I HAVE SOME HORRIBLE NEWS. BUBBA MAGUIRE, OUR STAR LINEBACKER, IS IN SERIOUS TROUBLE.

NOT BUBBA. WE CAN'T BEAT THE FOOTBALL GAME WITHOUT HIM. PLEASE TELL ME WHAT HAPPENED.

EVIDENTLY AS BUBBA WAS ENTERING HIS FIRST-PERIOD CLASS, HE TRIPPED AND DROPPED HIS BOOKS ALL OVER THE FLOOF FLOOR. WHEN HIS TEACHER, MRS. BOWDEN, REACHED DOWN TO HELP HIM PICK UP THE BOOKS, SHE SAW A BAGGY OF PILLS CALLED ROYS. SHE IMMEDIATELY CALLED ME, AND I TOOK BUBBA TO THE SECURITY OFFICE.

STEROIDS. THAT EXPLAINS IT! JUST LAST SPRING, BUBBA COULDN'T HURT A FLY. THE KID WEIGHED 125 POUNDS, AND WHEN HE CAME BACK TO SCHOOL THIS FALL, HE LOOKED LIKE THE INCREDIBLE HULK. WE HAVE NO CHOICE BUT TO EXPEL HIM.

THAT IS NOT ALL. MRS. BOWDEN FOUND A NOTE WITH THE PILLS WHICH WAS TITLED ROY ORDERS. WE FOUND DOLLAR AMOUNTS WHICH HAVE EITHER BEEN PAID OR ARE STILL DUE.

NOW, THIS IS SERIOUS. DO YOU RECOGNIZE ANY OF THE NAMES ON THE LIST HT?

YES, I DO. THERE WERE TEN OTHER FOOTBALL PLAYERS AND A PLAYER FROM THE BOYS' BASKETBALL TEAM.

THAT IS IT. I WANT YOU TO GO DOWN TO THE FOOTBALL LOCKER TODAY, AFTER SCHOOL, AND TEST EVERY MEMBER OF THE TEAM. EVERYONE WHO TESTS POSITIVE FOR STEROID USE WILL BE KICKED OFF THE TEAM AND OUT OF SCHOOL. EVERY MEMBER OF THE BOYS' BASKETBALL TEAM, TOO. WE ARE GOING TO PUT AN END TO THIS. EVERYONE WHO TESTS POSITIVELY WILL BE EXPELLED IMMEDIATELY.

HOW ABOUT THE GIRLS' TEAMS? IS IT FAIR TO ONLY TEST THE BOY ATHLETES? MARSHA HAD 62 HOME RUNS LAST YEAR FOR THE STATE SOFTBALL TEAM. THAT WAS A STATE RECORD.

NO. FOR NOW WE WILL LIMIT THE TESTING TO BOY ATHLETES. AS CONFUSCIOUS SAID, BOYS ARE MORE PRONE TO USE DRUGS AS ATHLETES, ANYWAY. TEST TEST TEST INSTEAD YOU DISCRIMINATE AGAINST THOSE WHO TRY TO GET INVOLVED. NOW, MY GRANDDAUGHTER WILL NEVER JOIN ANOTHER CLUB FOR THE REST OF HER LIFE, DUE TO THIS HUMILIATION.

WHY DID YOU EXPEL SAM FROM SCHOOL?

SAM TESTED POSITIVE FOR OPIATE USE.

BUT SAM HAD A SEVERE COUGH, AND HIS DOCTOR PRESCRIBED A COUGH SYRUP. I CAN SHOW THE PRESCRIPTION.

SAVE ME THE SOB STORY. YOU KNOW THE POLICY. IF YOU TEST POSITIVE FOR DRUGS, YOU KNOW, NO EXCEPTIONS.

ISN'T THERE SOME KIND OF APPEAL HEARING?

THE STUDENT IS EXPELLED WHEN HE TESTS POSITIVE FOR DRUGS. THERE WILL BE NO EXPULSION HEARING.

THIS IS OUTRAGEOUS. YOU CAN'T GIVE ME SON EXPULSION WITHOUT A HEARING. I AM A LAWYER. I WILL SEE YOU IN COURT.

THANK YOU, MR. JACOBS, FOR YOUR BUSINESS CARD. I AM SORRY, BUT WE HAVE A DRUG PROBLEM HERE, IN SCHOOL, AND I AM GOING TO STOP IT RIGHT NOW. I AM GOING TO STOP IT, IF IT MEANS REROUTING THE FRONT ENTRANCE OF THIS SCHOOL RIGHT THROUGH THE BATHROOM. BY A STATEWIDE TELEVISION AUDIENCE AND, ALSO, ON THE INTERNET. WE ARE SORT OF GOING SIMULCAST. IT BRINGS A WHOLE NEW DEFINITION TO THAT TERM, BOTH ON TELEVISION AND THROUGH THE INTERNET, THROUGHOUT THE STATE OF FLORIDA. THIS PROGRAM IS SPONSORED BY THE JUSTICE TEACHING INSTITUTE, IN WHICH TEACHERS FROM AROUND THE STATE COME HERE TO THE FLORIDA SUPREME COURT AND DISCUSS IMPORTANT ISSUES, AND ONE OF THEM IS DRUG TESTING IN OUR SCHOOLS. THIS JUSTICE TEACHING INSTITUTE IS, ALSO, SPONSORED BY THE FLORIDA SUPREME COURT, AND HERE WE ARE, IN THIS MAGNIFICENT COURTROOM HERE, TODAY, TO BEGIN OUR PROGRAM. IF I MIGHT, LET ME, PLEASE, INDICATE WHO OUR PANEL OF TEACHERS AND EXPERTS ARE GOING TO BE HERE, THIS MORNING. WE HAVE THE CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE FLORIDA SUPREME COURT. MAJOR HARDING, NICE TO HAVE YOU WITH US. WE HAVE JUSTICE BARBARA PARIENTE, JUSTICE PEGGY QUINCE. WE HAVE THE GOVERNOR'S GENERAL COUNSEL, CAROL LICKO. NICE JOINING YOU WITH THIS MORNING APARTMENTS PROGRAM, AND -- WITH THIS MORNING'S PROGRAM, AND WE HAVE 25 TEACHERS FROM AROUND THE STATE OF FLORIDA, WHO ASKED TO BE PART OF THIS JUSTICE TEACHING INSTITUTE THIS YEAR. TEACHERS FROM MIAMI THROUGH TALLAHASSEE, ALL THROUGHOUT THE STATE, WHO WERE SELECTED TO BE HERE FOR THIS PROGRAM. IT IS ACTUALLY A FOUR-DAY PROGRAM, TALKING ABOUT OUR LEGAL SYSTEM AND DISCUSSING LAW-RELATED EDUCATION. IN THE AUDIENCE, WE HAVE HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS FROM THREE OF OUR HIGH SCHOOLS IN THE TALLAHASSEE AREA. WE HAVE LEON HIGH SCHOOL. WHERE ARE YOU? ALL RIGHT. WE HAVE GODBY HIGH SCHOOL. THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE. AND RICKARD SR. HIGH AS WELL, A FEW STUDENTS THERE. ALL RIGHT. ALSO WE HAVE JUSTICES FROM THE FLORIDA SUPREME COURT ACTING AS GROUP LEADERS, JUSTICES FROM AROUND THE STATE OF FLORIDA, AS WELL AS SOME TEACHERS WHO ARE SOME OF THE SPONSORS FOR THE GROUP. WELL, WHAT DO YOU THINK ABOUT THIS HIGH SCHOOL? AND THIS HIGH SCHOOL POLICY? IS THAT THE TYPE OF HIGH SCHOOL THAT YOU WOULD ENJOY, PERHAPS, BEING A STUDENT AT, OR, MAYBE, EVEN TEACHING AT? AND THAT IS WHAT WE NEED TO FIND OUT. WHAT IS YOUR OPINION ABOUT THIS POLICY? AND TO HELP US DO THAT, WE HAVE A WONDERFUL TECHNOLOGY WHICH IS CALLED THE OPTION FINDING, AND EACH OF US HAS ONE OF THESE PADS. I, ALSO, CALL IT THE OPINION FINDER, BECAUSE WE HAVE A SERIES OF QUESTIONS, AND WE WOULD LIKE TO KNOW WHAT YOU FEEL ABOUT EACH OF THESE QUESTIONS. NOT ONLY THE STUDENTS BUT, ALSO, THE TEACHERS. WELL, HOW DO YOU WORK THIS THING? WELL, IT IS REALLY QUITE SIMPLE ACTUALLY, AND WE ARE GOING TO HAVE A TEST QUESTION. IT IS ALL YOU HAVE TO DO IS JUST PRESS ONE OF THESE NUMBERS THAT CORRESPONDS WITH AN ANSWER THAT IS BEFORE IT. LET'S TAKE A LOOK, IF WE CAN. WE HAVE A DEMOGRAPHIC QUESTION, AND THE FIRST QUESTION IS GOING TO BE ARE YOU A TEACHER OR ARE YOU A STUDENT? WE WOULD LIKE TO KNOW WHO IS HERE TODAY. IF YOU ARE A TEACHER, YOU WOULD HIT NUMBER ONE. IF YOU ARE A STUDENT. YOU WOULD PRESS NUMBER TWO. IF YOU HAPPEN TO MAKE A MISTAKE, YOU CAN ALWAYS START ALL OVER AGAIN AND PRESS THE BUTTON THAT REALLY IS YOUR CORRECT ANSWER. LET'S SEE HOW MANY PARTICIPANTS WE HAVE THIS MORNING. HERE WE ARE. THIS IS THE BREAKDOWN. WE HAVE GOT 33% OF US AS TEACHERS AND 67% OF US AS STUDENTS. ALL RIGHT. I WONDER IF THAT IS GOING TO HAVE ANY EFFECT ON SOME OF THE ANSWERS TO THESE QUESTIONS. WELL, LET'S TAKE A LOOK, IF WE CAN. ALL RIGHT. LET'S SEE IF YOU CAN HELP US, IF YOU CAN, AND LET'S GO AND LOOK AT THE VERY FIRST QUESTION, AND YOU HAVE IT HERE ON THE GOLDENROD SHEET, AS WELL AS ON THE TELEVISION MONITORS AND THE VIDEO SCREENS. LET'S FIND OUT WHAT YOU THINK ABOUT THESE ISSUES. THE STANDARD FOR JUSTIFYING DRUG TESTING IN SCHOOLS SHOULD BE, NUMBER ONE, THE SAME AS THE GENERAL PUBLIC. NUMBER TWO, LOWER THAN FOR THE GENERAL PUBLIC. NUMBER THREE, HIGHER THAN THE GENERAL PUBLIC. NUMBER FOUR, THE FOURTH AMENDMENT SHOULD NOT APPLY IN SCHOOLS AND, NUMBER FIVE, SCHOOL DRUG TESTS SHOULD BE PROHIBITED, IN ORDER TO PROTECT VULNERABLE YOUTH FROM OVERREACHING ADMINISTRATORS AND TEACHERS, I MIGHT ADD. WHAT DO YOU THINK? 1, 2, 3, 4, OR 5. ALL RIGHT. LET'S TAKE A LOOK AT WHAT EVERYONE SEEMS TO THINK. 51% SAY IT SHOULD BE THE SAME IN SCHOOLS AS IN THE GENERAL PUBLIC. ARE WE ABLE TO BREAK THAT DOWN BY TEACHERS AND BY STUDENTS? WE HAVE ONE LITTLE GLITCH. ALL RIGHT. TECHNOLOGY IS WONDERFUL, ISN'T IT? LET'S SEE. ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT, CONCERNING QUESTION NUMBER ONE, IS TO WHAT AGREE THE FOURTH AMENDMENT OF THE FLORIDA AND FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONS APPLY TO SCHOOLS AND TO STUDENTS. WHILE WELL ARE TRYING TO BREAK THAT DOWN TO STUDENTS AND TEACHERS, LET ME ASK ANYONE ON THE PANEL HERE IF SOMEONE CAN TALK ABOUT WHAT IS THE FOURTH AMENDMENT AND WHAT IS IT TRYING TO PROTECT US FROM, IN TERMS OF OUR DAILY LIVES? ANYONE LIKE TO VOLUNTEER AND ANSWER ON THAT? ANY OF THE TEACHERS OR ANY OF THE JUSTICES?

WELL, IT IS A PROHIBITION AGAINST UNREASONABLE SEARCHES AND SEIZURES, AND I THINK IT MAY BE HELPFUL TO KNOW THARBS, WHEN OUR CONSTITUTION WAS INITIALLY ESTABLISHED, BACK IN 1887, AND THEN SHORTLY THEREAFTER, WITH THE FIRST TEN AMENDMENTS OF THE CONSTITUTION, THESE PEOPLE HAD BEEN SUBJECTED TO SEARCHES OF THEIR HOME AND OF THEIR PERSON, WITHOUT ANY CAUSE OR WITHOUT ANY REASON, OTHER THAN THE KING OR HIS MINIONS SAID THEY WANTED TO SEARCH A HOME OR THEIR PERSON. AND SO OUR FOUNDERS WANTED TO ENSURE, AND ONE OF THE FIRST THINGS THE FIRST CONGRESS EVER TOOK UP WAS THE FIRST TEN AMENDMENTS OF THE CONSTITUTION. AND THIS IS ONE OF THEM. THEY DID NOT WANT THE PEOPLE OF THIS COUNTRY EVER BEING SUBJECTED TO AN UNREASONABLE SEARCH AND SEIZURE.

WELL, SOMEBODY MIGHT SAY, WELL, THAT IS GREAT FOR THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION, BUT HOW DOES THAT APPLY TO US, HERE, IN FLORIDA. IS THERE SOMETHING IN OUR FLORIDA CONSTITUTION OR SOMETHING THAT THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION PERMITS THE STATE TO USE, IN ORDER TO APPLY HERE, IN FLORIDA? JUSTICE QUINCE.

WELL, IN ORDER TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT THE SEARCH IS GOING TO BE REASONABLE, THERE ARE CERTAIN THINGS THAT THE COURTS, THE POLICE, PEOPLE INVOLVED IN SEARCHES MUST LOOK AT, AND ONE OF THEM IS WHETHER OR NOT YOU HAVE PROBABLE CAUSE OR THAT A WARRANT HAS BEEN I SHOULD, SO THESE THINGS -- HAS BEEN ISSUED, SO THESE THINGS GO TO DETERMINING WHETHER OR NOT THE SEARCH THAT IS BEING PERFORMED IS, IN FACT, REASONABLE. NOW, UNDER THE FLORIDA CONSTITUTION, WE USUALLY INTERPRET THESE FOURTH AMENDMENT SEARCH AND SEIZURE ISSUES IN THE SAME WAY THAT YOU DO WITH THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION, SO WHEN YOU READ CASES FROM THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT, THOSE ARE THE SAME, AND WHAT THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT DECIDES, IS WHAT WE ARE GOING TO DO HERE, IN THE STATE OF FLORIDA. SO WE BASICALLY FOLLOW THE FEDERAL SYSTEM.

SO WE HAVE THE SAME BENEFITS AS THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION HERE, IN FLORIDA, TO PROTECT US, BE WE TEACHERS OR STUDENTS OR JUDGES OR WORKING FOLKS THROUGHOUT THE STATE, AGAIN, THROUGHOUT THE STATE, AGAINST UNREASONABLE SEARCHES AND SEIZURES. YES. WE CAN START COMPLETELY OVER. BE HAPPY TO. ALL RIGHT. LET'S TRY TO FIND OUT, ONCE AGAIN, WHO WE ALL ARE. ALL RIGHT. LET'S SEE. NUMBER ONE, IF YOU ARE A TEACHER, NUMBER TWO, IF YOU ARE A STUDENT. ALL RIGHT. WE HAVE GOT 90 OF US RESPONDING. ALL RIGHT. IT IS MORE OR LESS THE SAME, EXCEPT THE STUDENTS ARE CREEPING UP, IN TERMS OF PERCENTAGES. LET'S NOT DO THIS AGAIN! ALL RIGHT. [LAUGHTER]

WE ARE UP TO 68%. ALL RIGHT. SHOULD WE TRY AGAIN. WHAT IS YOUR ANSWER FOR QUESTION A? THE STANDARD FOR JUSTIFYING DRUG TESTING IN SCHOOLS SHOULD BE? AND PLEASE GIVE US A RESPONSE, ONCE AGAIN, ONE THROUGH FIVE.

JUDGE FARINA?

YES.

DO YOU WANT -- I THINK -- I AM NOT SURE, BUT I THINK THE QUESTION IS AS TO WHETHER LOWER THAN THE GENERAL PUBLIC OR HIGHER, TO EXPLAIN, WHEN THEY ARE ANSWERING THAT, WHAT THE LOWER AND HIGHER WOULD MEAN.

WELL HIGHER WOULD MEAN SHOULD WE BE MORE STRICT IN SCHOOLS THAN OUT IN THE GENERAL PUBLIC, SO SHOULD WE HAVE A MORE STRICTER STANDARD FOR STUDENTS IN SCHOOL THAN WE MIGHT HAVE FOR PARENTS OR OUR FRIENDS IN THE WORKPLACE. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. WE NEED -- WE HAVE 89. WE ARE MISSING ONE, BUT LET'S GO ON, IF WE CAN. WELL. ALL RIGHT. WE ARE ALL GETTING MORE FAMILIAR WITH THIS TECHNOLOGY. WE ARE UP TO A GOOD MAJORITY. 64% SAYING IT SHOULD BE EXACTLY THE SAME. AND LET'S TRY THE BREAKDOWN AS TO STUDENTS VERSUS TEACHERS. ALL RIGHT. HELP ME WITH THAT. THAT IS TEACHERS. IS THAT RIGHT? THAT IS THE DEMOGRAPHIC ON TEACHERS. 57% SAY IT SHOULD BE THE SAME AND WHAT ABOUT STUDENTS? 67%. ALL RIGHT. SO THERE IS SOME COMMON THINKING, HERE, THAT IT SHOULD BE THE SAME, NOT HIGHER, NOT LOWER, BUT SHOULD BE THE SAME FOR EVERYBODY, WHETHER YOU ARE IN THE SCHOOL, IN THE WORKPLACE OR IN THE HOME. OKAY. LET'S GO ON TO QUESTION NUMBER TWO, IF WE CAN. PRINCIPAL BELDING ORIGINALLY ORDERED DRUG TESTING ONLY FOR THE BOYS' ATHLETIC TEAM MEMBERS. IS THIS APPROPRIATE TO USE GENDER AS THE BASIS FOR ORDERING THE TESTING. WHAT DO YOU THINK? MAYBE WE SHOULD BREAK THIS DOWN AS TO BOYS VERSUS GIRLS AS WELL. OKAY. WE HAVE GOT EVERYBODY PARTICIPATING ON THIS ONE. IT'S OVERWHELMING. THERE IS JUST NO DOUBT ABOUT IT.

WHO IS THE ONE PERSON?

YOU KNOW, I SHOULD MENTION THAT YOUR VOTE IS ANONYMOUS. AND WE ARE REALLY NOT ABLE TO TRACE ANYTHING BACK. [LAUGHTER [IT [-- LAUGHTER]

ESPECIALLY FOR THAT ONE PERSON THAT SEEMS TO BE THE ODD PERSON OUT. OKAY. WHAT DO WE HAVE, IN TERMS OF TEACHERS? 100%. LOOK AT THAT. IT SHOULD BE EQUAL ACROSS THE BOARD, SO NOW WE KNOW WHERE WE ARE LEADING TO. HOW ABOUT ON THE STUDENTS? ALL RIGHT. OKAY. WELL, LET ME ASK OUR PANEL. WHAT DO YOU ALL THINK ABOUT THIS ISSUE? IS THERE SOME RITE OF PASSAGE HERE? IN OTHER WORDS IS IT REALLY THE FAIR THING TO DO, TO HAVE THE SAME STANDARD FOR EVERYONE? AND WHAT KIND OF STANDARD APPLIES? JUSTICE PARIENTE, WHAT DO YOU THINK ABOUT THIS?

ARE WE TALKING ABOUT THE GENDER ISSUE?

GENDER. YES.

WE HAVE, IN THE U.S. CONSTITUTION, THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT, WHICH IS BOTH THE EQUAL PROTECTION AND DUE PROCESS CLAUSE, AND EQUAL PROTECTION ESSENTIALLY SAYS THAT THERE SHALL BE NO DISCRIMINATION, BASED ON RACE, ETHNICITY. IT DOES NOT SPECIFICALLY MENTION GENDER. BUT OUR OWN CONSTITUTION, OUR FLORIDA CONSTITUTION, AS OF LAST YEAR, IN THE CONSTITUTIONAL REVISION, SPECIFICALLY MENTIONS GENDER AS ONE OF THE CLASSIFICATIONS THAT THERE SHALL BE NO DISCRIMINATION FOR. SO THAT --

WE HAVE BEEN ABLE TO ACTUALLY HAVE GREATER RIGHTS, ACTUALLY HAVE, REALLY, EXTENDED THE RIGHTS TO THE CITIZENS, THROUGH THE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT TO PROVIDE THIS PROTECTION FOR GENDER?

CORRECT. YOU WERE ASKING, EARLIER, ABOUT THE TWO CONSTITUTIONS. EVERY CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES AND OF THIS WILL STATE HAS THE PROTECTION OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION. A STATE CAN CHOOSE TO, IF GREATER PROTECTION -- GIVE GREATER PROTECTIONS BUT THEY CANNOT GIVE LESSER PROTECTIONS THAN IS PROVIDED IN THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION, AND GENERALLY SPEAKING A STATE OR, IN THIS CASE A SCHOOL, CANNOT DISCRIMINATE ON WHAT IS CALLED SUSPECT CLASSIFICATIONS AND RACE AND GENDER AND ETHNICITY WOULD BE IN THOSE CLASSIFICATIONS.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ANYBODY HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THAT? ALL RIGHT. HOW ABOUT IF WE LOOK AT QUESTION C, WHICH IS THE NEXT ONE. AFTER A HISPANIC MEMBER OF THE FOOTBALL TEAM TESTED POSITIVE FOR COCAINE, OUR BELOVED PRINCIPAL ORDERED DRUG TESTING OF ALL HISPANIC STUDENTS, WHETHER OR NOT THEY WERE ON THE ATHLETIC TEAM. IS IT APPROPRIATE TO USE ETHNICITY AS THE BASIS FOR ORDERING TESTING? LET'S SEE WHAT YOU THINK ABOUT THAT.

