Vill Sports & Ent. L.J. 325 (1996) Nancy D.Wagman )

【Comment】If drug problems continue in schools, courts will likely determine that right of students
　　　　　　　　may be restricted further, but even now in the U.S. the problem of urine testing of all
　　　　　　　　students is left as unanswered. In Japan, there is an educational philosophy that school
　　　　　　　　officials have the dugy along with parents to keep students healty, so urine testing for
　　　　　　　　medical purpose have continued in schools until now.

Doe v. Renfrow is only current standard on searches by Drug-Sniffing Dogs, so at first I will show it.
Case: Doe v. Renfrow ( 631 F.2d 91, 7th Cir. 1980 )
○　Key points:
　・Trained dogs went up and down the classroom rows of 2500 junior and senior high school
　　students, sniffing for drugs. If the dog responded to a particular student , that student was searched,
　　sometimes strip searched.
　・But, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals held that the sniffing of a student by a dog did not constitute a
　　search.
　・The U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear the case.( 451 U.S. 1022, 101 S.Ct. 3015, 1981 )
　　　( Cited: "their Property", "the Law & Northern California JSA Student Rights Handbook" )

Commonwealth v. Martin ( 626 A.2d 556. Pa. 1993 )
○　Key points:
　・A canine sniff search of Martin's satchel would indicate the presence of illegal drugs.
　・But, Pennsylvania Suprem Court held that the police needed probable cause to believe that a canine
　　sniff search of Martin's satchel would include the presence of illegal drugs. The police needed to
　　obtain a search warrant before opening Martin's satchel.
　　( Cited: "School Law Briefing" )

Guideline
a. Searches of persons, students' possenssions, locker or cars ?
b. Reliability of dogs must be well-established. ( Cited: "the Law" p.22 )

【Comment】As for future standard, the situation is unclear. In Japan, there are no searches by drug-
　　　　　　　　　sniffing dogs.

Opinion of The Attoney General　　By Lynm Schroering, August 30. 1994
Syllabus:
　・It is constitutionally, permissible or school officials to use metal detectors to determine if students
　　are carrying weapons into school, however, the school district should adopt policies to ensure the
　　reasonableness of the metal detector search.
　　Suggested Guideline:
　　・One of the most important safeguards to ensure a reasonable search is to give advance notice of
　　the existence of metal detector searches, including the use of signs, written notice to the students
　　and parents or a public announcement........ Thus, it is imperative that the school district enact
　　specific policies or guidelines for its officials to follow in conducting the searches and require trainning
　　for the individuals operating the searches.　 ( Cited: "official copy.OAG 94-58 )

Case
Commonwealth v. Cass ( 466 Pa. Supper. 66, 1994 )(Argued, Sept.18, 1996)
○　Key points: Upholds School weapons serarch
　・A school employee instructed the student to remove his coat, put his book bag on a table and
　submit to metal detector scan. Upon inspecting the student's coat, the school employee felt a bulge like
　a knife and called his supervision to act as a witness. He found the cutter.
　・Commonwealth answered that no individual suspicion is necessary for " minimally instructive "
　　administration seraches for weapons. The superior court agreed with the state.
　 ( Cited: Mr.Sagan's Reading on School Searches. Kelly wrote )( Opinion Announcing The Judgement )

Peope v. Dukes ( 151 Misc.2d 195, 580 N.Y. S.2d 850. N.Y.City Crime.Ct. 1992 )
○　Key points: Legal
　・In 1989, the Board of Education established guidelines for the periodic utilization of metal detectors in
　　the New York City high school.
　・ Dukes bag activated the hand-held metal detector. Inside was a switchblade knife with 4-5 inch blade.
　　She was arrested.
　・ The Criminal Court for the City of New York held the search. The court considered this to be an
　　administrative search, much like an airport security detector use, a court or library, and the highway
　　checkpoint for drunk drivers. ( Cited: "the Law" & "their Property" )

People v. Pruitt ( 278 Illinois App. 3d. 194, 662 N.E. 2d 542, 1996 )
○　Key points: Illegal search
　・Pruitt attended a Chicago high school. A metal-detector scan indicated he possessed something made
　　of metal on his person. A revolver was found in the student's pants.
　・The dean did not have a reasonable suspicion...... questioning the defendant for nearly an hour, the
　　reason for initial concern regarding the weapon had dissipated.
　 ( Cited: "The Quarterly Report" & "School Law Briefing" )