Drug Testing Students in California – Does it Violate the State Constitution?

The Department of Education has granted federal funds to California school districts for the purpose of initiating and maintaining drug-testing programs for students and volunteers involved in athletics and extracurricular activities, yet no California court has fully examined these programs to determine their validity under the California Constitution. Before any additional California schools adopt drug-testing programs, the legality of these programs should be examined under the California Constitution. This Article seeks to accomplish that task. Part II summarizes the United States Supreme Court decisions on student drug testing. Part III examines state law on student drug testing. Part IV focuses on student drug testing in California. It addresses the state\u27s history of, and current status with respect to, student drug testing. It then examines provisions of the California Constitution that apply to the subject: article I, section 1, the right to privacy; and article 1, section 13, the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. The Article discusses California judicial decisions on these provisions and then analyzes whether the drug testing of students engaged in athletics and extracurricular activities is constitutional. Part V offers a conclusion on the constitutionality of student drug testing under the California Constitution

Drug Testing of Students: A Legal and Public Health Perspective

This article seeks to address the efficacy of school drug-testing programs. After providing some general background information on the abuse of substances, the article sets forth the Supreme Court decisions on student drug testing. Part III then discusses the extension of the jurisprudence in the state courts to show how the Supreme Court law is being expanded by the states, and is likely to be further expanded in the future. The next section, Part IV, turns to drug screening from a public health perspective, analyzing whether or not drug screening is a valid public health screen. Finally, Part V examines whether student drug testing serves as a deterrent, whether the programs cause any inadvertent harm, and the nature of future research that should be undertaken to determine the value of drug testing in public schools

Drug Testing Students in California - Does It Violate the State Constitution?

In 1995 the United States Supreme Court decided that it was constitutional to drug test student athletes. Seven years later, the Court held that it was constitutional to drug test students engaged in extracurricular activities. As a result of these rulings, school districts throughout the United States adopted policies to drug test these students. The recent Bush administration supported and encouraged these programs with significant federal grants. Consequently students turned to the state courts to attack the legality of these drug testing programs. Under their respective state constitutions, the Supreme Courts of Indiana and New Jersey upheld the programs, while the Supreme Courts of Pennsylvania and Washington struck down the programs as unconstitutional. This article examines how the California Courts would review and address the issue of the constitutionality of student drug testing under the California Constitution. Part II summarizes the decisions of the United States Supreme Court on student drug testing. Part III examines state law on student drug testing. Part IV focuses on student drug testing in California, addressing the state’s history of, and current status with respect to, student drug testing. The Article then examines provisions of the California Constitution which apply to the subject: article I, section 1, the right to privacy; and article I, section 13, the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. The Article discusses California judicial decisions on these provisions and then analyzes whether the drug testing of students engaged in athletics and/or extracurricular activities is constitutional under the California Constitution. Part V offers a conclusion on the issue

The Parts Are Greater Than the Sum: What I Learned From My Mediation Clinic Students

I co-created the Mediation Clinic at California Western School of Law (hereafter CWSL) with my colleague Linda Morton in 1996 to provide students the opportunity to learn the process of mediation and to mediate live disputes in the community. We recognized the importance of “soft skills” such as communication, collaboration, initiative, and adaptability and therefore we sought to create an experiential learning opportunity for the students that encouraged them to nurture those skills. We wanted to teach students conflict resolution skills and to have them work together to use those skills to help individuals in the community resolve actual disputes. Simultaneously, we sought to expose the students to an under served population with whom most of them were not acquainted (incarcerated juvenile offenders) and to show them the value of helping others resolve their disputes peacefully, in a non-adversarial way. Moreover, we sought to teach the students that their new role as mediator required them to act professionally and ethically. After teaching the class for approximately 15 years I became curious about what our students were doing. I was interested in learning whether they were practicing law and whether they were serving as mediators. I wanted to ascertain whether they were getting paid to mediate or whether they were mediating pro bono. This curiosity led to other areas of inquiry, such as determining the type of mediations the graduates were doing and the frequency of those mediations. Moreover I also wanted to know if they were using the communication skills we had taught them in the Mediation Clinic in their mediations, in their professional and personal lives. This article, The Parts Are Greater Than The Sum, is the description and analysis of what I learned from the survey I sent to the graduates of the Mediation Clinic. Fortunately I received a very high response rate -- over 50% of those who received the survey responded to it. I found the responses illuminating. I have learned that although the students were interested in mediation, this was not their initial motivation for participating in the clinic. Only a small percent of the graduates were mediating. Nonetheless, the graduates appreciate and use many of the communication skills they learned in the clinic in their professional and personal lives. Due to what I have learned from the graduates’ responses to the survey, I have changed the way I teach the class. I now place more emphasis on the discrete skills used in mediation, rather than on the entire process of mediation. I believe that others who teach mediation can also benefit from the data I accumulated and analyzed. I am sharing this data through this article so that others may learn something about their programs and may re-consider their program’s goals and outcomes

Drug Testing of Students: A Legal and Public Health Perspective

This article seeks to address the efficacy of school drug-testing programs. After providing some general background information on the abuse of substances, the article sets forth the Supreme Court decisions on student drug testing. Part III then discusses the extension of the jurisprudence in the state courts to show how the Supreme Court law is being expanded by the states, and is likely to be further expanded in the future. The next section, Part IV, turns to drug screening from a public health perspective, analyzing whether or not drug screening is a valid public health screen. Finally, Part V examines whether student drug testing serves as a deterrent, whether the programs cause any inadvertent harm, and the nature of future research that should be undertaken to determine the value of drug testing in public schools

Vampires Among Us

The integrity of an individual\u27s person is a cherished value of our society. That we today hold that the Constitution does not forbid the States minor intrusions into an individual\u27s body under stringently limited conditions in no way indicates that it permits more substantial intrusions, or intrusions under other conditions

Using Prior Consistent Statements to Rehabilitate Credibility or to Prove Substantive Assertions Before and After the 2014 Amendment of Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(1)(B)

The Federal Rules of Evidence (FRE) expanded the non-hearsay category of admissible prior consistent statements with FRE 801(d)(1)(B)(ii) to include any statements counsel uses to rehabilitate a declarant’s credibility after that credibility has been attacked. FREV 801(d)(1)(B)(i) and (ii) require that a declarant testify and be subjected to cross-examination about the prior consistent statement. Under these rules, the time at which the declarant made the consistent statement and her reason for making it are critical. When the declarant does not testify, however, under FRE 806 opposing counsel may still attack the declarant’s credibility. Under these circumstances, it is often challenging to determine the evidence that counsel may use to impeach, and later to rehabilitate, the credibility of the non-testifying declarant. Moreover, lawyers and judges frequently conflate the two uses of prior consistent statements-- non-hearsay substantive evidence with impeachment-credibility evidence. Through the examination and analysis of two recent federal cases, U.S. v. Cotton and U.S. v. Ledbetter, this article attempts to shed some light on the complexities and proper application of these two rules of evidence