ALL RIGHT. LET'S GET OUR GENERAL RESULTS. THANK YOU, ONCE AGAIN, FOR YOUR VOTE. ONCE AGAIN, AN OVERWHELMING RESPONSE THAT THERE SHOULD NOT BE ANY TESTING JUST ALONG ETHNIC LINES, AND HOW DOES THIS BREAKDOWN, PLEASE, IF YOU WOULD. ONCE AGAIN, OUR TEACHERS ARE INDICATING THAT IT SHOULD BE THE SAME STANDARD FOR EVERYBODY, AND OUR STUDENTS? ONCE AGAIN 98%, AND THE 2%. BUT, STILL, ALMOST UNANIMOUS. AND IS THIS A SPECIAL SAFEGUARDED CLASS THESE DAYS? IN TERMS OF NATURAL -- OR NATIONAL ORIGIN? MS. LICKO, IS THIS SOMETHING THAT HAS, ALSO, BEEN EXTENDED AND, ALSO, PROVIDES US WITH ADDITIONAL RIGHTS HERE, IN THIS STATE?

YES. THIS IS ONE OF THOSE AREAS WHERE YOU ARE ENTITLED TO EXTRA PROTECTION, BASED ON NATIONAL ORIGIN.

CERTAINLY IN TERMS OF OUR STATE, WITH THE DIVERSITY, NOT ONLY WITH HISPANICS, BUT IN MANY OF OUR SCHOOL SYSTEMS, WE HAVE, MAYBE, 20 OR 30 DIFFERENT LANGUAGING AND DIALECTS FROM STUDENTS FROM ALL AROUND THE WORLD COMING TO FLORIDA, WHETHER IT BE IN ORLANDO, OR TAMPA, OR MIAMI, OR THROUGHOUT THE STATE OF FLORIDA, SO THESE -- THIS IS AN IMPORTANT PROTECTION. ALL RIGHT. LET'S GO TO THE NEXT QUESTION, IF WE MIGHT, AND SEE WHAT YOU ALL THINK. UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE, THE PRINCIPAL SHOULD HAVE ORDERED TESTING OF THE FOLLOWING. ALL RIGHT. WE ARE ALMOST THERE. JUST A COUPLE OF MORE, PLEASE. WELL, LET'S SEE WHAT THE RESULTS ARE. VERY INTERESTING. EVERYBODY HAS INDICATED THAT CERTAINLY EVERYBODY WHO IS ON THE BUBBA'S DRUG SUPPLY LIST SHOULD BE TESTED, NOT NECESSARILY ALL THE STUDENTS OR BECAUSE THEY ARE INVOLVED IN EXTRACURRICULAR ACTIVITIES OR ON THE ATHLETIC TEAMS. LET'S SEE HOW THIS BREAKS DOWN, IF WE CAN. PRETTY CONSISTENT WITH THE TEACHERS RESPONDING THE SAME WAY AS THE GENERAL GROUP. AND STUDENTS? MORE OR LESS THE SAME. OKAY. LET ME ASK SOME OF THE TEACHERS, HERE, ON OUR PANEL, HOW DO YOU ALL FEEL ABOUT THIS? ANYBODY WOULD LIKE TO COMMENT ON IT? YES. GO AHEAD. STEPHEN. BRING THE MICROPHONE OVER THERE, IF YOU WOULD, AND LEAN IN THAT DIRECTION.

WHEN I LOOK AT THAT, I THOUGHT IF YOU FOUND DRUG IN HIS A STUDENT'S CAR IN A PARKING LOT, WOULD YOU, THEN, CONDUCT THE SEARCH OF EVERY CAR IN THAT PARKING LOT, OF STUDENTS? I DON'T KNOW OF ANY SITUATION WHERE A SCHOOL HAS DONE THAT. THEY USUALLY JUST CONFRONT THAT STUDENT WITH THAT PARTICULAR SITUATION. TO ME IT JUST SEEMS LIKE WE ARE INFRINGING UPON THE RIGHTS OF THE OTHER STUDENTS. THERE IS NO PROBABLE CAUSE OR REASON TO BELIEVE THAT THOSE STUDENTS HAVE DONE ANYTHING TO JUSTIFY A DRUG TEST ON THEM. JUST ONES WHO, OBVIOUSLY, HAVE SOME EVIDENCE AGAINST THEY.

OKAY. LET ME ASK MICHELE.

ALTHOUGH I THINK THAT WE HAVE TO RECOGNIZE THAT FROM TIME TO TIME SCHOOLS CONDUCT RANDOM DRUG SEARCHES OF LOCKERS, BASED ON SITUATIONS WHERE THE SCHOOL FEELS JUSTIFIED. I KNOW AT MY SCHOOL WE HAVE DONE AWAY WITH LOCKERS. THEY ARE TOTALLY HE -- TOTALLY TAKEN OUT OF THE BUILDING FOR THAT VERY REASON. IF THE SCHOOL ISN'T ALLOW TO SEARCH EVERYBODY, THEN THEY DON'T WANT STUDENTS TO HAVE ACCESS TO LOCKERS AT ALL. THAT IS A LITTLE BIT DRASTIC.

ALEXIS, MAY I GET YOU THE MICROPHONE. NEXT TO JOE.

WE OFTEN HEAR THAT STUDENTS TELL YOU THAT SOMETHING ISN'T FAIR AND OFTEN OUR RESPONSE IS THAT LIFE IS NOT FAIR. HOWEVER, BEING, IMPLICATING ALL OF THE STUDENTS MAY DISCOURAGE MANY OF THE STUDENTS FROM PARTICIPATION IN SEVERAL THINGS, IN THAT YOU, ALREADY, HAVE SINGLED OUT ONE STUDENT WHO HAS A LIST. IT SHOULD BE JUST -- YOU SHOULD JUST STICK TO THAT LIST AND TRY TO TAKE IT FROM THAT POINT, INSTEAD OF SAYING THAT ALL OF THE STUDENTS IN THE SCHOOL ARE USING DRUGS, BECAUSE, THEN, YOU HAVE THE EFFECT THAT WE ALL ARE BEING PUNISHED FOR THE ACTIONS OF ONE SET GROUP OF STUDENTS THAT YOU ALREADY KNOW HAVE SOME TYPE OF LINKAGE TO THIS INDIVIDUAL, IS WE ALL SHOULD NOT BE ASSOCIATED WITH THAT INDIVIDUAL.

RIGHT. YES.

JUST BECAUSE YOUR NAME IS ON THAT LIST, IS THAT PROBABLE CAUSE, THEN, TO GIVE THAT PERSON A DRUG TEST, JUST BECAUSE SOMEONE'S NAME HAPPENS TO BE ON THE LIST. I DON'T KNOW THAT THAT JUSTIFIES IT, TOO. THERE SHOULD BE A SIXTH ANSWER HERE THAT SAYS TEST NO ONE.

ALL RIGHT. ALAN, WHAT DO YOU THINK ABOUT THAT?

IN THE SAME SENSE, THESE INDIVIDUALS ARE DOING THE DRUG TEST, JUST TO SEE IF THEY HAVE TAKEN DRUGS. I THINK THAT THE LIST DOES INDICATE SOME LEVEL OF PROBABLE CAUSE. YOU ARE NOT CHARGING THEM WITH A CRIME. YOU ARE MERELY GOING TO TEST THEM FOR DRUG USE AT THAT POINT. SO THAT I DON'T SEE THE PROBLEM WITH THAT.

ANYTHING ELSE, REGINA, ON THAT? WE ARE OKAY? YES. WE HAVE A QUESTION? COMMENT? ALL RIGHT. LET'S SEE IF WE CAN DO THAT. YES. IN THE BACK.

IF MY NAME ON A LIST THAT SAYS DRUGS, WOULD THAT BE SUFFICIENT TO TEST ME?

DEFINITELY. ALL RIGHT. SO THE QUESTION IS WHETHER OR NOT IT IS A TEST OF REASONABLE SUSPICION VERSUS A TEST OF PROBABLE CAUSE, AND MAYBE THAT IS SOMETHING THAT WE CAN DISCUSS, LATER, IN THESE DISCUSSION GROUPS. ONE OF THE DIFFICULTIES OF HEARING FROM YOU ALL IN THE AUDIENCE RIGHT NOW IS THAT THE SOUND MAY NOT BE PICKED UP, SO IF YOU CAN KEEP THESE THOUGHTS AND BRING UP THESE ISSUES DURING THE SMALL GROUPS, BUT JUST IN CASE. DO YOU HAVE YOUR THOUGHT?

THE CONDUCT IS DIFFERENT. JUST BECAUSE YOUR NAME IS ON THAT LIST, THE LIST FOR SOMETHING ELSE IT COULD BE, YOU KNOW, LIKE OH, THESE PEOPLE ARE COMING TO MY PARTY. MAYBE IT WAS A LIST LIKE THAT. MAYBE IT WASN'T NAMES OF PEOPLE USING DRUGS.

THE NAMES ON THE LIST MIGHT JUST BE THE BUDDIES WHO I HAPPEN TO WORK OUT WITH, NOT NECESSARILY JUST PEOPLE WHO ARE GOING TO ACTUALLY BE MY CUSTOMER. WE WILL SEE.

THE DOLLAR AMOUNTS OF WHAT WAS OWED OR WHAT HAD BEEN PAID. IT WASN'T JUST NAMES.

A DOLLAR AMOUNT. BUT IF IT HAPPENED TO SAY SOMETHING ELSE, MAYBE, THREE -- WELL, HOW ABOUT THREE REPS VERSUS FIVE REPS. MAYBE EVERY REPREPRESENTS A PARTICULAR TYPE OF PILL. I DON'T KNOW. YES. ALAN.

I THINK IT IS IMPORTANT TO POINT OUT THAT, AS LONG AS IT IS BEING DONE DISCREETLY, NO ONE IS BEING CHARGED WITH A CRIME AT THIS POINT. THEY ARE SIMPLY LOOKING TO SEE IF THIS PERSON HAS TAKEN AN ILLICIT OR ILLEGAL SUBSTANCE.

ALL RIGHT. ANDREA?

I THINK IT IS IMPORTANT TO NOTE, TOO, THAT ON THE SIDE OF THE ADMINISTRATION, THEY HAVE THE GREATER GOOD OF THE ENTIRE STUDENT BODY TO WORRY ABOUT, AND SO TO USE A FEW STUDENTS WHO SEEM TO BE ON THE LIST THAT GIVES SOME PROBABLE CAUSE FOR SEARCH AND SEIZURE IN THIS ISSUE. THEY, ALSO, IN THE BACKGROUND, HAVE TO THINK ABOUT HOW THESE FEW STUDENTS ARE GOING TO BE AFFECTING THE MASS OF 1400 OR WHATEVER, SO SOMETHING TO CONSIDER THAT THERE IS A SECOND ISSUE, THE BETTER GOOD OF THE WHOLE COMMUNITY.

OKAY. MAJOR HARDING?

SHE BRINGS UP A POINT, AS WELL AS THE WELL-ATTIRED YOUNG MAN BACK THERE IN THE BOW TIE. THAT IN DEALING WITH SCHOOLS, THE STANDARD IS DIFFERENT. AND THAT IS BECAUSE COURTS HAVE, IN THEIR SEARCH TO DETERMINING WHAT IS REASONABLE, HAVE WEIGHED THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE SCHOOL SYSTEM AND WHAT IS TRYING TO BE ACHIEVED IN THE SCHOOL PROCESS. AND WHETHER OR NOT THIS HAS IMPACT UPON THE EDUCATIONAL AND TEACHING AND ADMINISTRATION WITHIN THE SCHOOL, AND SO IN THAT EFFORT TO DETERMINE WHAT IS REASONABLE OR UNREASONABLE IN THIS, THE COURTS HAVE DETERMINED THAT, IN A SCHOOL SETTING, YOU DO NOT HAVE TO HAVE PROBABLE CAUSE OR WHAT YOU WOULD NEED TO GET A WARRANT IN THE OUTSIDE. BUT IF AN ADMINISTRATOR HAS A REASONABLE SUSPICION, THAT IS ADEQUATE TO WARRANT A SEARCH IN A SCHOOL SETTING.

I AM GOING TO ASK JUSTICE PARIENTE A QUESTION IN A MOMENT. IS IT BECAUSE, PERHAPS, THAT THE COURTS VERY OFTEN SAID THAT THE SCHOOL SETTING IS MUCH LIKE A FAMILY SETTING, AND JUST LIKELY WOULDN'T BE SAYING TO OUR PARENT WHAT DO YOU MEAN ABOUT MY TAKING DRUGS? DO YOU HAVE PROBABLE CAUSE TO ASK ME THAT QUESTION? WELL, MAYBE THAT IS WHY WE HAVE A STANDARD OF REASONABLE INFERENCES, TO TAKE A LOOK TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT A STUDENT IS ON DRUGS, BECAUSE WE ARE IN A SCHOOL SETTING. IS THERE SOMETHING ANALOGOUS TO THAT?

WHAT I THINK IS INTERESTING IS THAT, YES, THE U.S. SUPREME COURT HAS SAID THAT THE STANDARD IS DIFFERENT IN SCHOOLS; THAT IT IS NOT A STRICT STANDARD, YET THE MAJORITY OF THE PEOPLE HERE, TODAY, AND TEACHERS FEEL THAT IT SHOULD BE THE SAME, AND I THINK ONE OF THE COMMENTS FROM THE PANEL IS VERY VALID, IN TERMS OF HOW WE LOOK AT IT, WHICH IS FAIRNESS, THAT IF WE ARE GOING TO BE TEACHING OUR STUDENTS ABOUT CITIZENSHIP AND ABOUT CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS, THAT WE OUGHT TO BE VERY CAREFUL WITH THE KIND OF PROCEDURES THAT WE DO EMPLOYEE. I -- THAT WE DO EMPLOY. I, ALSO, THERE WAS A COMMENT MADE ABOUT IT IS ONLY DRUG TESTING, BUT MAKE NO MISTAKE, THE DRUG TESTING IS A SEARCH, UNDER THE FOURTH AMENDMENT.

TRUE.

NOW, THE JUSTIFICATION THAT HAS BEEN PUT FORWARD BY THE U.S. SUPREME COURT IS THAT THERE ARE OTHER NEEDS IN SCHOOLS, SUCH AS THE NEED TO PRESERVE ORDER, AND THAT IT IS NEEDED, IN ORDER TO HAVE AN ATMOSPHERE CONDUCIVE TO LEARN LEARNING, SO THAT IS ESPECIALLY WHY THE LOWER STANDARDS FOR SINK THINGS SUCH AS WEAPONS SEARCHES OR DRUG SEARCHES HAS BEEN JUSTIFIED. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE U.S. SUPREME COURT, IN TRYING TO STRIKE THE BALANCE, SAYS THAT YOU DO NOT SHED YOUR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS AT THE SCHOOLHOUSE DOOR, AND SO WE ARE CONSTANTLY STRIVING FOR THAT BALANCE BETWEEN WHAT IS FAIR TO THE STUDENT BUT, ALSO, WHAT IS NECESSARY FOR THE SCHOOL, TO ACCOMPLISH ITS PRIMARY GOAL OF TEACHING.

YES. JUSTICE HARDING.

YOU HAVE RAISED A POINT ABOUT THE FAMILY, AND, OF COURSE, WE ARE DEALING, HERE, WITH THE GOVERNMENT INTRUSION INTO THE LIFE OF THE STUDENT, AND SO WE ARE DEALING WITH THE GOVERNMENT, AS THE ACTOR, AND THIS WOULD, OF COURSE, NOT APPLY TO A PARENT SEARCHING THEIR CHILD'S ROOM OR SOMETHING OF THAT NATURE.

ABSOLUTELY. THERE ARE SOME HANDS.

JOE.

I THOUGHT SOMETHING THAT THE CHIEF JUSTICE JUST MENTIONED, THAT WAS LACKING, FROM THE ADMINISTRATION'S POINT OF VIEW, IS THE FACT THAT THESE ARE MINORS, AND THE PARENTS WERE NOT INVOLVED IN THE PROCESS OF AT LEAST INQUIRING TO WHAT THEY THOUGHT ABOUT THE POSSIBILITY OF DRUG TESTING AND NOT BROUGHT INTO THE PROCESS SOONER. THEY WERE JUST TOLD THAT IT WOULD HAPPEN.

YES. MS. LICKO. CAROL?

LET ME ADD, TOO, THAT, AT LEAST FROM THE SCHOOL'S PERSPECTIVE, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT IS THE PERSPECTIVE OF THE SCHOOL ADMINISTRATOR IS THE TYING IN OF THE NOTION TO MAINTAIN ORDER IN THE SCHOOL, BUT GOING BEYOND THAT, THERE IS A COMPELLING INTEREST TO REDUCE DRUG YOORTION PARTICULARLY AMONG ATHLETES.

-- DRUG USE, PARTICULARLY AMONG ATHLETES.

LET LOOK AT THE NEXT QUESTION, THEN, WHICH IS E, AND WHICH OF THE FOLLOWING SCENARIOS IS IT APPROPRIATE FOR THE PRINCIPAL TO ORDER THE DRUG TESTING OF STUDENT X? NUMBER ONE. PRINCIPAL BELDING READS ANONYMOUS MESSAGE IN A CYBER CHATROOM STATING THAT THE STUDENT USES DRUGS. NUMBER TWO,: WHAT IS YOUR OPINION ON 1 THROUGH 5? NOW, THIS DOES SOUND LIKE A STANDARD TEST, DOESN'T IT? ALL OF THE ABOVE, NONE OF THE ABOVE, ONE OF THE ABOVE? OKAY. WHERE ARE WE? GO AHEAD. OKAY. THE PRINCIPAL CANNOT PROPERLY ORDER A DRUG TEST OF A STUDENT ON ANY OF THE ABOVE CRITERIA. OKAY. LET'S TAKE A LOOK HOW THAT BREAKS DOWN. TEACHERS. OKAY. SAME. AND STUDENTS BY THE LARGEST. OKAY. LET'S GO ON TO THE NEXT QUESTION, IF WE CAN, WHICH IS F. LET'S SEE HOW THIS -- ONE MORE. WE HAVE ONE MORE LEFT OR NOT? PRETTY CLOSE. OKAY. OVERWHELMINGLY SAYING THAT A HEARING OR AN OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD IS THE RIGHT THING TO DO. LET'S BREAK IT DOWN, IF WE CAN, AS TEACHERS, A HIGHER PERCENTAGE. THE ANSWER IS WE NEED TO HAVE A HEARING. STUDENTS? JUST ABOUT THE SAME. NOW, DOES THIS QUESTION DEAL WITH THE FOURTH AMENDMENT, SEARCHES AND SEIZURES, OR DOES THIS DEAL WITH ANOTHER AMENDMENT? ANYBODY. WE CAN TALK ABOUT. YES.

WHAT WE ARE REALLY -- WHAT WE ARE, REALLY, TALKING ABOUT, HERE, IS DUE PROCESS, AND THE DUE PROCESS CAN BE FOUND IN BOTH THE FOURTH AMENDMENT AND THE FOURTH OOENT -- THE FIFTH AMENDMENT AND THE FORTEENTH AMENDMENT. WHAT WE ARE REALLY TALKING ABOUT IS GIVING PEOPLE NOTICE OF WHAT IS GOING TO HAPPEN OR MAY POTENTIALLY HAPPEN, AND AN OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD. AND IN THESE KINDS OF SITUATIONS, WE, ALSO, HAVE A QUESTION, HERE, OF WHETHER WE ARE TALKING ABOUT A NOTICE BEFORE THE EXPULSION OR THE NOTICE AFTER YOU HAVE BEEN EXPELLED OR SUSPENDED. SO WHAT -- THAT IS THE ISSUE HERE, WHETHER OR NOT THE STUDENT HAS A DUE PROCESS RIGHT, UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES.

WE WILL TRY TO GO OUT HERE TO THE AUDIENCE. SOMEONE HAS THEIR HAND UP. YES. IF YOU DO SOMETHING AT HOME, WHY SHOULD YOU BE PUNISHED AT SCHOOL? [INAUDIBLE]

ALL RIGHT. SO THE QUESTION IS, LOOK, I AM DOING MY OWN THING AT HOME, WHETHER IT IS TAKING DRUGS OR WHETHER -- WHATEVER. WHY SHOULD I BE PUNISHED, IF I COME IN TO SCHOOL, AND I HAPPEN TO BE STOKED UP? LET'S FIND OUT. STEVE?

I KNOW, AT THE COUNTY NEXT TO OURS, I AM FROM VOLUSIA COUNTY. SEMINOLE COUNTY, THEY HAVE A POLICY CALLED GOOD CITIZENSHIP POLICY, AND THAT IS DESIGNED FOR ANYONE INVOLVED IN EXTRACURRICULAR ACTIVITIES, AND IN THAT POLICY, IT STATES THAT, IF ANY STUDENT IS CAUGHT DRINKING OR USING DRUGS OR SMOKEING, ANYWHERE, ANY TIME, THEY ARE REMOVED FROM THAT ATHLETIC TEAM OR EXTRACURRICULAR EVENT. THEY CANNOT PARTICIPATE. TWO PARENTS OF STUDENTS TOOK THAT CASE TO COURT. IT WAS UPHELD IN COURT.

THAT WAS AN INSTANCE WHERE SOMEONE DID SOMETHING OFF-CAMPUS, EVEN WITHIN THEIR OWN HOME, BUT CAME INTO SCHOOL WITH THE HE HAVE ENKTS OF IT, AND THEY WERE -- WITH THE EFFECTS OF IT, AND THEY WERE DISMISSED, DISCHARGED. ALEXIS, AND I WILL COME BACK HERE TO TODD.

OFTENTIMES SAYING I DID THIS AT HOME OR SOMETHING HAPPENED AT HOME, BUT WE, AS TEACHERS, WE SEE YOU MORE OFTEN THAN YOUR HOME ENVIRONMENT, AND IF WHAT YOU ARE GOING TO DO AT HOME IS GOING TO HAVE A DRINK HE WILL DOWN EFFECT INTO THE CLASSROOM AND AFFECT THE GENERAL LEARNING ENVIRONMENT, SOME OF YOU SAY MY BEING HIGH SHOULD NOT AFFECT THOSE AROUND ME, BUT IF MYSELF, AS A TEACHER, HAS TO CONSTANTLY DIVERT MY ATTENTION TO YOU BECAUSE YOU MAY BEFALLING OVER OR SOMETIMES MAY BE ACTING BELLIGERENT, IT TAKES AWAY FROM THE LEARNING ENVIRONMENT AND WILL HAVE SOME EFFECT ON THE SCHOOL AND THE COMMUNITY WE CONTROL.

YES BACK OUT HERE?

GIVE THE STUDENTS SOME TIME OUT AND JUST LEAVE ME ALONE!

IS THAT DIRECTED TO ME?

GO AHEAD, ALEXIS. YOU ARE ON A ROLL.

AT THAT POINT, WHEN YOU SEND A STUDENT OUT OF THE CLASSROOM, IT NOT ONLY IS JUST TEACHER'S RESPONSIBILITY BUT NOW YOU ARE GOING TO TELL ADMINISTRATION, AND ADMINISTRATORS HAVE OTHER OBLIGATIONS AND DUTIES AS TO RUNNING THE SCHOOL, AS OPPOSED TO PUTTING STUDENTS THAT ARE HIGH ON THE TIME OUT. SUPPOSE YOU PUT ONE STUDENT THAT WAS HIGH AND WE SET THEM ALL OUT IN THE HALLWAY, THEN WE HAVE A HALLWAY FULL OF HIGH KIDS AND THAT GOES DOWN TO SECURITY. NOW, SECURITY HAS TO MAN YOU ALL THAT ARE HIGH, SIMPLY BECAUSE YOU DID IT AT HOME AND DECIDED TO TRICKLE DOWN INTO THE SCHOOL SYSTEM.

LET'S TRICKLE DOWN HERE. TOM HAS A COMMENT, AND THEN WE WILL GET RIDGE I KNOW, A AND THEN WE WILL COME BACK OUT HERE IN A SECOND. OKAY.

IN REGARD TO THE QUESTION OF USING THE DRUGS AT HOME, IT IS PERFORMANCE ENHANCING STEROID TAKEN AT SCHOOL AND LIKEWISE YOU TAKE IT OFF CAMPUS AND THEN YOU COME ON TO CAMPUS, AND THERE IS A RESIDUAL ATTITUDE ON THE CAMPUS, IN THAT YOUR ATTITUDE OR MOOD CAN BE DIFFERENT, EVEN THOUGH DRUGS CAN BE TAKEN WHILE YOU ARE OFF-CAMPUS, BUT YOUR PERFORMANCE ON-CAMPUS.

YES. REGINA?

I THINK WE HAVE TAKEN WHAT THIS YOUNG MAN SAID AND TAKEN IT A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENTLY. I THINK WHAT YOU WERE REFERRING TO IS SATURDAY NIGHT YOU EITHER GOT HIGH OR, I THINK, WE NEED TO BE INCLUDING ALCOHOL, BUT THAT IS ANOTHER STORY. BY MONDAY MORNING, YOU ARE FINE. IT IS NOT AFFECTING YOU, BUT IF YOU WERE DRUG TESTED, IT WOULD STILL BE SHOWING UP. AND YOU KNOW --

IS THAT WHAT YOU ARE CONCERNED ABOUT?

IF YOU SMOKE POT AND GET HIGH FOR TWO HOURS, IT IS STILL IN YOUR SYSTEM FOR A WEEK.

RIGHT. AND IT IS NOT AFFECTING YOU AT SCHOOL.

NOT AFFECTING YOU AT SCHOOL.

BUT IT DOES AFFECT THE SCHOOL. CONTINUED USE IS -- LET'S NOT DEBATE THE EFFECT OF DRUGS ON YOUR BODY, BUT, I MEAN, IT IS CONSISTENTLY SHOWN THAT CONTINUED USE OF DRUGS DOES HAVE AN EFFECT ON STUDENT PERFORMANCE. I HAVE SEEN IT WITH STUDENTS IN MY CLASSROOMS.

DOES THE WAY IN WHICH STUDENTS AND ADMINISTRATORS DEAL WITH STUDENTS DOING DRUGS, DOES THAT AFFECT HOW OTHER STUDENTS MAY PERCEIVE HOW DRUG, THE USES OF DRUGS SHOULD BE CONSIDERED GOOD, BAD OR IN DIFFERENT? YES. SHERI.

I FEEL VERY STRONGLY THAT WE ARE NEGLECTING SOMETHING HERE, AND IT IS CALLED PEER PRESSURE, AND PEER PRESSSURE IS WHAT INSTITUTES OTHER KIDS' TRYING ILLEGAL SUBSTANCES, AND IT IS THE SCHOOL'S RESPONSIBILITY. IF YOU COME HIGH TO MY CLASSROOM AND YOU FALL OVER, AND I HAVE TO CALL 911, I AM THE RESPONSIBLE PERSON IN THAT CLASS. I MAY HAVE TO GIVE YOU CPR. I MAY HAVE TO ATTEND TO YOUR NEEDS, AND IT DIRECTLY REFLECTS, AND IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY, AND PLUS YOU ARE IMPARTING YOU KNOW, PEER PRESSURE, MAYBE, FOR SOMEBODY ELSE ELSE TO USE AN ILLEGAL SUBSTANCE.

IF NOTHING IS DONE BY THE STUDENT OR THE ADMINISTRATION, IS THAT, ALSO, SENDING OUT A MESSAGE THAT IT IS ALL RIGHT THAT THERE ISN'T ANY CONSEQUENCE? THAT THERE ISN'T ANY ACCOUNTABILITY? IF NOTHING IS DONE, OTHER THAN PUTTING SOMEONE WITH A TIME OUT?

IT IS ILLEGAL, IN MY SCHOOL. I MEAN ILLEGAL. IT IS AGAINST OUR POLICY TO PUT A STUDENT IN THE HALLWAY, BECAUSE THEN THEY ARE -- THEY CAN LEAVE CAMPUS ILLEGALLY, AND THEN THE SCHOOL CAN BE HELD RESPONSIBLE, IF SOME HARM SHOULD COME TO THAT STUDENT, WHILE THAT STUDENT IS IN THE HALLWAY, SO WE ARE NOT ALLOWED TO PUT KIDS IN THE HALLWAY.

JUSTICE PARIENTE, THEN WE WILL COME DOWN TO --

BECAUSE I KNOW WE ARE GOING TO BE WORKING ON POLICIES, AND I THINK A COUPLE OF THINS -- THING RESPECT IMPORTANT. WHEN YOU MENTIONED THE GOOD CITIZENSHIP POLICY, AND I THINK THAT WAS GOOD, THAT IF A STUDENT TESTED POSITIVE, THE STUDENT COULD NOT PARTICIPATE IN EXTRACURRICULAR ACTIVITIES. THERE IS NOT A RIGHT TO PARTICIPATE IN THE EXTRACURRICULAR ACTIVITY. SO YOU HAVE TO LOOK AT WHAT THE CONSEQUENCE IS. EXPULSION FROM SCHOOL MAY BE EXTREME, AND AS JUSTICE QUINCE POINTED OUT, WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE ISSUE, THERE IS NOTICE BEFOREHAND, SO IF YOU HAVE A CLEARLY ARTICULATED SCHOOL POLICY AS TO WHAT IS REQUIRED AND WHAT IS GOING TO BE EXPECTED OF THE STUDENT, THAT MAY BE ONE THING. ALSO THE CONSEQUENCE THAT, IF THE -- AS I HAVE READ SOME OF THESE POLICIES, IT IS NOT A DRACONIAN, ONE DRUG TEST THAT YOU ARE POSITIVE ON AND YOU ARE EXPELLED FROM SCHOOL. IT MAY BE LESSER SANCTIONS ALONG THE WAY, SO THERE CAN BE -- THERE CAN BE A SLIDING SCALE, IN TERMS OF THE POLICY, AND WHAT IS RIGHT WITHOUT SACRIFICING AND SAYING ONE DRUG TEST AND YOU ARE EXPELLED FROM SCHOOL, SO I THINK YOU NEED TO LOOK AT THAT.

YES. BECKY, AND -- YES. VICKIE, WE ARE GOING TO COME OUT TO THE AUDIENCE NEXT AFTER ONE MORE QUESTION.

THE OTHER THING IS WHETHER IT IS DONE ILLEGALLY. WHETHER IT IS DONE AT HOME OR AT SCHOOL, IT IS ILLEGAL.

YOU MEAN DOING IT AT HOME DOESN'T GIVE YOU IN INSULATION FROM THE LAW.

CORRECT.

WE ALL UNDERSTAND THAT. OKAY. YES, MA'AM. [INAUDIBLE .n]

WHAT GOOD IS HAVING THAT STUDENT KICKED OUT OF SCHOOL AND THEY ARE GOING TO BE GOING BACK TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD CORNER OR INTO THEIR OWN BED ROOMS, DOING THE DRUGS ANYHOW, SO WHAT HAVE YOU REALLY HELPED? WHAT HELP IS THERE?

YOU HAVE HELPED THE EDUCATION SYSTEM.

THAT IS A QUESTION THAT NOT ONLY ADDRESSES THE CONCERN WITH DRUGS BUT, ALSO, WITH JUST OUT OF SCHOOL SUSPENSIONS, ANYWAY, AND THE STUDY THAT I SAW, THEY SAID THAT THE HIGHEST CRIME RATE FOR YOUNG PEOPLE IS BETWEEN THE HOURS OF THREE IN THE AFTERNOON AND FOUR IN THE AFTERNOON, WHICH IS THE TIME WHEN MOST OF THEM ARE OUT OF SCHOOL. THAT IS A CONCERN. HOW DO WE HANDLE STUDENTS OUT OF SCHOOL, BECAUSE THERE IS A SERIOUS PROBLEM WITH, YOU KNOW, WHAT ARE THEY GOING TO DO AND WHAT ARE THEY DOING, AND RIGHT NOW THERE ARE NO DEFINITIVE ANSWERS, IN TERMS OF IT, EXCEPT SOMETHING THAT IS VERY COSTLY.

HOW FAR SHOULD THE RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE SCHOOL GO? AND I GUESS THAT IS THE ISSUE.

JEFF.

YES. AS TEACHERS, TOO, WE GET MIXED SIGNALS. AS A FUTURE ADMINISTRATOR, I WANT TO BE A PRINCIPAL, MYSELF. WE GET MIXED SIGNALS FROM THE SCHOOL BOARDS AND MIXED SIGNALS FROM THE GOVERNOR'S OFFICE AND EVERYWHERE. FOR INSTANCE THEY SAY YOU BETTER KEEP KIDS IN SCHOOL AND KEEP THE SUSPENSION RATE WAY DOWN, OR THE SCHOOL WILL BECOME A D OR A F IN FUNDING AND YOU ARE ON THE WAY DOWN. THE OTHER THING IS ADMINISTRATORS AND THE HIGHER-UPS, WANT DRUGS OUT OF SCHOOLS AS WELL, BUT YET THAT IS ONE OF THE ISSUES. ARE YOU DOING THE SCHOOL GOOD-BYE KEEPING SOMEONE WHO IS USING DRUGS OR SELLING DRUGS IN SCHOOL BY SAYING, DEAR HEART, WE WANT TO KEEP YOU IN SCHOOL, SO WE WILL LET YOU SELL DRUGS ON-CAMPUS FORM THEISH YEAH EW IS -- THE ISSUE IS SAFETY IN THE WHOLE SCHOOL, AND IF THERE IS SAFETY IN SCHOOL, THERE IS MORE LEARNING GOING ON, AND YOU HAVE GOT ONE KID OUT ON THE STREET AND 999 OR 1,000 KIDS IN SCHOOL THAT ARE LEARNING.

SCHOOLS HAVE AN OBLIGATION TO PROVIDE AN EDUCATION TO STUDENTS, AND I THINK THE FLIP SIDE OF THAT, IF YOU LOOK AT DRINKING OR DRUGS OR SMOKING, THOSE ARE ALL ILLEGAL ACTIVITIES, WHETHER THEY ARE INSIDE THE HOME, OUTSIDE THE SCHOOL OR ON THE SCHOOL CAMPUS, AND ONE OF THE THINGS TO THINK ABOUT, TOO, IS STUDENTS MAY HAVE AN OBLIGATION TO COME TO SCHOOL, TO ATTEND SCHOOL, TO BE PREPARED TO LEARN, AND TO TAKE THE EDUCATION THAT IS BEING GIVEN.

YES. JUSTICE QUINCE.

ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE NEED TO KEEP IN MIND IS IT IS NOT THE TOTAL OBLIGATION OF THE SCHOOL HERE. IF THE STUDENT IS DOING SOMETHING ILLEGAL, AND THE SCHOOL IS GOING TO EXPEL THAT STUDENT, THE PARENTS NEED TO TAKE SOME RESPONSIBILITY HERE, TOO. AND SO IF THE STUDENT IS EXPELLED, THEN I THINK THE SCHOOL SHOULD PROPERLY LOOK AT THE PARENTS, TO HELP DETERMINE WHAT THE STUDENT IS GOING TO DO DURING THOSE HOURS, WHEN THEY ARE NOT IN SCHOOL. SO THE SCHOOL'S RESPONSIBILITY IS, REALLY, TO ALL THE OTHER STUDENTS WHO ARE THERE, IN ADDITION TO THIS ONE STUDENT, AND THEN THE PARENT HAS TO TAKE SOME ACTION.

THE NEXT QUESTIONS HAVE TO DO WITH EXPULSION HEARINGS, BUT BEFORE WE GET THERE, YES.

MOST KIDS HAVE BEEN EXPELLED FROM SCHOOL. THE PARENT AND COMMUNITY HAS TO TAKE SOME TYPE OF RESPONSIBILITY, AND THERE ARE PROGRAMS IN THE COMMUNITY, AT THE SCHOOLS, THAT MAKE KIDS AWARE OF -- THERE ARE DRUG PERHAPS THAT HELP KIDS WHO ARE SUSPENDED AFTER SCHOOL, IN DADE COUNTY.

ALL RIGHT. YES. YES! [INAUDIBLE] ALL RIGHT. WELL, SHOULD -- FOR THE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL AND MIDDLE SCHOOL STUDENTS, WHO KNOW NOTHING ABOUT DRUGS OR ARE NOT TAKING ANY DRUGS, SHOULD THERE BE A DRUG TESTING POLICY FOR THESE YOUNGER STUDENTS? YES.

I AM SORRY. I HAVE TO DISAGREE WITH YOU, BUT IT IS ACROSS THE BOARD, AND YOU WOULD BE SURPRISED THAT YOUR BROTHER MIGHT KNOW ABOUT DRUGS OR ANYTHING ELSE, FOR THAT MATTER. AND HE, STILL, IS GOING -- WE ARE TALKING ABOUT THE GENERAL LEARNING ENVIRONMENT, SO IT IS NOT REALLY A SITUATION OF HOW OLD HE IS OR DOES HE REALIZE WHAT HE IS DOING. DOES IT HAVE AN EFFECT ON HIM AND THE SCHOOL AS WELL, WE ARE RESPONSIBLE TO TAKE PRECAUTIONS FOR THAT. NOT BECAUSE HE IS TOO YOUNG TO KNOW WHAT HE IS DOING, AND I THINK THAT IS WHERE DUE PROCESS WOULD COME INTO PLAY. ONCE YOU SINGLE OUT THE STUDENT AND SAY THERE IS A DRUG PROBLEM, LET'S SEE WHAT WE CAN DO ABOUT IT.

WE WILL GO TO THE NEXT QUESTION AND WILL COME BACK TO SOME OF THESE OTHER HANDS. FOR THE NEXT QUESTIONS, WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE YOU ALL REMEMBER IS THAT, FOR THE NEXT THREE QUESTIONS, ASSUME THAT THE STUDENTS WHO TESTED POSITIVE FOR DRUGS ARE GIVEN A HEARING TO DETERMINE WHETHER THEY SHOULD BE EXPELLED FROM SCHOOL. SO WITH THAT BACKGROUND, AT THE EXPULSION HEARING, STUDENTS ARE, ONE WHAT DO YOU THINK? WHAT IS YOUR OPINION? 1, 2 OR 3? THE ISSUE OF COUNSEL REPRESENTATION. EXPULSION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION. IS THAT AN ISSUE? OKAY. LET'S GET THE RESULTS. ONE MORE. OKAY. THERE WE GO. ALL RIGHT. A GENERAL CONSENSUS THAT, IF WE ARE GOING TO HAVE AN EXPULSION HEARING, THEN STUDENTS ON THE TO BE REPRESENTED, WHETHER THEY ARE ABLE TO AFFORD A LAWYER OR NOT. THEY SHOULD BE ENTITLED TO ONE. LET'S SEE HOW IT BREAKS DOWN. ALL RIGHT. TEACHERS ARE IN THE MAJORITY BUT NOT AS MUCH AS THE STUDENTS, PROBABLY. YES. OKAY. WHY NOT? WHY NOT HAVE A LAWYER REPRESENTING ANY STUDENT AND/OR PARENT?

THERE IS A DISTINCTION GOOD AN ATTORNEY REPRESENTING -- THERE IS A DISTINCTION BETWEEN AN ATTORNEY REPRESENTING A STUDENT IN A HEARING AND THE REQUIREMENT TO PROVIDE AN ATTORNEY AT GOVERNMENT EX-PENS FOR THAT STUDENT. --

OKAY, AND THAT IS PROBABLY SOME OF THE ISSUE THAT IS BEHIND HERE. HOW FAR ARE WE GOING TO GO, IN PROVIDING, AT PUBLIC EXPENSE, THAT LAWYER? YES. REGINA.

PICKING ON JORGE, GEORGE, PERHAPS HIS ENGLISH IS LIMITED OR HIS PARENTS SPEAK FOR ENGLISH, WHAT KIND OF HEARING WOULD THEY ACTUALLY HAVE, WHEN THEY DON'T REALLY KNOW WHAT THE PROCESS IS, AND THEN AGAIN, IF HE CAN HAVE AN ATTORNEY, THEN IT NEEDS TO BE ACROSS THE BOARD.

LET'S GO TO THE NEXT QUESTION, FOR A SECOND, IF WE CAN. AT THE EXPULSION HEARING, WHO SHOULD DETERMINE WHETHER THE STUDENT SHOULD BE EXPELLED? SHOULD IT BE THE PRINCIPAL, BECAUSE THE DRUG PROBLEM IS AT HIS SCHOOL? NUMBER TWO, THE SCHOOL BOARD, BY A MAJORITY VOTE. NUMBER THREE, PERHAPS A PEER GROUP OF THE STUDENT WHO IS CHARGED. THE OTHER HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS. NUMBER FOUR, PERHAPS A JUDGE SHOULD MAKE THAT DECISION. NUMBER FIVE, THE STUDENT'S PARENTS, BECAUSE THEY WILL HAVE TO DEAL WITH THAT STUDENT, WHEN THE PERSON IS EX-PEND. WHAT DO YOU THINK? -- IS EXPELLED. WHAT DO YOU THINK? WHO SHOULD BE AT THE TABLE, MAKING THAT DECISION?

THE SCHOOL BOARD IS A POLITICALLY-ELECTED ORGANIZATION.

ALL RIGHT. LET'S TAKE A LOOK AT THOSE RESULTS. THE SCHOOL BOARD. IS THAT RIGHT? BY A MAJORITY VOTE. SHOULD BE LOOKING AT EACH OF THESE INDIVIDUAL CASES. ALL RIGHT. THAT IS HOW IT BREAKS DOWN. TEACHERS VERSUS STUDENTS. THE TEACHERS WANT A MORE ACTIVE SCHOOL BOARD INVOLVEMENT ON THESE QUESTIONS OF EXPULSION, AND WHAT ABOUT THE STUDENTS? WELL, REALLY NOT QUITE SO SURE BUT STILL A PRETTY STRONG MAJORITY. LET ME ASK THE TEACHERS. WHY IS THAT? YES. MICHELE.

I THINK WE RECOGNIZE THAT THE SCHOOL BOARD IS AN ELECTED BODY BY THE COMMUNITY, WHOSE JOB IT IS TO MAKE THOSE KINDS OF POLICY DECISIONS, ON BEHALF OF ALL OF US AS A COMMUNITY. THEY CERTAINLY HAVE THE SERVICES OF AN ATTORNEY. THE SCHOOL BOARD HAS, IN MOST, EVERY CASE THAT I KNOW OF, HAS AN ATTORNEY TO GIVE THEM SOME ADVICE ABOUT WHAT THE LAW SAYS, AND IN THAT CASE YOU ARE MORE LIKELY TO GET A DECISION BY THE SCHOOL BOARD THAT REPRESENTS THE COMMUNITY SENTIMENT ON THE ISSUE, AND THE STUDENT IS MORE LIKELY TO BE AFFORDED A FAIR AND JUST HEARING, WITH THE DUE PROCESS RIGHTS THAT THE CONSTITUTION PROVIDES.

IF THE EXPULSION HEARING WAS, REALLY, BEFORE THE SCHOOL BOARD, MAYBE, JUST MAYBE, THEY MIGHT HAVE A LAWYER ALREADY ON STAFF THAT THE STUDENT AND PARENT, WHO IS NOT ABLE TO AFFORD A LAWYER, MIGHT BE ABLE TO MADE AVAILABLE IN SOME WAY, SHAPE OR FORM. WHO KNOWS? YES. ALEXIS.

I KNOW I WILL PROBABLY BE CRITICIZED STRONGLY FOR MY ANSWER, BUT I LIKE TO SHARE IT WITH YOU ALL, BECAUSE I THINK THAT IT IS SOMETHING THAT I HAVE KNOWN FROM EXPERIENCE. OUR SCHOOL, MIAMI CAROL SR. HIGH HAS A SENIOR COURT PROGRAM, AND THIS YEAR THEY HAVE SENT REFERRALS THAT HAVE BEEN GIVEN TO THE ADMINISTRATORS, WE HAVE GOTTEN AN ABUNDANCE OF THEM, BECAUSE IT APPEARS AS THOUGH THE STUDENTS PUNISH THE STUDENTS MORE HARSHLY THAN THE ADMINISTRATORS DO, AND I WAS KIND OF TORN, BECAUSE I FELT THAT MAYBE IT SHOULD BE SET UP BETWEEN A MIXTURE OF PEERS AND SCHOOL BOARD OFFICIALS OR TEACHERS OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT, BUT I THINK IN SOME INSTANCES, WE WOULD BE SURPRISED WHAT SOME OF THE ANALYSIS OUR STUDENTS MAY MAKE OF A SITUATION AND RECOMMENDATIONS THEY WOULD GIVE, AS WELL, SO MY --

DO YOU THINK YOU WOULD ALL BE TOUGHER ON YOUR OWN PEERS, RATHER THAN, PERHAPS, THE TEACHERS OR THE SCHOOL BOARD? A LOT OF PEOPLE ARE SHAKING THEIR HEAD, ACTUALLY. YES. VICKIE.

I THINK THE SCHOOL BOARD, BECAUSE WITH MORE THAN ONE SCHOOL IN THE DISTRICT, YOU WOULD GET A MORE UNIFORM APPLICATION OF THE DECISION, AND YOU WOULDN'T HAVE A PRINCIPAL FROM ONE SCHOOL BEING HARSHER OR MORE LENIENT ON STUDENTS THAN FROM ANOTHER SCHOOL.

ALL RIGHT. JUSTICE HARDING. THEN WE ARE GOING TO GO TO BARB.

I DON'T DISAGREE, EXCEPT TO THE FACT THAT, IN EVERY COMMUNITY I HAVE LIVED, THE SCHOOL BOARD MEMBERS ARE OFTENTIMES DOING THIS AS A PART-TIME SERVICE, AND I CAN SEE, HERE IN TALLAHASSEE, IF THE SCHOOL BOARD HAD TO REVIEW AND HEAR ALL OF THE POTENTIAL EXPULSIONS, THEY WOULD BE A FULL-TIME ADMINISTRATIVE BODY, AND NOT HAVE ANY JOB ON THE SIDE. I CAN ASSURE YOU.

YES. BASH, GOING TO HAVE THE LAST -- BARB, WE ARE GOING TO HAVE THE LAST COMMENT AND THEN THE LAST QUESTION.

I AM NOT GOING TO LET ALEXIS STAND ALONE HERE. I AGREE WITH HER, AND I THOUGHT THERE MIGHT BE SOME USE TO A STUDENT JURY, AS WELL, AND I BASE THAT ON A COUPLE OF THINGS. FIRST OF ALL ON WHAT SEEMS TO BE A VERY SUCCESSFUL TEEN COURT PROGRAM IN COLLIER COUNTY, THAT IS WORKING EXTRAORDINARILY WELL, AND WE HAVE FOUND THAT, THERE, THE STUDENTS TEND TO BE HARSHER CRITICS OF THEIR PEERS, AT THOSE COURT PROCEEDINGS, AS WELL. WE, ALSO, FOUND THAT EVERYBODY DOESN'T THINK THEY WILL BE AS HARSH, UNTIL THEY ARE ACTUALLY PUT INTO A POSITION WHERE THEY NEED TO EXERCISE CRITICAL JUDGMENT, AND THE OTHER POINT I BASE IT ON IS THAT, AT A SCHOOL THAT I TAUGHT ATTERLYIER IN MY CAREER, WE, ACTUALLY, EMPOWERED THE STUDENTS TO MAKE, YOU ARE GOING TO LOVE THIS, FACULTY HIRING DECISIONS. WHERE WE PUT THEM ON ABOARD WITH FACULTY, ADMINISTRATORS AND STUDENTS, AND IF THAT ADVISORY COUNSEL, WHERE STUDENTS HAD A VOICE ON, VOTED NO, THEN THAT PERSON WASN'T HIRED FOR THE POSITION. IT WAS VERY SUCCESSFUL, AND SO I THINK IT HAS SOME MERITS TO BE APPLIED HERE.

THAT SOUNDS LIKE A GOOD TOPIC FOR NEXT YEAR, WHETHER OR NOT STUDENTS SHOULD BE INVOLVED IN THE HIRING AND FIRING OF TEACHERS, NOT JUST HIRING BUT FIRING OF TEACHERS.

I WILL MAKE A FLAG FOR THAT.

YES. [INAUDIBLE] [QUESTION FROM THE AUDIENCE]

LET ME JUST SAY SAY THAT, PERHAPS, THE PUNISHMENT SHOULD NOT BE AUTOMATIC EXPULSION. I THINK JUSTICE PARIENTE MAY HAVE TOUCHED ON THAT EARLIER. THERE OUGHT TO BE A GRADATION OF, PERHAPS, PUNISHMENT, DEPENDING UPON, PERHAPS, YOUR FIRST, SECOND OR THIRD OFFENSES. ANN? [INAUDIBLE QUESTION FROM THE AUDIENCE] HOLD ON. OKAY. NOW, WHAT ABOUT -- A DRUG POLICY BE DISTRIBUTED TO ALL STUDENTS?

CURRENTLY IN OSCEOLA COUNTY THEY ARE WANTING TO TEST ALL ATHLETES, ALL CHESS CLUB MEMBERS, ALL PEOPLE INVOLVED IN EXTRACURRICULAR ACTIVITIES, AND THEY WANT TO TEST FOR EVERYTHING, INCLUDING STEROIDS, AND THE TEST IS GOING TO COST $70 FOR EVERY PERSON TO TAKE IT, AND I JUST SAT HERE AND THOUGHT IN MY HEAD THAT IT WOULD COST ABOUT $7,000 PER SCHOOL, AND WE HAVE GOT FOUR HIGH SCHOOLS IN OUR DISTRICT. I AM SORRY. IT WOULD BE CLOSE TO $100,000 A YEAR TO TEST THESE PEOPLE, AND THAT IS TAKING THREE TEACHERS OUT OF THE CLASSROOM TO TEST FOR DRUGS. HOW MANY ARE THEY GOING TO FIND POSITIVE? A SMALL NUMBER. I AM A COACH, AND EVERY YEAR I HAVE COACHED BOTH BOYS AND GIRLS. I FIND THAT THE DRUG USERS AREN'T PLAYING BASEBALL AND FOOTBALL. THEY ARE NOT IN SCHOOL. I THINK THEY ARE GOING AFTER THE WRONG TARGET, BUT THAT IS THE ONLY TARGET THEY CAN GO AFTER, THOUGH, BECAUSE IT IS AN EXTRACURRICULAR ACTIVITY.

I THINK WITH ALL OF THE SCHOOL VIOLENCE OVER THE LAST YEAR OR SO, DON'T YOU THINK THAT PARTICIPATING IN A RANDOM DRUG TEST IS A SMALL PRICE TO PAY FOR YOUR SAFETY AND FOR A MORE CONDUCIVE LEARNING ENVIRONMENT THAT YOU CAN BE A PART OF? AND ONE THING THAT I, ALSO, WANTED TO ADD WAS THAT SOME OF YOU BROUGHT OUT ABOUT YOU FELT LIKE IT WAS, YOU KNOW, WHAT YOU DID ON THE WEEKEND WAS YOUR BUSINESS, BUT YOU COULD APPLY THAT, ALSO, TO TEACHERS. YOU KNOW, AS TEACHERS, WHAT IF THE THINGS THAT YOU DID ON THE WEEKEND, WHEN YOU CAME TO SCHOOL, SOME OF YOUR STUDENTS KNEW ABOUT IT?

WHAT ABOUT THE DRUG TESTING OF TEACHERS?

WE PARTICIPATE IN THAT. YOU KNOW. WE SUBMIT TO FINGERPRINTS, AND THEY RUN BACKGROUND CHECKS, SO WE HAVE TO GO THROUGH ALL OF THE SAME THINGS TO BE TEACHERS, SO WHAT IF WHAT WE DID ON THE WEEKEND DIDN'T MATTER, COME MONDAY MORNING? I THINK THE SAME THING SHOULD APPLY TO STUDENTS.

IT STILL WOULD BE ILLEGAL, AND IT WOULD AFFECT YOUR WORK AND YOUR PERFORMANCE.

EXACTLY.

YES. [INAUDIBLE QUESTION FROM THE AUDIENCE] ALL RIGHT. WE HAVE A CODE OF CONDUCT BOOK. IT SHOULD BE READ. THEY SIGN OFF ON, IT AND PERHAPS STUD EVENTS OR PERHAPS TEACHERS -- STUDENTS OR PERHAPS TEACHERS SHOULD HAVE GONE OVER IT, MAYBE, IF THE POLICY IS THAT IMPORTANT, AND WE MIGHT RISK BEING THROWN OUT OF SCHOOL. OKAY. YES, JOSEPH.

ALTHOUGH WE HAVE A STUDENT HANDBOOK, I THINK PARENTS SHOULD TAKE A MORE ACTIVE ROLE. A LOT OF MY STUDENTS OFTEN SAY MY PARENTS DON'T SIGN ANYTHING. WE NEED TO BE CAVE IN INCLUDING THE PARENTS MORE OFTEN TO SOME OF THESE PROCEDURES, NOT SIMPLY TO HAVE A RANDOM -- I KNOW IT IS IN THE PARENT HANDBOOK, WHERE IF THEY ARE SUBJECTED TO IT, THEY MUST TAKE THE DRUG TEST, BUT WE NEED TO BRING THE PARENTS ON AND COUNSEL THE PARENTS, AS WELL AS COUNSEL THE KID, BECAUSE THE YOUNG MAN SAID WHAT IF HE DOES IT AT HOME. YOU STILL NEED TO BRING THE PARENT ONBOARD TO EXPLAIN TO THE PARENT AND EXPLAIN TO THE KID WHAT THE REPERCUSSIONS ARE AND WHAT EFFECT IT CAN HAVE, IN THE FUTURE, FOR THAT CHILD.

OKAY. YES. ANDREA, THEN I AM GOING TO GO IN THE BACK. I THINK I SAW A HAND UP THERE. GO AHEAD.

I TEACH AT A LARGE PRIVATE SCHOOL, WESTMINSTER ACADEMY, AND YOU WOULD THINK, THERE, PARENTS WOULD TAKE MORE INTEREST, BUT TWO YEARS AGO WE DECIDED WE NEEDED TO REACH THE PARENTS MORE EFFECTIVELY, SO THE PARENTS ARE REQUIRED TO ATTEND A PARENT MEETING, AND IF THEY CAN'T COME ON THAT NIGHT, THERE ARE TWO SIGN UP NIGHTS TO COME, OR THEY CANNOT RE-ENROLL THE CHILD, AND WE HAD TO COME TO THE PLACE WHERE WE REALLY WANTED THE PARENT THERE, TOO, AND IT HAD TO BE SOMETHING LIKE THAT, WHERE THE PARENTS ARE REQUIRED TO GET MORE INVOLVED IN THEIR STUDENT STUDENT'S EDUCATION.

YES. WHO HASN'T HAD A CHANCE YET. DOWN AT THE END. YES. [INAUDIBLE QUESTION FROM THE AUDIENCE] HEY. YOUR LIFE IS YOUR OWN. AS LONG AS YOU ARE COMING TO SCHOOL AND YOU ARE SHOWING UP AND YOU CAN TEACH ME WHAT I HAVE GOT TO KNOW, YOU CAN DO WHATEVER YOU ARE GOING TO DO IN YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD OR IN YOUR HOME.

I THINK WHAT THE STUDENTS AREN'T REALIZING IS THAT, IN A FEW YEARS, THEY ARE GOING TO BE IN THE REAL WORLD, AND EVEN AS STUDENTS, THEY ARE STILL SUBJECTED TO THE LAW, AND IT IS NOT A GOOD HABIT TO USE DRUGS. IT IS JUST NOT A GOOD PRACTICE TO HAVE BAD BEHAVIOR IN YOUR FREE TIME, BECAUSE WHEN YOU GET READY TO GO TO THAT JOB, YOU STILL HAVE TO PERFORM. YOU ARE STILL GOING TO BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE FOR WHATEVER YOU DO, WHETHER YOU ARE ON THE JOB, WHETHER YOU ARE AT SCHOOL, OR WHETHER YOU ARE AT HOME. AS A STUDENT, IF YOU ARE SMOKING WEED, AND YOU ARE AT HOME, THEN YOU ARE SUBJECT TO THE LAW. IF YOU ARE AT SCHOOL AND DOING, IT THEN YOU ARE UNDER THE SCHOOL, WHICH MIGHT BE A LITTLE BIT, BUT THEN THEY CAN CALL IN THE LAW, AND I DON'T THINK ANYBODY HAS TAKEN THAT INTO CONSIDERATION, AND THE DRUG TESTING COULD BE USED AS AN INTERVENTION.

JUSTICE PARIENTE.

TO TRY TO BRING IT BACK TO WHAT YOU HEAR IN THIS COURT ABOUT. EVERYBODY AGREES THAT MOST DRUG USE, THE ILLEGAL DRUG USE, IS AGAINST THE LAW. EVERYBODY AGREES THAT CRIME IS NOT GOOD. BUT WE HAVE A CONSTITUTION, AND WE HAVE A FOURTH AMENDMENT. AND THAT FOURTH AMENDMENT, AGAIN, SAYS THERE SHALL BE NO UNREASONABLE SEARCH AND SEIZURES. A DRUG TEST IS A SEARCH, AND SO THE DECISION, IF WE SAID AS CITIZENS, WE THINK THAT I CAN TELL YOU THE STATISTICS ARE THAT, FOR PRISONS, 80% OF THE PEOPLE IN PRISON HAVE USED, WERE DRUG USERS, SO DRUG USE IS A TERRIBLE PROBLEM. OUR GOVERNOR, WE ARE GOING TO HAVE A DRUG SUMMIT THIS WEEK. THE QUESTION IS THAT YOU HAVE GOT TO DECIDE IS THERE ARE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS, AND THERE ARE LEGITIMATE EXPECTATION TO SAY PRIVACY, SO THE QUESTION AND FRAMING THE POLICY FOR A SCHOOL OR FOR A SOCIETY IS WHAT RIGHTS ARE YOU WILLING TO GIVE UP AS A MAJORITY BUT THAT THE COURTS ARE THERE TO SAY THE CONSTITUTION EXISTS TO PROTECT THE RIGHTS OF THE MINORITY AGAINST UNREASONABLE SEARCH AND SEIZURE.

LET ME GET TO THE LAST QUESTION, IF WE CAN, BECAUSE THIS IS EQUALLY AN IMPORTANT ONE. FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS QUESTION, ASSUME THAT THE PRINCIPAL IS ARGUING FOR EXPULSION AT THE HEARING. AND WHAT IS THE APPROPRIATE STANDARD OF PROOF TO BE APPLIED AT THE HEARING? NUMBER ONE, BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT, AND IT IS THE PRINCIPAL WHO MUST PROVE BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT. NUMBER TWO, THE PRINCIPAL NEED ONLY PROVE THAT IT WAS MORE LIKELY THAN NOT THAT THERE WAS A VIOLATION OF THE POLICY. NUMBER THREE, THE STUDENT MUST PROVE, BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT, THAT THE STUDENT DID NOT VIOLATE THE DRUG POLICY OR, NUMBER FOUR, THE STUDENT NEED ONLY PROVE THAT IT IS MORE LIKELY THAN NOT THAT THERE WAS A VIOLATION. WHO SHOULD HAVE THE BURDEN OF PROOF? WHAT SHOULD THE BURDEN OF PROOF BE? BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT OR MORE LIKELY THAN NOT? LET'S SEE. WE ARE ALMOST THERE. LET'S SEE THE RESULTS, IF WE CAN. ONE MORE. OKAY. THE PRINCIPAL MUST PROVE, BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT, THAT THE STUDENT DID, INDEED, VIOLATE THE POLICY. LET'S SEE HOW THE TEACHERS LOOKED AT THAT. EXACTLY THE SAME ON THE 74%. THE STUDENTS. OKAY. UNANIMITY, AT LEAST TO THE 674% FIGURE, THAT EVERYONE SEEMS TO BE -- AS TO THE 74% FIGURE, THAT EVERYONE BE BELIEFS -- BELIEVES THAT THE PRINCIPAL SHOULD GO FORWARD AND THAT IT SHOULD BE LIKE IN A CRIMINAL CASE. BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT.

I THOUGHT THAT WE WERE SAYING, TODAY, THAT SEARCH AND SEIZURE SHOULD BE AS INTRUSIVE AS POSSIBLE, YOU KNOW, MAINTAINING OUR PERSONAL RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS, AND I THINK WHATEVER POLICY THAT WE COME UP WITH IN THE SCHOOL SYSTEMS, AND BY EVIDENCE, BY 74%, SHOULD BE AS INTRUSIVE OR THE LEAST INTRUSIVE AS POSSIBLE, SO THAT WE ARE NOT ERODING AWAY PERSONAL RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS, WITH A POLICY THAT IS OVER BEARING.

BECAUSE A POLICY THAT IS ESTABLISHED IN SCHOOL MAY VERY WELL LEAD TO HOW PEOPLE CONSIDER OTHER POLICIES WHEN THEY ARE OUT OF SCHOOL, WHEN THEY ARE AT HOME, IN THEIR CARS OR WORKPLACE OR WHATEVER. YES. MICHELE.

I THINK WE HAVE TO BE CAREFUL NOT TO CONFUSE AN EXPULSION PROCEDURE WITH A CRIMINAL PROCEEDING, WHICH IS BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT. WE HAVE HEARD THAT TOO MANY TIMES FORM THE STUDENTS ARE NOT BEING CHARGED WITH A CRIME. IT IS A CIVIL PENALTY, IF YOU WILL. THEY ARE NOT GOING TO GO TO JAIL OVER THIS OR MAYBE NOT YET. WE NEED TO BE ABLE TO DISTINGUISH A STANDARD OF PROOF IN THIS CASE, BECAUSE THE PENALTY IS MUCH LESS THAN JAIL, ALTHOUGH I CERTAINLY HAVE A PROPERTY RIGHT IN A FREE AND PUBLIC EDUCATION IN THE SYSTEM, THAT WE HAVE TO BE CAREFUL TO DISTINGUISH HOW MUCH THE PRINCIPAL HAS TO PROVE AGAINST THESE STUDENTS AND, CERTAINLY, THAT WE ASSUME THAT PEOPLE ARE INNOCENT IN THIS COUNTRY AND THAT THESE STUDENTS ARE PRESUMED TO BE INNOCENT, AND THAT THE BURDEN OF PROOF OF KICKING THEM OUT OF SCHOOL HAS TO BE THE PRINCIPAL'S.

FINALLY THE LAST WORD BEFORE WE GO TO OUR BREAK OUT GROUPS.

ONCE AGAIN, WE HAVE TO BE VERY CAREFUL, BECAUSE IF THE PRINCIPAL SPENDS TIME TRYING TO PROVE SOMETHING, THAT MEANS THAT THE INDIVIDUAL IS BEING TAKEN AWAY FROM WHAT THEIR MAIN DUTY SHOULD BE, WHICH IS TO RUN A SCHOOL, AND WE HAVE TO BE VERY CAREFUL AT TAKING A PRINCIPAL AND ALL OF A SUDDEN MAKING THAT PRINCIPAL A JUDGE AND A JURY OF A PARTICULAR SITUATION.

THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. WE HAVE HAD SOME DISCUSSIONS ABOUT ISSUES, AND NOW WE ARE GOING TO ASK ALL OF YOU TO JOIN IN A DISCUSSION GROUP OF YOUR OWN, TO ACTUALLY WRITE A SCHOOL BOARD POLICY FOR DRUG TESTING IN A SCHOOL SYSTEM. AND BEFORE YOU GET UP AND LEAVE, I AM GOING TO BE TALKING ABOUT THE VARIOUS GROUPS, BUT WE NEED TO HAVE YOU KEEP THE TRANSPONDERS THERE AT YOUR SEAT, NOT TAKE THEM WITH YOU. THERE IS NO NEED TO USE THEM, WHEN YOU ARE GOING TO BELIEVING WITH US. HERE IS WHAT WE WOULD LIKE TO DO. IF YOU LOOK AT YOUR NAME BADGE, THERE IS A DO THE WITH A -- A D.O.T. WITH A COLOR, AND THERE ARE SOME OF YOU -- A D.O.T. WITH A COLOR, AND THERE ARE SOME OF YOU WHO HAVE NO D.O.T. AT ALL. -- NO DOT AT ALL. YOU HAVE A RED, ORANGE OR BLACK OR BLUE DOT, AND THAT IS HOW WE BREAK UP INTO THESE SAME GROUPS, SO WE DON'T HAVE EVERYBODY FROM THE SAME SCHOOL OR TEACHING GROUP. IN EACH GROUP, THERE WILL BE THREE OR FOUR TEACHERS, NINE OR TEN STUDENTS. THERE WILL BE A JUDGE AND/OR A JUSTICE, AND WE ARE GOING TO ASK YOU, THEN, TO DISCUSS THIS FOR ABOUT AN HOUR, AND THEN COME BACK, AND WE ARE GOING TO ASK YOU TO REPORT TO THE GROUP, AS A WHOLE, AS TO WHAT YOUR POLICY IS, AS FAR AS DRUG TESTING IN THE SCHOOLS, SO LET'S SEE. THOSE OF YOU, AND PLEASE DON'T GET UP YET, BECAUSE I WANT TO TELL EVERYBODY WHERE THEY ARE GOING TO BE. MICHAEL AND SUSAN, EVERYBODY HELP ME. THE FOLKS THAT HAVE NO DOT AT ALL WILL JUST STAY IN YOUR SEATS, BECAUSE YOU ARE GOING TO BE IN THIS COURTROOM, EVENTUALLY, UP HERE IN JUST A FEW MOMENTS. THOSE OF YOU WHO HAVE A RED DOT, YOU ARE GOING TO HAVE ANNETTE PITTS. ANNETTE, IF YOU WILL GET UP AND GO TO THE BACK, IF YOU WOULD, FOR A MOMENT, AND ANNETTE IS GOING TO BE THE RED DOT GROUP LEADER. THOSE WITH YELLOW DOTS, JUDGE GERRY BREWER AND JUSTICE WELLS, IF YOU WILL PLEAS BOTH STAND UP. JUSTICE WELLS WILL BE BACK IN JUST A MOMENT. IF YOU WILL GO OVER TO THAT CORNER, THERE WE ARE. RIGHT OVER BY THAT DOOR. THAT IS GREAT. GREEN DOTS, JUDGE NIKKI CLARK, AND JUSTICE ANSTEAD, IF YOU WILL PLEASE GO BACK TO THE FAR ALCOVE RIGHT THERE RIGHT NOW, IF YOU WOULD. THOSE OF YOU THAT HAVE A BLACK DOT, WE HAVE JUSTICE HARDING AND GLENN NESS AND PERHAPS DOWN HERE IF YOU WOULD, AND EVENTUALLY WE WILL BE TAKING EVERYBODY TO A GROUP, TO A ROOM. ORANGE DOTS. CAROL LICKO. GOVERNOR'S GENERAL COUNSEL, AND JUSTICE SHAW. IF YOU WILL PLEASE JOIN US IN THIS AREA AS WELL. AND FINALLY THE BLUE DOTS, JUDGE PETER BLOCK, IF YOU WILL COME UP, IF YOU WOULD HERE, AND JUSTICE PEGGY QUINCE, FOR THOSE OF YOU THAT HAVE A BLUE DOT. SO LET'S SEE. THE RED DOTS WITH ANNETTE PITTS IN THE BACK. THE YELLOW DOT WITH GERRY BREWER IN THE CORNER. GREEN DOTS, NIKKI CLARK OVER IN THAT CORNER. THE BLACK DOTS, ARE OVER HERE ON THE SIDE. ORANGE DOTS WITH CAROL LICKO. ALSO OVER HERE AND THE BLUE DOTS RIGHT UP FRONT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

ALL RIGHT. NOW WE ARE GOING TO GOOD BEGIN -- TO BEGIN OUR BREAK OUT SESSION. OUR TEACHER, MICHELE IVY, IS VOLUNTEERING TO REPORT THE DRUG POLICIES THAT WE ARE GOING TO CRAFT HERE TODAY. AS AN INITIAL QUESTION, LET ME ASK YOU ALL DO YOU THINK THAT THERE SHOULD BE A DRUG TESTING POLICY AT ALL? STEVE.

IN TERMS OF IF WE HAVE IT, CAN WE AFFORD IT? AND CERTAINLY WITH THE ADMINISTRATION IN THE SCHOOL DISTRICTS, THAT IS GOING TO BE THE BOTTOM LANE. IT IS A PROBLEM. THAT IS NOT THE QUESTION. THE QUESTION IS IF WE HAVE IT, CAN WE AFFORD IT. AT LEAST TO MY UNDERSTANDING, IN THE STATE OF FLORIDA, IF YOU REQUIRE SOMETHING OF THE STUDENTS, THAT THE DISTRICT MUST PAY IF THAT. -- MUST PAY FOR THAT.

SO YOU ARE LOOKING AT THE POLICY ISSUE, ONLY AS ONE OF PUBLIC POLICY BUT, ALSO, OF A VERY PRACTICAL CONCERN, WHICH IS DOES THE DISTRICT HAVE THE MONEY TO FUND ANY PROGRAM THAT THE POLICY MIGHT ESTABLISH?

EXACTLY.

ALL RIGHT. LET'S ASSUME, FOR THE MOMENT, THAT WE ARE GOING A SCHOOL DISTRICT. AND WE HAVE BEEN CHARGED WITH THE RESPONSIBILITY OF DEVISEING A DRUG TESTING POLICY FOR ALL OF OUR MIDDLE SCHOOL STUDENTS AND ALL OF OUR HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS. NOW, PROBABLY THE FIRST THING THAT WE OUGHT TO THINK ABOUT IS WHAT DO WE WANT TO ACCOMPLISH BY ESTABLISHING SUCH A POLICY?

ARE WE TALKING ABOUT, LIKE, CUTTING DOWN THE DRUG USE? IS THAT WHAT --

THAT WOULD CERTAINLY BE A VALID PURPOSE TO THE POLICY. REDUCING THE RATE OF DRUG USAGE AMONG MIDDLE SCHOOL AND HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS. WHAT WOULD BE ANOTHER PURPOSE BEHIND THE POLICY?

I AM NOT HEARING THE FIRST ANSWER TO THE QUESTION.

HE SAID THAT ONE PURPOSE OF SUCH A POLICY WOULD BE TO REDUCE THE OVERALL RATE OF DRUG USAGE AMONG STUDENTS. ALEXIS.

PROMOTING CITIZENSHIP.

PROMOTING CITIZENSHIP. ANY OTHER PURPOSE THAT THE POLICY MIGHT SERVE?

TO DETERMINE WHO IS USING DRUGS.

TO WHAT END?

HOPEFULLY AT THAT POINT YOU WOULD BE ABLE TO SINGLE OUT THE INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE, AND PERHAPS DO SOME TYPE OF CONTINUES TESTING -- CONTINUOUS TESTING OR RUN SOME TYPE OF PROGRAM FOR THEM.

SO THERE IS A REMEDIAL PURPOSE TO THE POLICY, TOO. YOU WANT TO BE ABLE TO IDENTIFY STUDENTS WHO ARE USING DRUGS, SO THAT YOU CAN MAKE APPROPRIATE REFERRALS FOR THEM, SO THAT THEY CAN GET TREATMENT. ALL RIGHT. IS THERE, ALSO, A POLICY WITH REGARD TO THE SAFETY OF ALL OF THE STUDENTS, THE NONDRUG USING STUDENTS IN THE SCHOOL SYSTEM? YES, MA'AM.

DOES THE POLICY HAVE TO INCLUDE DRUG TESTING OF STUDENTS AT THE SCHOOL, OR CAN THERE BE ANOTHER POLICY THAT DOESN'T NECESSARILY INCLUDE THAT? IS THERE AWAY OF ADMINISTRATING THESE IN SCHOOLS, WITHOUT GIVING THEM A U.S. OR ANOTHER FORM OF A DRUG -- OF AN U A OR ANOTHER FORM OF A DRUG TEST?

THAT IS A VALID QUESTION, AND IT MAY BE THAT THE SCHOOL DECIDES WHETHER OR NOT TO IMPLEMENT A POLICY, BECAUSE IT MAY WELL ACCOMPLISH THE SAME GOALS. BUT WE ARE GOING TO ASSUME, FOR OUR PURPOSES HERE, TODAY, THAT WE HAVE ALREADY PASS HAD THAT DISCUSSION AND THAT WE, AS A SCHOOL BOARD, ARE GOING TO IMPLEMENT A DRUG TESTING POLICY, AND I AM NOT AT ALL MINIMIZING THE VALIDITY OF THE QUESTION THAT YOU RAISE, BECAUSE I THINK IT IS A VERY GOOD ONE, BUT ASSUMING THAT WE ARE GOING TO HAVE A POLICY WITH REGARD TO DRUG TESTING, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE ARE GOING TO NEED TO LOOK AT IS WHAT GROUP OF STUDENTS ARE GOING TO BE SUBJECT TO DRUG TESTING. WHAT ARE SOME OF THE POSSIBLE UNIVERSE OF STUDENTS WHO COULD BE SUBJECT TO THIS TESTING? BLAIR.

ARE WE GOING TO DO -- IS IT RANDOM? I AM GETTING THIS OUT. IS IT RANDOM DRUG TESTING, OR IS IT GOING TO BE FOR?

THAT IS, ALSO, A GOOD QUESTION, AND THAT IS ONE OF THE QUESTIONS THAT WE ARE GOING TO GET TO IN A MOMENT, BUT BEFORE WE GET TO HOW WE TEST, WE NEED TO DETERMINE WHO WE TEST, SO WHEN YOU ARE LOOKING AT ALL OF THE POSSIBILITY OF GROUPS OF STUDENTS WHO COULD BE SUBJECT TO SOME FORM OF TESTING, THINK OF ONE OR TWO OF THOSE GROUPS. DIXON AND THEN TIFFANY.

IN MY OPINION, I THINK THAT THE ENTIRE STUDENT BODY SHOULD BE TESTED.

EVERY SINGLE STUDENT THAT WALKS THROUGH THE DOORS.

YES. IF THAT ISING WITH GOING TO BE THE POLICY, THAT IS WHAT IT SHOULD BE.

ALL RIGHT. TIFFANY.

YOU CAN'T SINGLE OUT A CERTAIN GROUP OF ATHLETES, CHESS CLUB MEMBERS OR ATHLETES OR WHATEVER. YOU CAN'T SAY MALES OR FEMALES. YOU CAN'T DO A RANDOM GROUP. IF YOU SAY THE ENTIRE SCHOOL POPULATION, THAT MEANS EVERYBODY THAT WALKS INTO THE DOOR. NOT CERTAIN ETHNIC GROUPS. IT WOULD HAVE TO BE EVERYBODY.

SO I AM HEARING OVER HERE THAT THE ONLY FAIR THING TO DO IS TO MAKE EVERYONE SUBJECT TO WHATEVER FORM OF TESTING YOU MIGHT DEVISE. IS THERE A DIFFERENCE OF OPINION? DOES ANYONE THINK THAT THERE OUGHT TO BE A SMALLER SUBSET OF STUDENTS WHO SHOULD BE SUBJECT TO THE TESTING? ALEXIS?

IN SOME SENSE, BEING THAT THE TEACHER IS IN A SUPERVISORY ROLE AT ALL TIMES, THERE POSSIBLY COULD BE SOME TYPE OF POLICY SET INTO EFFECT, WHERE THE TEACHERS ARE GIVEN DRUG EDUCATION COURSES, WHERE YOU CAN IDENTIFY HABITS OR WHAT YOU WOULD CALL CHARACTERISTICS OF STUDENTS THAT MAY HAVE DRUG USE, AND TO MAKE NECESSARY REFERRALS FROM THAT POINT, OF WHO SHOULD BE TESTED FOR DRUGS.

SO WHAT I HEAR YOU SAYING IS THAT, RATHER THAN SUBJECTING EVERYONE TO DRUG TESTING, WE OUGHT TO EDUCATE TEACHERS ABOUT DRUG USE, AND THEN ALLOW THEM TO IDENTIFY STUDENTS WHO APPEAR TO THEM, BASED ON THAT EDUCATION, TO BE POSSIBLY USING DRUGS. JUSTICE LEWIS.

I THINK THAT WE ALL MUST CONSIDER, AS WELL, THE CONCEPT UNDER THE FOURTH AMENDMENT, WHICH IS THE EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY. IS THERE THE SAME EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY FOR ALL STUDENTS, OR IS THERE SOME DIFFERENCE ON THE CAMPUS? FOR EXAMPLE, FOR THE ATHLETIC PROGRAM FOR EXTRACURRICULAR, BECAUSE THE FOURTH AMENDMENT HAS, ALWAYS, DEALT IN TERMS OF OR MORE RECENTLY HAS DEALT IN TERMS OF WHETHER YOU HAVE AN EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY AND WHETHER THAT HAS BEEN INVADED UNREASONBLY. SO FACTOR THIS INTO AS YOU ARE THINKING ABOUT DECIDING WHICH GROUPS.

GOOD QUESTION. EDUCATION FOR MINORS IN THE STATE OF FLORIDA IS MANDATORY. SO TEENAGERS HAVE NO OPTION. THEY ARE GOING TO SCHOOL. DO THEY HAVE A LEGITIMATE EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY, WHILE THEY ARE RECEIVING THEIR MANDATORY EDUCATION? STEVE. EXCUSE ME. IT IS BRANDON.

I GOT THE IMPRESSION THAT THE IDEA IS, IF YOU FOUND AN ATHLETE THAT WAS UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF DRUGS OR HAS BEEN TAKING DRUGS, THEN YOU WOULD TEST THE ATHLETIC PROGRAM. EVERYBODY IN THE ATHLETICS?

THAT IS ONE POSSIBLE.

WELL, OKAY, SAY, IF YOU GET A RANDOM STUDENT WHO GETS CAUGHT USING DRUGS, THEN WOULD YOU TEST THE WHOLE SCHOOL?

THAT IS WHAT WE ARE DISCUSSING NOW. WHAT GROUPS OF STUDENTS WOULD BE SUBJECT TO THE TESTING? IT SEEMS THAT THERE ARE A COUPLE OF POSSIBILITIES. ONE THAT HAS BEEN MENTIONED IS EVERYONE WHO IS A STUDENT IS SUBJECT TO BE TESTED, WHETHER IT BE BY RANDOM TESTS, BY AUTOMATIC TESTS, BY SUSPICION SUSPICION-BASED TESTS. ANOTHER POSSIBILITY IS THAT, ONLY IF YOU AS A STUDENT CHOOSE TO USE THE PRIVILEGE OF PARTICIPATING IN EXTRA CURRICULAR ACTIVITIES, WOULD YOU BE SUBJECT TO THE DRUG TESTING? WHAT IS YOUR THOUGHT ABOUT THAT?

WELL, I HAVE ALWAYS THOUGHT THAT, IF YOU WERE ASKED TO DO SOMETHING, LIKE SUBMIT TO, LIKE, A SEARCH BY A POLICE OFFICER OR SOMETHING, AND YOU DON'T GIVE THEM PERMISSION, THEN THEY AUTOMATICALLY GET THE IMPRESSION THAT YOU ARE GUILTY OF THAT CRIME OR PENALTY OR WHATEVER YOU HAVE DONE.

AND SO YOU ARE SAYING THAT, IF YOU AS A STUDENT WERE ASKED TO SUBMIT TO DRUG TESTING AND YOU DECHRIBD TO DO SO -- AND YOU DECLINED TO DO SO, THAT YOU AS A STUDENT WOULD FEAR THAT YOUR TEACHER WOULD ASSUME THAT YOU USED DRUGS AND PERHAPS NOT.

AND I WOULDN'T GET THE SAME TREATMENT AS I HAD BEFORE IN CLASSES.

WOULD THAT BE ALTERED, IF EVERYONE WERE SUBJECT TO THE SAME DRUG TESTING? IN OTHER WORDS IF A TEACHER DIDN'T SINGLE YOU OUT BECAUSE THAT TEACHER THOUGHT YOU USED DRUGS BUT RATHER SUBJECTED YOU AND YOUR CLASSMATES EQUALLY TO THAT TESTING? WANT TO THINK ABOUT THAT ONE FOR A SECOND? RAISE YOUR HAND AND LET ME KNOW WHEN YOU ARE READY TO RESPOND. STEVE.

SHOULD STUDENTS HAVE THE RIGHT TO DECLINE, IF IT IS MANDATORY, AND THERE IS NO REASONABLE SUSPICION? SHOULD THEY HAVE THE RIGHT TO DECLINE?

LET'S IDENTIFY WHAT GROUP IS BEING SUBJECT TO TESTING. ARE WE TALKING ABOUT -- I THINK YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT ALL STUDENTS. IS THAT RIGHT?

ANYONE.

ALL STUDENTS. SUSPICION-BASED, WHERE A TEACHER THINKS THAT A STUDENT MAY BE USING A DRUG AND ASKS THE STUDENT TO TAKE THE TEST. SHOULD THE STUDENT NOT HAVE THAT RIGHT? WHAT DO YOU ALL THINK? SHOULD NOTICE BE GIVEN TO THE STUDENTS' PARENTS, TO HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD BEFORE THE TEST IS PERFORMED? JOANNE THEN ALEXIS.

GOING BACK TO WHAT -- JOE, AND THEN ALEXIS.

GOING BACK TO WHAT THE JUSTICE SAID ABOUT THE PRIVACY ISSUE, I THINK IF THE MAJORITY FEEL WE ARE GOING TO TEST, WE CAN'T SINGLE OUT ONE GROUP. THAT IS THE WAY THE DISCUSSION IS GOING. THE TESTING COULD BE DONE AS PART OF, LIKE, FROM A DOCTOR, AS PART OF THE IMMUNIZATION PROCESS AND PART OF YOUR PHYSICAL OF COMING TO SCHOOL AND PARTICIPATING IN SCHOOL, AND THAT WOULD ADDRESS THE PRIVACY ISSUE. EVERYONE WOULD BE TESTED, AND IN WHICH THE RESULTS OF WHICH COULD BE CONFIDENTIAL, AND THEN DEALT WITH, AND THEN YOU COULD DEAL WITH GOING ABOUT HOW YOU WANT TO DEAL WITH THOSE STUDENTS WHO HAVE TESTED POSITIVE LATER.

ALEXIS, I AM GOING TO ASK THAT YOU AND EACH PERSON WHO SPEAKS LEAN INTO A MICROPHONE AND SPEAK LOUDLY, BECAUSE WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT OUR VIEWERS HEAR EVERYTHING THAT EACH OF YOU HAS TO SAY.

OKAY. I WANT TO SPEAK TO THE PRIVACY ISSUE, AND THAT OF UNREASONABLE SEARCHES AND SEIZURES, AND I THINK THAT THE WORD UNREASONABLE IS A KEY, IS A KEY ISSUE, AND IF A REASONABLE SUSPICION -- IF A REASONABLE SUSPICION WOULD GIVE RISE, THEN THERE SHOULD BE A REASONABLE SEARCH. THE SEARCH IS NO LONGER UNREASONABLE. SO I THINK THAT, IF WE ARE TARGETING A GROUP THAT YOU SUSPECT HAS SOME TYPE OF DRUG USE OR DRUG AFFILIATION, THEN THAT WOULD ADDRESS THE PRIVACY ISSUE, AND ALLEVIATE THAT UNREASONABLENESS OF THE SEARCH AND SEIZURE.

THANK YOU. CRYSTAL HAS HAD HER HAND RAISED FOR SOMETIME.

ME, PERSONALLY, I THINK THAT THERE SHOULD BE A POLICY, BUT I DON'T THINK IT IS NECESSARILY WHAT IT WILL BE. FIRST INNING WE NEED TO DISCUSS THE FOURTH AMENDMENT, AND ME, PERSONALLY, AND I THINK EVERYONE IN THIS ROOM WILL AGREE THAT THE CONSTITUTION IS THE FOUNDATION OF THIS COUNTRY, AND IF YOU START TO BEND THAT AND KNEEL THAT AND PUT HOLES IN THAT, THEN IT IS GOING TO BE SEEN AS NOT AS STRONG AS PEOPLE NEED IT TO BE, AND I THINK IF YOU START BENDING THE FOURTH AMENDMENT AND IN SCHOOLS, IT IS GOING TO POSE PROBLEMS FOR THE SOCIETY AND OUR SCHOOLS. IT IS GOING TO SHOW WEAKNESS AS THE DEMOCRACY. I THINK THAT IS THE MAIN ISSUE HERE.

YOU ARE SAYING THAT WE DON'T LEAVE OUR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS BEHIND, WHEN WE WALK INTO THE SCHOOLYARD.

I CAN UNDERSTAND THAT, IF IT INTERFERES WITH THE FACILITY, JOB, OR I CAN SEE, CARRYING GUNS INTO THE SCHOOL, BUT I THINK DRUG TESTS REALLY INFRINGES UPON OUR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS AS PEOPLE. EVEN THOUGH WE ARE MINORS, WE ALREADY LOSE SO MANY RIGHTS AS MINORS. IS OUR BRAIN NO LONGER OUR PROPERTY?

ARE THERE CIRCUMSTANCES, WHERE DRUG TESTING IS MORE PERMISSIBLE THAN IN OTHER CIRCUMSTANCES? FOR INSTANCE AIRLINE PILOTS, WHO ARE GOING TO BE FLYING AIRPLANES FULL OF PEOPLE. ON THE THEY TO BE MORE -- OUGHT THEY TO BE MORE SUBJECT TO DRUG TESTING THAN THE TYPICAL CITIZEN WHO IS GOING TO A JOB THAT DOES NOT INVOLVE PUBLIC SAFETY.

I AGREE, BUT IF THEY GET TO THE PRO FEINGS, THEY UNDERSTOOD THAT THAT WOULD BE REQUIRED OR THAT WOULD BE PART OF THE JOB, BUT WE ARE GOING TO SCHOOL. WE DON'T HAVE A CHOICE TO GO TO A SCHOOL. WE DON'T SAY, OKAY, WE KNOW THAT WE GO TO THIS PROFESSION AND IT IS GOING TO BE REQUIRED TO DO THIS. WE DON'T HAVE A CHOICE. YOU ARE LIMITING WHAT WE HAVE AS PEOPLE EVEN MORE AND MORE. THEY WENT INTO THAT PROFESSION KNOWING THAT THAT IS WHAT IT WAS ABOUT. THEY COULD HAVE CHOSEN ANOTHER PROFESSION, BUT WE HAVE NO SAY. WE HAVE NO SAY AT ALL.

THANK YOU, TIFFANY. JANE?

YES. I WAS GOING TO SAY THAT, NOT ONLY IF WE DRUG TESTED EVERYBODY, NOT ONLY SDHA INFRINGE UPON OUR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS, BUT IT WOULD AND WASTE OF MONEY AND TIME, BECAUSE THE MAJORITY OF THE STUDENTS ARE NOT GOING TO BE USING DRUGS. JUST A SMALL PORTION ARE, AND I THINK GOING WITH ONLY TESTING THE ONES WHO HAVE GIVEN SUSPICION OF DRUG USAGE SHOULD BE TESTED, BECAUSE OTHERWISE IT IS A BIG WASTE OF MONEY AND A BIG WASTE OF TIME.

WE HAVE TO REMEMBER, TOO, THAT WE ARE DEALING WITH MIDDLE SCHOOL STUDENTS AND HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS. IF WE TEST THE ENTIRE POPULATION, ARE WE GOING TO UNFAIRLY TRAUMATIZE VERY SHY AND RETIRING YOUNG STUDENTS WHO HAVE NOT USED DRUGS?

THAT, TOO.

BLAIR. I THINK WE NEED TO REMEMBER THAT, IF WE ARE TESTING THE MIDDLE SCHOOL AND HIGH SCHOOL, THE MAJORITY OF THE STUDENTS ARE GOING TO BE MINORS. THEY ARE NOT GOING TO BE 18 YEARS OLD, SO DEFINITELY WE HAVE TO BRING UP THE ISSUE OF NOTIFYING THE PARENTS BEFORE ANYTHING IS DONE AND SECONDLY, ON THE SUSPICION ISSUE, HOW ARE WE TO DECIDE WHETHER A STUDENT IS SUSPICIOUS OR NOT? BECAUSE, I, WE MAKE A WRONG ASSUMPTION, AND THEN THIS SHY STUDENT IS DRUG TESTED, AND I MEAN I AM SURE THAT IT WOULD GET AROUND SCHOOL THAT HE WAS TESTED OR MAYBE THAT HE WOULD BE PULLED OUT OF THE CLASS OR SOMETHING, AND TO THE TRAUMATIZING ISSUE, YOU KNOW, THAT IS JUST UNFAIR TO THE STUDENT.

SO YOU ARE UNCOMFORTABLE WITH HAVING THE TEACHER BE THE ASHYTER OF WHETHER THERE IS -- THE ARBITER OF WHETHER THERE IS SUSPICION OF DRUG USE. TIFFANY.

YOU CAN'T JUST SAY, LIKE, I UNDERSTAND THAT YOU ALL, THE TEACHERS HERE ARE PROBABLY REALLY GOOD TEACHERS WHO ARE REALLY INVOLVED IN THEIR STUDENTS AND THEIR SCHOOLS, BUT YOU HAVE TO REALIZE THAT EVERY TEACHER WHO TEACHES IN OUR SCHOOLS IS NOT THERE TO TRY TO MAKE EVERY KID, MAKE SURE EVERYTHING IS FINE AT THEIR HOUSE AND EVERYTHING IS FINE IN THEIR LIFE, BECAUSE THERE ARE A LOT OF TEACHERS THAT ARE THERE FOR THE PAYCHECK, AND THEY ARE THERE AT EIGHT AND THEY ARE OUT AT THREE, AND THAT IS IT, AND YOU CAN'T EXPECT THESE KINDS OF TEACHERS TO GO ON AND HAVE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF MAKING SURE WHETHER OR NOT SOMEONE NEEDS TO BE TESTED, BECAUSE IT IS A REALLY BIG ISSUE, AND IT CAN AFFECT SOMEONE'S LIFE MAJORLY. IT CAN TRAUMATIZE SOMEONE THAT DOESN'T TAKE DRUGS. I DON'T THINK THAT YOU CAN KEEP TEACHERS IN MIND TO MAKE THAT DECISION.

ALL OF YOU ARE SITTING HERE AND IT IS THE SCHOOL BOARD AND THE EVENING IS GROWING LATE, AND THERE IS A WRES LESS AUDIENCE OUT THERE -- A RESTLESS AUDIENCE OUT THERE THAT WANTS A DECISION FROM YOU ABOUT THE POLICY YOU ARE GOING TO CRAFT, SO OUR DECISION IS DO WE TELL EVERY STUDENT WHO COMES TO SCHOOL YOU ARE SUBJECT TO RANDOM TESTING? DO WE TELL EVERY STUDENT YOU ARE SUBJECT TO TESTING, IF WE THINK YOU ARE USING DRUGS? DO WE TELL STUDENTS YOU ARE ONLY SUBJECT TO TESTING, IF YOU ELECT TO PARTICIPATE IN EXTRACURRICULAR ACTIVITIES OF ANY SORT? DO WE TELL THEM YOU ARE ONLY SUBJECT TO SUCH TESTING, IF YOU CHOOSE TO PARTICIPATE IN A SPORT? THOSE ARE THE OPTIONS THAT I SEE. DO YOU ALL SEE ANY OTHER OPTIONS? STEVE.

IF YOU FIND DRUGS ON A STUDENT.

THAT WOULD BE SUSPICION-BASED. OKAY. THOSE ARE THE FOUR OPTIONS THAT I SEE, AND IF ANYONE SEES ANY OTHERS, DON'T HESITATE TO THROW THEM OUT. WHICH OF THOSE OPTIONS, BY A SHOW OF HANDS, WOULD YOU ELECT, AND LET ME SEE IF WE CAN GO DOWN IT. DO WE TELL EVERY STUDENT WHO COMES INTO THE SCHOOL THAT IT IS THE POLICY OF THE SCHOOL BOARD THAT THEY ARE SUBJECT TO RANDOM DRUG TESTING? HOW MANY WOULD ADOPT THAT POLICY? FIVE. HOW MANY WOULD TELL STUDENTS YOU ARE ALL SUBJECT TO TESTING, BUT ONLY IF WE SUSPECT THAT YOU ARE USING DRUGS. ALL RIGHT. FOUR. GONE WE HAVE A POLICY THAT SAYS -- DO WE HAVE A POLICY THAT SAYS, IF YOU CHOOSE TO PARTICIPATE IN ANY EXTRACURRICULAR ACTIVITY, YOU MUST BE TESTED BEFORE YOU CAN PARTICIPATE. NO VOTES FOR THAT. DO WE TELL ATHLETES, IF YOU WANT TO PARTICIPATE IN A SPORT, YOU ARE GOING TO BE DRUG TESTED. NO VOTES FOR THAT. ALL RIGHT. LOOKS LIKE THE FIRST CHOICE WAS THE OPTION CHOSEN BY YOU AS THE SCHOOL BOARD, WHICH IS THAT YOU TELL EVERY STUDENT YOU WALK THROUGH THE DOORS, YOU ARE SUBJECT TO RANDOM TESTING, WITHOUT REGARD TO WHETHER WE SUSPECT YOU OF USING DRUGS. CRYSTAL.

WHAT ABOUT THE OPTION OF TESTING WITH A PHYSICAL? IS THAT -- I MEAN, WHAT OPTION WOULD THAT FALL UNDER?

BY WAY OF A PHYSICAL THROUGH A PRIVATE PHYSICIAN?

RIGHT.

WHAT DO YOU ALL THINK ABOUT THAT?

IS THAT AN OPTION. BECAUSE REGULARLY --

THAT IS ONLY SPORTS THOUGH.

WOULD THAT ONLY BE SPORTS. ALL RIGHT.

THERE IS STILL IMMUNIZATION. THAT IS REQUIRED, SO EACH STUDENT, AT SOME POINT, IS GOING TO HAVE TO SEE A DOCTOR AND BE DECLARED ELIGIBLE TO COME TO CLASS AND PARTICIPATE.

IS THERE A PROBLEM WITH THAT, IN THAT YOU ALLOW THE STUDENT TO SELECT THE TIMING OF THE DRUG TEST?

YOU HAVE A WHOLE OTHER SET OF --

I HAVEN'T GOTTEN A SHOT IN FOUR YEARS, SO ARE YOU GOING TO SAY THAT, WHEN YOU GET INTO HIGH SCHOOL, YOU HAVE TO GO BACK FOR A PHYSICAL? REALLY, THE LAST TIME I HAD TO GET A PHYSICAL FOR SCHOOL WAS PROBABLY IN THE SIXTH GRADE. SOME PEOPLE ARE INVOLVED IN DRUGS IN SIXTH GRADE BUT NOT MANY PEOPLE.

ALL RIGHT. ALEXIS.

I THINK THAT CHOICE NUMBER ONE, THAT THE MAJORITY OF THE STUDENTS THAT CHOSE IT, IS A PRETTY GOOD CHOICE, IF WE JUST NOTIFY EVERYBODY THAT, ONCE THEY COME INTO SCHOOL, THEY ARE GOING TO BE SUBJECT TO DRUG TESTING, BECAUSE IN IMPLEMENTING THAT POLICY, YOU CAN HAVE SUBPOLLS THAT YOU WOULD DECIDE -- SUBPOLICIES THAT YOU WOULD DECIDE HOW THAT RANDOM SELECTION IS GOING TO BE DONE, AND AT THAT POINT YOUR RANDOM SELECTION CAN BE SUSPICION.

WELL, IF YOU HAVE TESTING DONE ON THE BASIS OF SUSPICION, IS IT TRULY RANDOM?

YOU MAY HAVE PROBLEMS DECIDING WHETHER IT IS TRULY RANDOM OR NOT, BUT I THINK THE NOTICE ISSUE WOULD BE ADDRESSED, BY JUST NOTIFYING THAT YOU ARE SUBJECT TO DRUG TESTING.

I THINK THE CLEAR SINCE THAT I GOT FROM EVERYONE BEFORE IS THAT YOU WANTED THE UNIVERSE OF STUDENTS SUBJECT TO DRUG TESTING TO BE ALL STUDENTS. DO YOU HAVE A PREFERENCE? ALEXIS HAS INDICATED THAT THERE MAY BE SOME CONFUSION ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT THOSE STUDENTS WOULD BE TESTED, ONLY IF THERE WAS A SUSPICION OF DRUG USE OR JUST AT THE WHIM OF THE ADMINISTRATOR, OR IN ACCORDANCE WITH SOME TESTING SCHEDULE KNOWN ONLY TO THE, FOR INSTANCE, THE SCHOOL PRINCIPAL. BLAIR.

YEAH. I WAS GOING TO SAY THAT, FOR THE RANDOM DRUG TESTING TO BE DECIDED BY, SAY, FOR HIGH SCHOOL, A COMPUTER CHOOSES FIVE SENIORS, FIVE JUNIORS, FIVE SOLVE MORSE AND FIVE -- SOLVE MORSE AND FIVE PRESSURE -- SOPHOMORES, FIVE FRESHMEN, RANDOMLY, A LETTER GOING TO THEIR HOUSE, TO THEIR PARENTS, NOTIFYING THEIR PARENTS, FOR ONE, THAT THEY ARE GOING TO BE DRUG TESTED, AND THEN THAT TAKES UP THE ISSUE OF BEING EMBARRASSED IN FRONT OF EVERYBODY, AND, ALSO, WITH RANDOM DRUG TESTING, IT KIND OF HELPS WITH PEER PRESSURE, BECAUSE YOU CAN COP-OUT OF STUFF. YOU CAN SAY, NO, I DON'T WANT TO USE DRUGS, BECAUSE THERE IS ALWAYS THE CHANCE THAT I AM GOING TO GET TESTED, AND THEN YOU SUFFER THE CONSEQUENCES.

THAT WILL AND SEPARATE ISSUE WE WILL GET TO IN A MINUTE.

THERE IS GOING TO BE A SEPARATE ISSUE THERE THAT YOU HAVE THE PRESCRIPTION.

AND YOU SHOW POSITIVE ON THE TEST.

THEN YOU CAN BRING UP THE PRESCRIPTION THAT WAS BEGIN TO YOU BY YOUR DOCTOR.

THAT WILL AND SEPARATE ISSUE. I THINK WHAT BLAIR IS SUGGESTING, IN ORDER TO AVOID THE PUBLIC EMBARRASSMENT, IS TRULY RANDOM SELECTION, NOTIFIES BY MAIL TO THE PARENTS' HOME, SO THAT NO OTHER STUDENT WOULD BE AWARE OF IT, AND I ASSUME THAT WOULD INVOLVE OFF-SITE TESTING. NERD THE STUDENT GOES TO SOME OTHER PLACE TO BE TESTED. WOULD THAT OCCUR WITHIN 24 HOURS, SO THAT THE STUDENT COULD NOT USE THAT TIME DELAY TO CLEAR HIM OR HERSELF OF DRUGS?

YES. DEFINITELY.

STEVE AND THEN.

THE QUESTION IS ARE WE GOING TO DO THAT FOR ALL OF THE STUDENTS THROUGHOUT THE YEAR, OR ARE WE GOING TO HAVE A SET NUMBER THAT WE TEST THAT YEAR? WHAT IS GOING TO BE THE CRITERIA OF THE NUMBER? WE HAVE GOT TO LOOK AT COST.

THAT IS THE RANDOM DRUG TESTING. YOU DON'T KNOW IF YOU WILL BE TESTED OR NOT. IT IS AN OPTION THAT IT WILL BE. IF THERE IS FIVE IN EACH TIME, LIKE, SAY, FIVE EACH EVERY TWO WEEKS.

BLAIR, COULD YOU CONTROL THE COST BY CONTROLLING THE NUMBER OF STUDENTS TESTED?

I BELIEVE SO. INNINGS.

JUSTICE LEWIS.

I WOULD LIKE TO -- I THINK SO.

EUSTIS LEWIS.

I WOULD LIKE TO RAISE JUST A QUESTION. HOW ABOUT THE YOUNG PERSON WHO IS DEEPLY RELIGIOUS, WHO HAS NEVER THOUGHT ABOUT TOUCHING ANY KIND OF TOXIC SUBSTANCE, FOREIGN SUBSTANCE, AND THAT PERSON HAPPENS TO BE SELECTED. DOES THAT PERSON LOSE THEIR EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY, SIMPLY BECAUSE THEY GO INTO A HIGH SCHOOL?

DEFINITELY THERE IS GOING TO BE THE ISSUE OF, YOU KNOW, BRINGING UP THE FOURTH AMENDMENT AND INVADING YOUR RIGHTS, BUT --

WE SEEM TO BE PRESUPPOSING, AS A FUNDAMENTAL BASIS, THAT ONCE YOU WALK THROUGH THE DOOR, YOU ARE FREE GAME.

RIGHT.

IS THAT WHAT WE BELIEVE WHERE WE SHOULD BE?

IT IS IN THE POLICY.

THAT MAY BE TIED UP WITH THE QUESTION OF HOW MUCH OF A LEGITIMATE EXPECTATION OF OPERATIVEACY DO YOU HAVE, AS A STUDENT IN SCHOOL, AND, ALSO, IT MAY BE TIED UP WITH THE QUESTION OF IS THE POLICY THAT WE ARE DEVISING HERE GOING TO ACCOMPLISH THE PURPOSES THAT WE OUTLINED AT THE BEGINNING OF THIS SESSION?

RIGHT.

JANE.

I JUST HAD A QUESTION. IS THIS DRUG TESTING POLICY GOING TO BE FOR JUST PUBLIC SCHOOLS OR PUBLIC AND PRIVATE?

WE ARE THE SCHOOL DISTRICT -- WE ARE THE SCHOOL BOARD FOR THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS.

PUBLIC.

PRIVATE SCHOOLS WOULD HAVE THEIR HANDS FULL, DEVISING THEIR OWN POLICY.

IF SOMEONE KNOWS THAT THEY GO TO PUBLIC SCHOOL, THEY HAVE THE POSSIBILITY OF BEING DRUG TESTED, THEY COULD JUST GO TO A PRIVATE SCHOOL.

ASSUMING THAT THEY WERE ABLE TO AFFORD IT.

WHO PAYS FOR THAT?

THAT IS NOT AN OPTION AVAILABLE TO EVERYONE, BECAUSE OF FINANCES. ALEXIS.

JOANNE I WERE DISCUSSING THAT YOU ALL SEEM TO BE TAKING AWAY YOUR OWN PRIVACY RIGHTS, BY THE RANDOM SELECTION PROCESS, AND WE SEEM TO BE A BIT MORE CONCERNED OVER YOUR PRIVACY RIGHTS, BY REASONABLE SUSPICION, BECAUSE NOW YOU ARE STRIPPING AWAY WHAT THE COURT HAS ESTABLISHED FOR YOU, THAT THERE HAS TO BE A REASONABLE SUSPICION FOR US TO EVEN INVADE, AND DON'T MISS UNDERSTAND WHAT I AM SAYING BY OUR SUSPICION. I AM NOT TALKING ABOUT MY GUT INSTINCT. I AM TALKING ABOUT MY BEING EDUCATED. FIRST I SAID THAT THE TEACHERS NEED TO GO THROUGH A REALM OF EDUCATION AND DRUG USE AND TYPES OF ACTIVITIES AND POINT OUT, BECAUSE SOMETIMES I KNOW STUDENTS LOOK AT YOU AND SAY YOU CAN'T MAKE THAT JUDGMENT, BUT IF WE DEAL WITH ALMOST 100 KIDS A DAY, SOMETIMES YOU CAN MAKE CERTAIN JUDGMENTS, IF YOU ARE EDUCATED ON DRUG USE. NOW, FOR MYSELF, I HAVE DEALT WITH STUDENTS WHO I CAN IDENTIFY AS DRUG USERS. OKAY. BUT NO, NOT EVERY TEACHER MAY BE EXPOSED TO THAT, AND IT IS NOT REALLY A JUDGMENTAL PROCESS. IT IS THE PROCESS OF TRYING TO HELP THE STUDENT BECOME A BETTER STUDENT, AND THAT IS OUR JOB.

EVERYBODY UP HERE, ALL OF THE TEACHERS THAT I HAVE SEEN TODAY, ARE VERY LEVELHEADED, VERY RATIONAL, SEEM TO KNOW WHAT THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT AND SEEM TO CARE FOR STUDENTS, THEMSELVES, BUT I HAVE RUN INTO TEACHERS THAT LITERALLY DID NOT LIKE ME BECAUSE OF HOW I WALKED. THEY WOULD PUT ME ON THE LIST SO FAST, THEY WOULDN'T THINK TWICE ABOUT IT. THERE ARE MANY STUDENTS WHO HAVE PERSONAL CONFLICTS WITH TEACHERS AND THEY ARE GOING TO SAY I USED MY EXPERTISE TO DETERMINE THAT THIS PERSON IS A DRUG USER? SIMPLY BECAUSE THEY ARE BLACK OR WHITE OR POLKA-DOTTED OR WHATEVER. THAT IS A DISCRIMINATORY BASIS.

THAT GIVES THE TEACHER A COP-OUT. I WAS EDUCATED AND IT WAS WHAT I THOUGHT. SO THEN YOU GET BACK INTO THE ISSUE OF BEING FALSELY ACCUSED. AND THEN THE COST OF THE DRUG TEST, IF IT COMES UP NEGATIVE.

HOW DOES THAT ELIMINATE IT? IF YOU SET THE POLICY THAT EVERYONE IS SUBJECTED TO THAT, YOU NEED -- THAT IS GOING TO COME INTO PLAY. YOU ARE SUBJECTED TO IT, WITHOUT EVEN A RATIONAL BASIS.

WHAT I HEAR THE SIDE SAYING IS THAT THEY WILL RATHER TRUST TO THE FAIRNESS OF MATHEMATICAL RANDOMNESS THAN TO THE FAIRNESS OF A GIVEN TEACHER.

RIGHT. EXACTLY. I AM LOOKINGING AT IT IN A FAIR STANDPOINT, THAT THE ONLY FAIRWAY TO DO IT IS TO PUT EVERYBODY'S NUMBERS IN THE COMPUTER AND HAVE THEM BE RANDOMLY SELECTED, AND, YES, YOU ARE GOING TO HAVE THE KIDS THAT ARE DEEPLY RELIGIOUS AND THEY HAVE NEVER TOUCHED DRUGS AT ALL AND THEN AGAIN YOU ARE GOING TO GET THE KIDS WHO WERE PEER PRESSUREURED INTO USING DRUGS, AND THAT WOULD HELP KIND OF CUT IT OUT. IF THE OPTION FOR ME IS, IF THE OPTION, AFTER USING DRUGS AND BEING TESTED POSITIVE IS HE CAN PULINGS, THEN THAT WOULD DEFINITELY CUT DOWN ON THE PEER PRESSURE OF USING DRUGS, BECAUSE IF YOU FACED EXPULSION AND YOU DIDN'T KNOW IF YOU WERE GOING TO BE TESTED OR NOT, IS IT REALLY WORTH IT? THAT IS WHAT YOU ARE GOING TO BE THINKING.

BLAIR, PICTURE IN YOUR MIND AN EIGHTH GRADER. LET'S CALL HIM A BOY. LET'S SAY THAT HE IS SMALLER THAN AVERAGE. HE IS 70 POUNDS. HE IS A YOUNG EIGHTH GRADER. AS YOU KNOW, SOME EIGHTH GRADERS ARE YOUNG. HE IS VERY QUIET. ONE OF THE QUIETES STUDENTS IN THE CLASS. HE IS A GOOD STUDENT. MAKES GOOD GRADES. HE HAS NEVER BEEN IN TROUBLE. AND HE STUD EVENLY GETS THIS LETTER THAT TELLS HIM HE HAS TO GO TO A LAB. HE HAS TO SUBMIT TO WHAT, FOR HIM, BEING A YOUNG TEENAGED BOY HAS TO BE A HORRIBLY TERRIBLE PROCEDURE. HE HAS TO HAVE SOMEONE WATCH HIM URINATE. HE IS IN TEARS. YOU ARE HIS PARENT. HE SAYS TO YOU, MOM, DAD, I JUST WANT TO GET AN EDUCATION. I HAVE ALWAYS DONE THE RIGHT THING. WHY ARE THEY DOING THIS TO ME? WHAT DO YOU TELL HIM?

DO KIDS KNOW THAT SOMEBODY IS WATCHING THEM?

LET'S ASSUME THAT THAT IS THE PROCEDURE. WHAT DO YOU TELL HIM?

WELL, IN THAT -- WELL, IF YOU PUT IT THAT WAY, YOU KNOW, THEN I WOULD PROBABLY TAKE THE STANDPOINT OF THE FATHER SAYING, NO, YOU ARE NOT GOING TO DO TAKE TO MY SON. THAT IS WHY -- THAT IS WHY THIS IS GOING TO HAVE PROBLEMS WITH THE SCHOOL BOARD, BECAUSE YOU ARE ALWAYS GOING TO HAVE THAT FATHER WHO IS OVERPROTECT I HAVE OF HIS SON AND KNOWS THAT HIS MAIN MAN DOES NOT USE DRUGS AND THAT HE IS NOT GOING TO LET SOMEBODY TELL HIM THAT HE D YOU KNOW.

AND SOME OF THE PARENTS MAY BE RIGHT AND SOME OF THE PARENTS MAY BE WRONG.

SOME OF THE PARENTS MAY HAVE THE WRONG IMPRESSION OF THEIR KIDS. BUT.

I AM SORRY.

I DON'T THINK THAT RANDOM DRUG TESTING IS REALLY ELIMINATING THE PROBLEM OF DRUGS IN SCHOOL, AS FAR AS STUDENTS DOING DRUGS, BECAUSE I COULD BE DOING DRUGS OVER HERE, YOU KNOW, AND THEN YOU COULD TEST FIVE PEOPLE RANDOMLY. SURE. THAT DOESN'T DO ANYTHING FOR ME, IF I AM DOING DRUGS. SURE. I MIGHT BE GETTING CAUGHT, BUT I AM STILL DOING MY DRUGS, BECAUSE I HAVEN'T GOTTEN CAUGHT YET.

YOU ARE GOING TO PLAY THE ODDS, THEN, IF YOU ARE A DRUG USER.

YES. AND I DON'T WANT MY RIGHTS AS A COLLEGE STUDENT IN AP COLLEGE CLASSES TO TAKE A TEST AND LET SOMEONE WATCH ME PEE WHILE I AM SITTING IN THERE AND I AM MAKING ALL A'S AND I AM IN AP COURSES AND DOING WHAT IS RIGHT AND YOU TELL ME THAT I AM GOING TO HAVE TO TAKE THIS? WHATEVER. DON'T EVEN GO THERE. YOU LOOK AT IT FROM A STANDPOINT OF IS IT GOOD TO RESTRICT ALL OF THE RIGHTS OF OTHERS BECAUSE FIVE PEOPLE ON THIS PANEL HAVE DONE DRUGS?

NOW, LET'S PLAY DEVIL'S ADVOCATE FOR A MOMENT. YOU ARE A SERIOUS STUDENT, AND YOU ARE IN A CLASSROOM THAT HAS TWO STUDENTS WHO COME TO CLASS STONED EVERYDAY. AND THEY INTERRUPT THE TEACHER, AND THEY MAKE IT ABSOLUTELY IMPOSSIBLE FOR YOU TO CONCENTRATE ON YOUR SCHOOLWORK. SHOULD THERE NOT BE A DRUG POLICY DESIGNED TO DETECT DRUG USE BY THOSE STUDENTS, SO THAT YOU CAN GET YOUR EDUCATION?

EXACTLY. THERE SHOULD BE A POLICY, BUT IN REGARDS TO RANDOM TESTING, THEY COME TO SCHOOL STONED EVERYDAY. SURE ENOUGH. BUT THEY ARE NOT GETTING SENT THE LETTERS. I AM.

SO YOU WOULD HAVE INDICATE FOR -- YOU WOULD ADVOCATE FOR SUSPICION-BASED TESTING. ' YES. SUSPICION-BASED.

WE HAVE TO COVER ALL OF THE POINTS BEFORE TIME RUNS OUT. WHAT SORTS OF DRUGS SHOULD BE TESTED FOR? DO WE LOOK AT JUST ILLEGAL DRUGS? DO WE LOOK AT THOSE DRUGS THAT ARE ILLEGAL FOR MINORS BUT NOT ADULTS, SUCH AS TOBACCO AND ALCOHOL? WHAT DO YOU ALL THINK?

IF YOU ARE, I KNOW SR., THEY TURN -- I KNOW SENIORS, THEY TURN 18 IN HIGH SCHOOL AND THEY TURN 18 AND BECOME A SENIOR, HOW WOULD YOU DO THAT? IF THEY ARE LEGAL THEN, WOULD YOU TEST THEM?

LET'S ASSUME THE SCHOOL BOARD HAS A POLICY THAT THOSE WHO ARE FULL TIME STUDENTS, EVEN IF THEY REACH THE AGE OF 18, SHOULD NOT USE ALCOHOL, TOBACCO OR ILLEGAL SUBSTANCES.

YOU HAVE GOT TO BE A LEGAL AGE TO USE THIS, LIKE, SMOKE CIGARETTES. YOU HAVE GOT TO BE 18 TO BUY AND USE IT OR WHATEVER. THEN THEY TURN 18. IT IS MY RIGHT TO.

SO YOU THINK THAT THE SCHOOL BOARD WOULD NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO ENACT THAT POLICY FOR ITS 18-YEAR-OLD STUDENTS.

THAT'S RIGHT.

LET'S PUT ASIDE THE QUESTION OF 18-YEAR-OLD STUDENTS. SHOULD WE BE TESTING FOR ILLEGAL DRUGS OR JUST FOR ALCOHOL AND TOBACCO?

ILLEGAL DRUGS ONLY.

ANYONE FEEL DIFFERENTLY? ALEXIS.

I THINK THAT I FEEL DIFFERENTLY ON THE ISSUE OF ALCOHOL AND TOBACCO, BECAUSE IT IS ILLEGAL FOR YOU, AS MINORS, TO USE IT, SO I THINK, GOING BACK TO MY VERY FIRST ISSUE OF WHY WE ARE IMPLEMENTING THE POLICY, MY IMPLEMENTATION OF THE POLLY IS TO PROM ON -- OF THE POLICY IS TO PROMOTE GOOD CITIZENSHIP ALL ACROSS THE BOARD, SO NOT ONLY THAT YOU ARE ENHANCING THE ENVIRONMENT OF OTHERS BUT YOU ARE TAKING CARE YOURSELF, BECAUSE EVEN THOUGH I KNOW AS TEACHERS WE HAVE COLLEAGUES WHO AREN'T THAT INTERESTED, BUT MOST TEACHERS' INTEREST IS EACH INDIVIDUAL STUDENT, AND IF I AM CONCERNED ABOUT YOUR HEALTH AND CITIZENSHIP AND THE WAY YOU TAKE CARE OF AND CONTROL YOURSELF, EVERYTHING SHOULD BE TESTED.

TIFFANY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

WHAT ABOUT THE RELIGIOUS STUDENT THAT HAS A GLASS OF WINE OR, YOU KNOW, SOMETHING WHERE ALCOHOL INVOLVES SOMETHING THAT IS NECESSARY IN THEIR DAILY LIFE, NOT TO A LARGE EXTENT BUT MAYBE A VERY MINUTE EXTENT, AND THAT SHOWS UP ON A DRUG TEST. WHAT DO YOU DO?

THAT IS A GOOD QUESTION. BECAUSE WE ONLY HAVE FIVE MINUTES LEFT, I AM GOING TO GO TO THE REST OF THIS REAL QUICKLY. WE WILL GET TO EXCUSES IN A MOMENT. I WANT A SHOW OF HANDS QUICKLY ON WHETHER WE SHOULD BE TESTING FOR DRUGS ONLY THAT ARE ILLEGAL OR INCLUDING ALCOHOL AND TOBACCO. THOSE IN FAVOR OF TESTING ONLY ILLEGAL DRUGS, THEMSELVES. THOSE THOSE IN FAVOR OF TESTING, INCLUDING ALCOHOL AND TOBACCO. THOSE WHO WANT TO TEST JUST THOSE DRUGS THAT ARE ILLEGAL FOR BOTH MINORS AND ADULTS ALIKE. FIVE. OKAY. THOSE WHO WANT TO TEST FOR ILLEGAL DRUGS PLUS ALCOHOL AND TOBACCO. SIX. THAT TAKES THE VOTE. NOW, QUESTION OF EXCUSES. THERE MAY BE STUDENTS WHO HAVE INGESTED A SUBSTANCE BECAUSE IT IS ON PRESCRIPTION OR BECAUSE OF A RELIGIOUS CEREMONY, AND OBVIOUSLY WE WANT TO GIVE THEM AN OPPORTUNITY TO SHOW SOME REASON THAT THIS SUBSTANCE IS IN THEIR SYSTEM. DO WE WANT THEM TO REVEAL THAT AHEAD OF THE TEST OR AFTER THE TEST?

I THINK AHEAD OF THE TEST.

AHEAD OF THE TEST. AND WHAT WOULD BE YOUR REASON FOR SAYING THAT?

MY REASON SAYING IT SHOULD BE AHEAD OF THE TEST THAT YOU LET THEM GO IN THERE. I AM A RASTAFARIAN AND IT IS MY PRIVILEGE TO DO WEED OR WHATEVER.

MAKING A STATEMENT AHEAD OF TIME. DO ANY OF YOU FEEL DIFFERENTLY?

I THINK IF YOU GO IN AND TRY TO COP-OUT OF IT AND SAY WHY OR WHATEVER, IT NEEDS TO BE FLAT-OUT BEFORE IT HAPPENS, NOT TO SEE IF IT COMES UP, AND IF IT DOES, WELL, THEN, I WAS WAS...

ANYBODY CONCERNED ABOUT THE REVEALING OF MEDICAL INFORMATION?

NOT SO MUCH, BUT IF YOU GIVE THEY THE CHANCE TO MAKE EXCUSES AHEAD OF TIME AND THEY FACE EXPULSION, THEY CAN EASILY SAY, DADDY, I DRANK BEER ON FRIDAY NIGHT BUT I CAN'T GET EXPELLED TO THAT -- SO TELL THEM YOU LET ME DRINK BEER.

CODEINE SHOWS UP POSITIVE AND I THINK YOU HAVE GOT TO BE REAL CLEAR ON WHAT YOU ARE SAYING WHAT HAPPENS.

AGAIN, BECAUSE WE ARE RUNNING SHORT ON TIME, ALL IN FAVOR OF REQUIRING THE EXCUSE TO BE PROVIDED IN ADVANCE OF THE TEST. THOSE IN FAVOR OF IT, REQUIRING IT TO BE PROVIDED AFTER A POSITIVE TEST RESULT. OKAY. HAVE THAT VOTE AGAIN. BEFORE. SIX. AFTER. FIVE. BY A VERY CLOSE MARGIN, 6 TO 5 BEFOREHAND. PROCEDURE. WHAT TYPE OF HEARING, IF ANY, IS A STUDENT ENTITLED TO, WHEN HE OR SHE TESTS POSITIVE?

THEY ARE ENTITLED TO A HEARING, I AM SURE, BUT I DON'T THINK EXPULSION IS THE RIGHT COURSE OF ACTION.

WE ARE NOT TALKING SANCTIONS. WE ARE JUST TALKING HEARINGS. SHOULD THEY BE ENTITLED TO PRODUCE WITNESSES? SHOULD THEY BE ENTITLED TO HAVE AN ATTORNEY? SHOULD THEY BE ENTITLED TO AN ATTORNEY PAID IF BY THE SCHOOL BOARD, IF THEY CAN'T AFFORD ONE?

NO.

YES.

YES.

LET ME SEE. ALL IN FAVOR SCHOOL BOARD PAYING FOR A LAWYER, IF SOMEONE IS INDIGENT AND CAN'T AFFORD ONE? FIVE. ALL IN FAVOR OF ONLY ALLOWING THE ATTORNEY, IF THE STUDENT IN THE FAMILY CAN AFFORD IT. FIVE. DID I SAY FIVE THE FIRST TIME, TOO? IT WAS A TIE ON THAT ISSUE. WE WILL NOTE THAT AS A TIE. WHO IS GOING TO MAKE, WITHOUT GETTING TO WHAT THE PUNISHMENT SHOULD BE, WHO IS GOING TO MAKE THE DECISION ABOUT WHAT THE PUNISHMENT IS GOING TO BE, IF THERE IS A POSITIVE RESULT THAT IS UPHELD?

SCHOOL BOARD.

SCHOOL BOARD. ANYBODY ELSE FEEL DIFFERENTLY?

BY UNANIMOUS VOTE.

BY UNANIMOUS VOTE. ANYONE FEEL DIF?

YES. STUDENTS AND SCHOOL BOARD, TOGETHER.

OKAY. SO A MIXTURE OF STUDENTS AND SCHOOL BOARD TOGETHER. ALL RIGHT. WHO HAS THE BURDEN OF PROOF? DOES THE SCHOOL BOARD HAVE TO PROVE THAT THE STUDENT USED DRUGS, OR DOES THE STUDENT HAVE TO PROVE THAT HE OR SHE DIDN'T?

SCHOOL BOARD.

THAT APPEARS TO BE UNANIMOUS. NOW, STANDARD OF PROOF. BURDEN OF PROOF. THERE ARE A COUPLE OF DIFFERENT BURDENS. WHAT YOU HEAR IN CRIMINAL CASES IS BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT. THAT IS A VERY TOUGH STANDARD N CIVIL CASES IT IS A MUCH EASIER TEST, TO ME, A GREATER PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE. THERE IS A CLEAR AND CONVINCING LEVEL. SO WE HAVE GOT THREE STANDARDS. WHICH ONE DO YOU THINK IS APPROPRIATE HERE? OKAY. I AM HEARING TWO DIFFERENT THINGS. I AM NOT HEARING PREPONDERANCE FROM ANYBODY. VOTE ON THE OTHER TWO. THE CHOICES ARE BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT AND CLEAR AND CONVINCING. BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT, WHICH IS THE TOUGHER OF THE TWO. SEVEN. CLEAR AND CONVINCING. OKAY. BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT IS THE STANDARD ADOPTED. LAST QUESTION. ASSUMING THAT THIS DOESN'T GO TO A FULL EVIDENTIARY HEARING WHICH IS NECESSARILY GOING TO INVOLVE DISCLOSURE TO ADDITIONAL PEOPLE, WHO GETS TO KNOW THE INFORMATION ABOUT THE POSITIVE TEST RESULT?

THE USER, THE SCHOOL BOARD, AND THE PARENTS. THAT IS IT.

HOW ABOUT THE COACH, IF IT IS AN ATHLETE?

NO.

OF COURSE.

I AM HEARING ONE NO BUT OTHER PEOPLE ARE SAYING YES.

BUT HOW OFTEN ARE THINGS BETWEEN STUDENTS KEPT INSIDE SECRETLY? IT IS GOING TO GET OUT EVENTUALLY.

I THINK YOU ARE TALKING VERY PRACTICAL CONSIDERATIONS, BUT WE ARE TALKING POLICY AND HOPING THAT PEOPLE ARE GOING TO ADHERE IT THE ON THE POLICY. I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU ARE SAYING THOUGH. STEVE.

I THINK IT SHOULD BE UP TO THE ATHLETE IF THEY WANT TO TELL THE COACH. JUST TELL THE COACH THAT THE STUDENT IS NO LONGER A PART OF YOUR TEAM.

I AM HEARING SCHOOL BOARD, PRINCIPAL, BEYOND THAT ONLY IF THERE IS A NEED. FOLKS, YOU ALL DID A GREAT JOB. THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR PARTICIPATION. THANK YOU, JUSTICE LEWIS.

MY PLEASURE. THANK YOU, MICHELE. FOR BEING OUR REPORTER.

WE ARE WAITING FOR ONE MORE GROUP. OKAY. THAT IS GREAT. ALL RIGHT. SO HOW DID THINGS GO?

GREAT. GREAT.

NOT ENOUGH TIME.

NOT ENOUGH TIME.

NOT ENOUGH TIME.

OKAY. WE WILL TRAY TO PROVIDE MORE TIME NEXT YEAR. HOW IS THAT? OKAY. LET'S SEE. ALL RIGHT. WHAT WE ARE GOING TO DO, NOW, AS WE ARE WELCOMING EVERYBODY BACK, IS TO SORT OF HAVE REPORTS FROM EACH OF YOU, FROM EACH OF YOUR GROUPS, AS TO WHAT IS THE DRUG TESTING POLICY THAT YOU ARE RECOMMEND RECOMMENDING AND THAT YOU FEEL THAT YOUR SCHOOL BOARD SHALL BE DON'TING FOR YOUR SCHOOL DISTRICT? WE ARE GOING TO ASK FOLKS TO COME UP HERE AND PUT UP THE PLAN AND THEN, ALSO, STAND HERE AT THE MICROPHONE BE ANN GIVE US A REPORT AS TO WHAT YOUR PLAN ACTUALLY ENTAILS. DO WE HAVE ANY VOLUNTEERS FROM ANY ONE GROUP THAT WOULD LIKE TO START? THANK YOU VERY MUCH. GREAT, MICHELE. ROBERT, DO YOU WANT TO HELP HER PUT THAT UP THERE? THEY ARE ALREADY DONE. THEY HAVE A STICKY. GO AHEAD. PLEASE.

I WAS A REPORTER FOR A NO DOT GROUP. WE GOT TO STAY HERE, SO I WAS VERY COMFORTABLE. THE BREAKDOWN ON THE VOTES ON OUR PANEL WAS STUDENTS ON ONE SIDE AND TEACHERS ON THE OTHER, BUT IT WAS AN INTERESTING DISCUSSION, NONETHELESS. THE GROUP, IT WAS NOT A CONSENSUS, BUT THE MAJORITY OF THE GROUP VOTED THAT WE WILL TEST ALL STUDENTS RANDOMLY. THAT WE WOULD SEND A LETTER HOME AND IT WOULD BE SIMPLY RANDOM BY I.D. NUMBER. THERE WAS A GREAT DEAL OF DISCUSSION. AS A MATTER OF FACT WE SPENT ALL BUT THE LAST TEN MINUTES TALKING ABOUT THAT. BUT THE IDEA WAS THAT WE WOULDN'T SINGLE OUT ANY INDIVIDUAL GROUP FOR TESTING. WHY WE TEST WOULD BE OBVIOUSLY TO REDUCE THE DRUG USE IN SCHOOLS AS A DETERENT TO STUDENTS RESPECT MAYBE TO KEEP THEM FROM USING DRUGS, TO IMPROVE THEIR CITIZENSHIP AND THEIR RESPECT FOR THE LAW, TO HELP THOSE STUDENTS WHO MAY HAVE A DRUG PROBLEM, HELP IDENTIFY THEM AND GET THEM SOME HELP AND, ALSO, FOR A GENERAL SAFETY ISSUE. WE DECIDED WE WOULD TEST FOR ALL SUBSTANCES THAT ARE LIL LEGAL -- THAT ARE ILLEGAL FOR MINORS, NOT JUST ILLICIT DRUGS BUT ALCOHOL AND TOBACCO, AS WELL, SINCE THOSE UNDER 18, IT IS ILLEGAL FOR THEM TO USE THOSE SUBSTANCES. WE WOULD TEST FOR ALL OF THOSE. WE WOULD WARN THOSE WHO ARE BEING TESTED AHEAD OF TIME THAT THEY SHOULD LET US KNOW, IF THEY ARE USING ANY PRESCRIPTION DRUGS OR ANY DRUGS THAT MAY PROVIDE A FALSE POSITIVE RESULT OR THAT MAY SHOW UP AS SOMETHING OTHER THAN WHAT IT WAS. ONCE WE GET A POSITIVE RESULT FROM THIS DRUG TEST, WE DIDN'T TALK ABOUT WHETHER WE TEST A SECOND TIME, BUT I AM SURE THIS WOULD BE AN ISSUE. IF WE GET A POSITIVE RESULT, WE WOULD PROVIDE A HEARING. THAT HEARING WOULD BE HELD IN FRONT OF THE SCHOOL BOARD, WITH SOME STUDENT REPRESENTATIVES. THE PERSON ACCUSED WOULD BE ENTITLED TO HAVE WITNESSES, AND WE WOULD PROVIDE AN ATTORNEY, AND THAT WAS A VERY CLOSE VOTE. THE BURDEN OF PROOF WOULD BE BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT RATHER THAN BY A PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE OR BY CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE. AGAIN ANOTHER VERY CLOSE VOTE, ALMOST STUDENTS AGAINST TEACHERS, UNFORTUNATELY. THE BURDEN WOULD BE ON THE SCHOOL TO PROVE DRUG USE OR TO PROVE ILLEGAL DRUG USES, AND WE WOULD DISCLOSE THOSE RESULTS ONLY ON A NEED-TO-KNOW BASIS, ONLY FOR THE PARENTS OF THE STUDENT, THE STUDENT AND THE SCHOOL BOARD WHO MADE THE DECISION WOULD KNOW. COACHES WOULD KNOW IF THE STUDENTS CHOSE TO TELL THEM. OTHER STUDENTS WOULD BE TOLD ONLY BY THE STUDENTS OR THE PARENTS.

LET ME ASK YOU WAS THE VOTE ON THE ISSUE OF THE BUD -- THE BURDEN OF PROOF. WHICH WAS WHICH?

THE STUDENTS WANTED BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT. THE TEACHERS WERE LIKELY TO VOTE FOR CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE OR A PREPONDERANCE.

AS FAR AS THE LAWYERS AND ATTORNEYS, A LAWYER OUGHT TO BE PROVIDED? IS THAT THE SAME?

STUDENTS THOUGHT THAT A LAWYER OUGHT TO BE PROVIDED FOR THOSE. EVEN IF THEY COULDN'T AFFORD IT. TEACHERS ARE MORE IN CHRIBD TO -- ARE MORE INCLINED TO MAKE THE STUDENTS PAY FOR THEIR OWN.

ALL RIGHT. OKAY! [APPLAUSE]

ALL RIGHT. WHAT ABOUT THE RED DOT GROUP. WHO DO WE HAVE? OKAY. TOM.

ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I THINK IS THAT WE REALIZE WHAT SCHOOL BOARDS GO TO AND THAT IT IS VERY DIFFICULT TO COME TO A CONSENSUS ON ANYTHING. WE SPENT A MAJORITY OF TIME DECIDING WHO WOULD BE THE ONES THAT WILL BE TESTED. ON THE TOP OF OUR THING UP THERE, WE DID WRITE THAT THE MOST IMPORTANT THING IS MONEY IS NOT AN OPTION. WE WILL GET OUR MONEY, WHEREVER IT COMES FROM. WHAT WE DETERMINED IS THAT PEOPLE REASONABLY SUSPECTED OF DRUG USE IN THE SCHOOL WILL BE TESTED, FROM THE GENERAL STUDENT POPULATION, AS WELL AS ANY OR ALL, EXCUSE ME, AND/OR ALL STUDENTS IN EXTRACURRICULAR ACTIVITIES, AND THOSE TESTS WOULD BE DONE RANDOMLY. WE DECIDED THAT WE WOULD TEST FOR ALL ILLEGAL DRUGS AS DEFINED BY THE STATE, SO THE STATE WOULD BE THE ONE WHO DEFINED WHAT A DRUG IS, NOT US, AND WHATEVER THE RESULTS OF THE TESTS WOULD GO TO A PRINCIPAL AND TO THE PARENTS OF THE STUDENT TESTED. THAT IS ABOUT IT. IN REFERENCE TO OUR -- THANK YOU. IN REFERENCE TO THE ACTUAL PROCEDURE, WHAT WE DECIDED THAT WOULD HAPPEN IS WE WOULD HAVE, LIKE, A THREE-TIER EFFECT OF WHEN SOMEONE IS TESTED POSITIVE FOR DRUGS. THE FIRST THING WOULD BE THE ADMINISTRATE OR AND PARENT AND STUDENT WOULD BE INVOLVED IN MAYBE DECIDING THEY CAN COME TO SOME SORT OF CONCLUSION. MAYBE THEY WILL GO TO SOME TREATMENT, AND IT WOULD STOP AT THAT POINT. IF IT DOESN'T STOP AT THAT POINT, IT CONTINUES, IF THEY ARE TESTED A SECOND TIME. IF THEY ARE UNHAPPY WITH THE RESULTS, IT WOULD, THEN, GO TO A PANEL OF PEERS, TEACHERS AND ADMINISTRATORS, LIKE THE STUDENT COURT OR STUDENT BODY OR SOMETHING ALONG THOSE LINES. AGAIN, AFFORD FOR TREATMENT, IF THEY DECIDE TO. IF THE PROBLEM CONTINUES AFTER THAT POINT, IT WILL THEN GO TO THE SCHOOL BOARD, WITH, I WOULD ASSUME, A RECOMMENDATION FOR EXPULSION. WE DIDN'T GET TO THAT PART OF THE CONVERSATION. WE DID SAY THAT AN ATTORNEY WOULD BE AVAILABLE TO BE USED BUT ONLY AT THE THIRD LEVEL. ONLY WHEN IT GOES TO THE SCHOOL BOARD AT THE FIRST TWO LEVELS, IT IS REALLY NOT NECESSARY FOR AN ATTORNEY TO BE PRESENT. WE, ALSO, DETERMINED THAT AN ATTORNEY, IN REFERENCE TO BEING PAID, WOULD REALLY BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE FAMILY, ITSELF, AS WELL AS THE TREATMENT. ANY TYPE OF TREATMENT, IF THEY DECIDED THAT THEY WANTED TREEPT, THAT WOULD BE THE COST OF THE FAMILY. THE BURDEN OF PROOF LIES IN THE HANDS OF THE ADMINISTRATOR. WE DID NOT DETERMINE, DUE TO TIME, WE DID NOT DETERMINE WHAT EXTENT THEY WOULD HAVE TO PROVE IT TO, AND THE PUNISHMENT OPTIONS WOULD BE, AS I SAID BEFORE, TREATMENT OF THE PARTICULAR THING OR GOING TO THE SCHOOL BOARD, EXPULSION, A VARIETY OF DIFFERENT THINGS, DEPENDING ON WHAT LEVEL SOMETHING HAPPENS. THAT IS ABOUT IT. OKAY.

THANK YOU, TOM. LET ME ASK YOU, YOUR GROUP SEEMED TO INCLUDE ALL ILLEGAL DRUGS, REGARDLESS OF WHAT THEY MAY BE, AS DEFINED BY THE LEGISLATURE, FOUND IN THE STATUTE, WOULD BE SUBJECTED TO THE POLICY. RIGHT? LET THE STATE NOT YOU. AND THEN YOU SORT OF, THIS HIERARCHY AS TO WHERE THE STUDENT WOULD HAVE TO GO. FIRST RIGHT AT THE SCHOOL WITH THE PRINCIPAL FOR THE FIRST OFFENSE. IS THAT WHERE IT WAS?

THE PRINCIPAL, ADMINISTRATOR AND THE PARENTS, JUST SO IT WOULDN'T GET OUT. IT IS NOT GENERAL INFORMATION THAT THIS PARTICULAR STUDENT TESTED POSITIVE FOR DRUGS.

WAS THIS SORT OF LIKE A THREE-JUDGE COURT? IN OTHER WORDS IT WILL BE AN ADMINISTRATOR, A PARENT AND THE STUDENT INVOLVED.

AND THE STUDENT. ALL RIGHT. THEN A PANEL HEARS.

AND THEN A GENERAL PANEL OF TEACHERS, ADMINISTRATORS, ALL WITHIN THE SCHOOL.

AND THEN, FINALLY, TO THE SCHOOL BOARD FOR THE ULTIMATE ISSUE.

COSTS INVOLVED.

ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. MICHELE. [APPLAUSE] WHERE DID MICHELE GO?

SHE IS BACK.

ON THE BACK. I WAS JUST WONDERING, MICHELE, ON YOUR GROUP, ON THE FIRST GROUP, DECIDED REALLY TO TEST EVERYBODY IN THE ENTIRE SCHOOL --

EVERYBODY WAS ELIGIBLE RATHER.

EVERYBODY WAS ELIGIBLE, AND THROUGH THE STUDENT I.D. NUMBER, A NUMBER WOULD COME UP AND THEY WOULD BE TESTED. WHEREAS OVER IN TOM'S GROUP, IT WAS IF THERE WAS A REASONABLE SUSPICION, AND THEN EVERYBODY IN AN EXTRACURRICULAR ACTIVITY, REGARDLESS OF SUSPICION. IS THAT RIGHT?

NOT ALL OF US WERE COMFORTABLE WITH THAT.

OKAY. JUST WANTED TO HIGHLIGHT THAT DIFFERENCE. AN ORANGE GROUP. WAS THERE AN ORANGE DOT?

YES.

OKAY. BOB.

WITH A LACK OF TIME, I THOUGHT WE DID QUITE WELL, AND THAT THE CONSTANT INSISTENCE OF THE HONORABLE JUDGE SHAW, WE KEPT ON TASK FAIRLY WELL. FIRST OF ALL, WE LOOKED AT WHAT GROUP. WE DETERMINED THAT ALL STUDENTS, INCLUDING ALL EMPLOYEES, MEANING TEACHERS, MEANING FOOD HANDLERS, MEANING BUS DRIVERS, MEANING GARAGE WORKERS, WHEREVER THEY ARE EMPLOYED BY THE SCHOOL, THEY SHOULD BE ELIGIBLE FOR TESTING.

NOW, WAS THAT AGREED TO BY EVERYBODY IN THE GROUP?

YES.

WONDERFUL.

YES.

ALL RIGHT. I JUST WANT TO LET THE STUDENTS KNOW THAT VERY PROGRESSIVE, THAT ORANGE GROUP.

A DRUG-FREE SCHOOL.

WE WANT A DRUG-FREE SCHOOL. THAT IS OUR POLICY. AND HOW, YOU ASK? WOULD BE BY A SYSTEM OF RANDOM SAMPLING, PLUS WE WOULD INCLUDE ANY REASONABLE SUSPICION. THAT IS HOW WE WOULD DO. THAT WE DID NOT DETERMINE THE METHOD OF RANDOM SAMPLING. HOWEVER, BECAUSE TIME PRECLUDED ANY EXTRA CONVERSATION RELATIVE TO THAT PARTICULAR POINT. WHAT DRUGS? WE DECIDED THAT WE SHOULD TEST FOR MARIJUANA, COCAINE, ALCOHOL, AND ANY OTHER ILLEGAL DRUGS. ACIDFIED BY LAW. -- AS IDENTIFIED BY LAW. PLEASE, SIR. NUMBER FOUR. WE DETERMINED THAT THERE SHOULD BE ZERO TOLERANCE FOR CERTAIN DRUGS, MAKING SURE THAT THERE ARE ALTERNATIVE PROGRAMS AND VARIOUS ASSISTANCES AVAILABLE TO THOSE WHO ARE TESTED POSITIVE. THE TYPE OF HEARING? WE WOULD SET UP A STANDARD BOARD OF THE ENTIRE COUNTY, REALLY, INCLUDING TEACHERS, PARENTS, ADMINISTRATORS, STUDENTS, AND THEY WOULD BE THE ONES TO LISTEN TO THE PARTICULAR CASE. AND THEY WOULD MAKE A DECISION. ATTORNEY? NO. THEY WERE ADAMANT. STUDENTS WERE ESPECIALLY ADAMANT ABOUT HAVING NO ATTORNEY AVAILABLE, AND THE GROUP DECIDED THAT A STUDENTENT ADVOCATE, CONSISTS -- A STUDENT ADVOCATE, CONSISTING OF A TEACHER OR A VERY RESPONSIBLE ADULT, SHOULD BE PERMITTED TO ATTEND THAT STUDENT. SEVEN WOULD BE THE SAME AS NUMBER FIVE.

HOLD ON, BOB, FOR A SECOND. ON THAT, WHERE THE STUDENT ADD HAVE CAT, WOULD THAT -- ADVOCATE, WOULD THAT BE IN LIEU OF HAVING A LAWYER?

LAWYERS WERE VORBOTEN.

ALL THE WAY.

AT THIS STAGE.

I GUESS WE DON'T HAVE A NEED FOR LAWYERS.

WELL, WE DO, REALLY, IN SOCIETY. THEY, REALLY --

[LAUGH ITTER]

SEVEN.

THERE WE GO.

IT IS THE SAME AS FIVE.

THE SAME AS -- LET ME SEE. THE SAME AS FIVE. I AM TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHAT SEVEN IS. WHO WILL MAKE THE DECISION REGARDING THE APPROPRIATE PUNISHMENT? SAME AS FIVE. WE BELIEVE THAT BOARD THAT WILL CONSISTS OF TEACHERS, PARENTS, ADMINISTRATORS AND STUDENTS FROM THE DISTRICT OR THE ENTIRE COUNTY SHOULD MAKE THAT DECISION.

SO THAT WOULD BE IN LIEU OF THE SCHOOL.

THE PUNISHMENT.

THAT IS IN LIEU OF THE SCHOOL BOARD. TELL ME ABOUT THAT BOARD.

THAT WAS ABOARD THAT WAS SUGGESTED, TOO, BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY THE SCHOOL BOARD HAS MANY OTHER THING THAT IS THEY HAVE GOT TO DEAL WITH, SO WE BASICALLY SET UP THIS AS A PUNITIVE REVIEW BOARD, TO LOOK AT WHAT DO WE DO? SHOULD WE DO ANYTHING AND THEN WHAT DO WE DO, IF SOMETHING SHOULD BE DONE, OTHER THAN ALTERNATIVE REHABILITATIVE PROGRAMS.

AND THEN REPRESENTATIONS FROM THE ADMINISTRATION, FROM PARENTS AND FROM STUDENTS ALIKE.

FROM THE SCHOOL DISTRICT-WIDE, NOT JUST FROM THE SCHOOL. WE FELT THAT A STANDARD BOARD WOULD PREVENT ONE SCHOOL FROM BEING MORE LENIENT THAN ANOTHER ANOTHER.

-- ANOTHER.

AND NUMBER EIGHT, THERE, BOB?

NUMBER EIGHT, THE BURDEN OF PROOF WOULD REST UPON THE SCHOOL ADMINISTRATION, AND THE STANDARDS OF PROOF WOULD BE THE PREPONDERANCE OF EVIDENCE.

OKAY.

THANK YOU.

ALL RIGHT. [APPLAUSE]

TERRIFIC. LET'S SEE. HOW ABOUT THE GREEN DOT GROUP? WHO IS GOING TO BE THE REPORTER FOR THE GREEN DOT GROUP? ALL RIGHT.

IT'S ME.

HERE WE ARE. COME ON, DON A -- DONNA.

OKAY. FIRST THING WE TALKED ABOUT WAS THAT WE DECIDED THAT WE WERE GOING TO HAVE A REFERRAL PROCESS FOR OUR STUDENTS, AND WE LISTED SEVERAL THINGS THAT WERE SORT OF LIKE BULLETS. THAT WOULD BE THINGS THAT WE WOULD CONSIDER IN DECIDING TO REFER THAT STUDENT. THOSERIES -- THOSE LISTED WOULD BE CHANGES IN BEHAVIOR, ACTUALLY FINDING DRUGS ON THE STUDENT, WHICH IS WHAT YOU SAW ON THE VIDEO. DECREASED GRADES OR PERFORMANCE. LONG-TERM CHANGES IN APPEARANCE AND ABSENTEEISM, AND THEN AFTER YOU HAVE HAD THAT, QUOTE, REASONABLE SUSPICION, THEN YOU WOULD NOTIFY THE PARENTS BY EITHER PHONE CALL, AND THEN, ALSO, REQUEST A CONFERENCE, AND WE DECIDED THAT WE WOULD INCLUDE ALL STUDENTS, AND IT WOULDN'T BE BASED ON RACE, GENDER, ETHNICITY OR ANY OF THOSE THINGS, BECAUSE WE FELT THAT ALL STUDENTS, IF YOU WERE A PART OF THAT SCHOOL, THEN YOU SHOULD BE SUBJECT TO THE POLICIES THAT WE HAVE SET. WHAT DRUGS WOULD BE COVERED IN THIS POLICY? WE MAINLY STATED THAT ALL ILLEGAL SUBSTANCES, INCLUDING MARIJUANA, ALCOHOL, COCAINE, AMPHETAMINES, AND STEROIDS, AND WHAT WE, ALSO, TALKED ABOUT WAS TOBACCO PRODUCTS AND MOST OF THE STUDENTS THAT WERE IN OUR GROUP FELT LIKE THOSE SHOULD NOT BE INCLUDED. I THINK THAT JUDGE -- JUSTICE ANSTEAD AND I FELT LIKE THEY SHOULD, BUT SOME OF THE STUDENTS RAISED THE ISSUE OF THE AGE, YOU KNOW, SOME SENIORS ARE 18 YEARS OLD, SO THEREFORE TOBACCO IS NOT AN ILLEGAL SUBSTANCE OR NOT AGAINST THE LAW FOR THOSE TO BE USING THAT. IT MIGHT BE AGAINST THE SCHOOL BOARD POLICY OR SCHOOL RULES THERE, AT THEIR SCHOOL, SO THAT WAS THE GENERAL CONSENSUS THAT WE NOT INCLUDE THAT IN OUR POLICY. I WANTED TO BRING THAT OUT, BECAUSE I THOUGHT THAT WAS A NEAT IDEA OR NEAT THAT THEY BROUGHT OUT SOME GREAT POINTS ABOUT IT. NEXT WOULD BE THE DISCIPLINARY PROCESS. OF COURSE THEY WOULD SUBMIT TO A DRUG TEST, AND THEN DEPENDING ON THE RESULTS OF THE TEST, IF IT WAS POSITIVE, THERE WOULD BE A CONFERENCE, AND THE PEOPLE THAT WE THOUGHT WE WANTED TO INCLUDE IN THAT CONFERENCE WOULD BE, OF COURSE, THE STUDENT, THEIR PARENTS, IF THEY COULD COME TO THE CONFERENCE, POSSIBLY A GUIDANCE COUNSELOR OR THE PRINCIPAL, AND THEN WHAT WE WANTED TO DO WAS TO START AN INTERVENTION PROGRAM TYPE OF THING, INSTEAD OF AUTOMATICALLY PUNISHING THAT STUDENT FOR THEIR FIRST OFFENSE, WE WANTED TO FIND A WAY TO HELP THEM WITH THEIR PROBLEM, INSTEAD OF HAVING AUTOMATIC PUNISHMENT. IF THERE WAS A SECOND OFFENSE AND THEIR DRUG TEST WAS POSITIVE, THEN IT WOULD GO TO A HEARING BEFORE THE SCHOOL BOARD, AND DUE TO THE LACK OF TIME, THAT WAS ABOUT AS FAR AS WE GOT. WE REALLY DIDN'T DECIDE ON IF THEY WOULD RECEIVE COUNSEL OR THE OTHER ITEMS IN THE PROCEDURAL RIGHTS, BUT I DO WANT TO SAY THAT I HAD A REALLY GOOD GROUP, AND JUDGE CLARK, YOU DID A GREAT JOB KEEPING US ON TASK.

OKAY. THANK YOU, DONNA. OKAY. [APPLAUSE] OKAY. WHO IS GOING TO BE A REPORTER FOR THE YELLOW DOT GROUP? ALL RIGHT. PAT. THANK YOU.

ALL RIGHT. WE TALKED ABOUT SEVERAL THINGS, AND WE HAD A LOT OF ATHLETES IN OUR GROUP, SO WE GAVE THEM THE OPPORTUNITY TO DISCUSS THIS ISSUE, ALSO, TO TELL US HOW THEY FELT ABOUT IT. SO QUESTION NUMBER ONE STATED WHAT GROUP WILL BE ELIGIBLE FOR TESTING? WE SAID TO TEST ANY STUDENTS IN POSSESSION OF USING ILLEGAL DRUGS, SELLING DRUGS, PURCHASING DRUGS OR ATTEMPTING ANY OF THE ABOVE. QUESTION NUMBER TWO.

PAT. LET ME ASK YOU THIS. DID ANYBODY DISCUSS, IN THE GROUP, HOW ONE WOULD DETERMINE IF SOMEONE WAS ACTUALLY IN POSSESSION?

WE TALKED ABOUT IT. THERE WAS AN EXCHANGE. STUDENTS WERE ATTEMPTING TO HANDLE THE MONEY, IN ORDER TO GET DRUGS.

WAS THERE ANY DISCUSSION ABOUT PATTING DOWN STUDENTS IN ORDER TO DETERMINE IF THEY HAD SOMETHING IN THEIR POSSESSION?

NO, WE DIDN'T.

OKAY. ALL RIGHT. GO AHEAD.

NUMBER TWO, HOW WILL STUDENTS IN THE TEST GROUP BE CHOSEN FOR TEST SOMETHING WE SAID ANYONE WHO MEETS THE CRITERIA OF NUMBER ONE. ELIGIBLE FOR TESTING. NUMBER THREE, WHAT DRUGS WOULD BE INCLUDED IN THE TESTING? WE SAID ANYONE WHO VIOLATES THE STATUTE 893, INCLUDING ALCOHOL.

ANY DISCUSSION ABOUT TOBACCO PRODUCTS IN YOUR GROUP?

WE DID BUT WE SAID WE DIDN'T WANT TO TOUCH THAT. WE WILL JUST DEAL WITH ALCOHOL AND DRUGS. THAT IS ANOTHER ISSUE.

ALL RIGHT.

OKAY. ANY OTHER CONSIDERATIONS? WE SAID THE STUDENTS WILL BE ENTITLED TO A HEARING BEFORE THE PRINCIPAL, THE PARENTS, AND OTHER PEERS. WHAT TYPES OF HEARING, IF ANY, IS A STUDENT ENTITLED TO, WHEN HE OR SHE TESTS POSITIVE FOR DRUGS? WE SAID THE MAJORITY OF THE BOARD, THE MAJORITY OF THE BOARD ON THE HEARING COMMITTEE WILL MAKE THE DECISION AS TO WHAT ACTION TO TAKE. AND OUR ANSWER TO THE NEXT ONE, IS A STUDENT ENTITLED TO A HEARING, IF HE OR SHE IS ENTITLED TO A HEARING ON IT, TO AN ATTORNEY? WE SAID, NO, NOT AT THIS POINT. NOT AT THIS LEVEL, WE WOULD NOT NEED AN ATTORNEY AT THIS LEVEL.

OKAY.

AND IT SAYS WHO WILL MAKE THE DECISIONS REGARDING THE APPROPRIATE PUNISHMENT? WE SAID THE GREATER WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE.

WAS THERE ANY DISCUSSION AS TO WHAT THAT ACTUALLY MEANS, THE GREATER WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE?

NO. BECAUSE WE RAN OUT OF TIME.

OKAY. ANYBODY FAMILIAR WITH THAT TERM "GREATER WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE", VERSUS "BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT", BECAUSE SOME OF US HAVE TALKED ABOUT, PARTICULARLY FROM THE STUDENTS' POINT OF VIEW, YOU WOULD LIKE IT TO BE THE PRINCIPAL PROVING THE CHARGES AGAINST YOU BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT, BUT IF THE PRINCIPAL WHAT IS TO PROVE SOMETHING BY THE GREATER WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE, WHAT DO YOU THINK THAT MEANS? IT MEANS LESS THAN BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT. RIGHT? IT MEANS, LIKE FOR YOU ATHLETES, IF YOU CROSSED THE 50 BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT LINE, THAT IS ENOUGH. YOU HAVE MADE A TOUCHDOWN, AS FAR AS THE PRINCIPAL IS CONCERNED. OKAY. RIGHT. THANK YOU. [APPLAUSE] OKAY. THE BLACK DOT. WHO DO WE HAVE? WONDERFUL. WE HAVE GOT A TEAM. TERRIFIC. OKAY. GLENN.

JUDGE, THIS IS ERIN KELLER. OUR GROUP TOOK THE DRUG POLICY FROM A STUDENTS' POINT OF VIEW, SO WE THOUGHT IT WOULD BE GOOD TO HAVE A STUDENT COME UP AND TELL US WHAT WE ARE TALKING B WE ARE CONCERNED ABOUT GRADES 7-12.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

WE DECIDED THAT IT SHOULD BE A RANDOM TESTING OF THE ENTIRE STUDENT BODY, NOT JUST ATHLETES OR PEOPLE INVOLVED IN THE EXTRACURRICULAR ACTIVITIES, BECAUSE MOST ARE KIND OF, I DON'T KNOW, MY FEELING ABOUT IT, AND I THINK THE GROUP'S FEELING WAS THAT ATHLETES AND PEOPLE INVOLVED IN EXTRACURRICULAR ACTIVITIES ARE NOT AS LIKELY BUT THERE IS LESS OF A CHANCE THAT THEY WILL BE INVOLVED IN DRUGS. THAT IS JUST WHAT WE THOUGHTMENT AND -- THOUGHT. AND WE THOUGHT TO TEST FOR ALCOHOL, MARIJUANA, STEROIDS, ACID, AND INHALANTS, BECAUSE EVEN THOUGH THEY ARE NOT CONSIDERED ILLEGAL, IF THEY ARE NOT CONSIDERED ILLEGAL, IF THEY ARE ABUSED, THEN THEY ARE -- THEN IT IS A MIND ALTERING DRUG, ALSO. AND THEN THE WAY THE RANDOM TESTING WOULD BE DONE WAS THE STUDENTS WOULD BE CHOSEN RANDOMLY BY THE COMPUTER, BASED ON THEIR I.D. NUMBER, SO IT IS JUST 10% OF THE STUDENT BODY WOULD BE TESTED, IF THEIR STUDENT I.D. NUMBER ENDED IN EIGHT, OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT, AND IT WOULD AND RANDOM SCHEDULE OF TESTING, NOT LIKE BIWEEKLY, BECAUSE THEN STUDENTS WOULD KNOW WHEN THE DRUG TESTS WERE AND MAKE SURE THAT THEY COULD PASS, AND WE DIDN'T GET A WHOLE LOT PAST THAT, BUT WE SAID THAT, IF THEY WERE -- IF THEY TESTED POSITIVE FOR THE DRUGS, THEN A HEARING WOULD BE -- THE HEARING WOULD BE BASED TO OVERCOME THE PRESUMPTION BY A DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEE, A BE TO OVERCOME THE PRESUMPTION WOULD GIVE THE STUDENT A CHANCE TO SAY, HEY, THERE IS CODEINE IN MY COUGH SYRUP. I NEED TO, AND I HAVE THIS PROOF TO SHOW THAT, AND THEN THE DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEE WOULD BE STUDENTS, TEACHERS, ADMINISTRATORS.

AND YOUR NAME AND FROM WHAT SCHOOL?

I AM SARAH KELLER FROM LEON HIGH SCHOOL.

THAT'S IT. THANK YOU. [APPLAUSE]

THE STUDENTS' GOAL WAS REMEDIAL, TO REFER PEOPLE TO EDUCATION OR COUNSELING, AND SECOND OF ALL WE TALKED ABOUT THE BURDEN OF PROOF. YOU TALK ABOUT THE BURDEN SHIFTING SITUATION, WHERE YOU HAVE A HOT TEST, THEN IT WOULD BE UP TO THE STUDENT TO EXPLAIN IT OR GO TO COUNSEL.

WE UNDERSTAND. THAT IS THE FIRST WE HAVE HEARD OF THIS BURDEN SHIFTING, SO ONCE THE TEST WOULD BE GIVEN, THERE WOULD BE A PRESUMPTION THAT THE TEST WAS CORRECT AND THAT YOU WERE INVOLVED IN ILLEGAL DRUGS AND IT WOULD BE UP TO THE STUDENT, THEN, TO COME FORWARD AND PROVE THAT, INDEED, THERE WAS A REASON OR SOME EXCUSE OR THEY ARE NOT TAKING THE ILLEGAL DRUG. OKAY. ANYBODY ELSE HAVE THAT POLICY IN THEIR GROUP? THIS ONE. OKAY. AND FINALLY THE BLUE DOT GROUP.

WE HAD A VERY LIVELY DISCUSSION IN OUR GROUP. I CAN'T PRETEND THAT WE ALL AGREED. IT WAS REALLY A NICE GROUP, WITH A DIVERSITY OF OPINIONS, BUT WE DID REACH SOMETHING OF A CONSENSUS. WE DECIDED THAT THE BEST POSITION WOULD BE RANDOM TESTING OF THE ENTIRE STUDENT POPULATION, BASED ON REASONABLE CAUSE. IT WOULDN'T BE DONE PIE I.D. NUMBERS BUT SIMPLY -- BY I.D. NUMBERS BUT SIMPLY IF THERE WAS A REASON TO TEST THEM, EVERYBODY WOULD BE AVAILABLE FOR THAT TESTING, IF THERE WAS A REASONABLE SUSPICION. WHO WOULD BE TESTED? IT WOULD BE LEFT UP, PRETTY MUCH, BY REFERRAL FROM THE TEACHERS. WE HAVE A REFERRAL SYSTEM. IF THE TEACHER HAD NOTICED, ON AN ONGOING BASIS, THIS WOULDN'T BE JUST A FIRST TIME OFFENSE. STRANGE BEHAVIOR IN THE CLASS. SKIPPING CLASS. RED EYES. ANY TYPE OF CONTINUOUS BEHAVIOR MORE THAN ONCE OR TWICE LEFT UP TO THE TEACHERS' DISCRETION. SHE WOULD WRITE A REFERRAL, BASED ON THE TOTALITY OF CIRCUMSTANCES. AND THAT WOULD BE AVAILABLE FOR ALL STUDENTS. THE DRUGS WOULD BE ALL DRUGS. EXCLUDING TOBACCO BUT INCLUDING ALCOHOL. WE FIGURE WITH TOBACCO, YOU DON'T NEED TO TEST. YOU CAN SMELL IT ANYWAY, SO IT WAS NOT EVEN CONSIDERED. THE PROCEDURAL RIGHTS WOULD BE A HEARING BEFORE THE AREA OFFICER, THE REGION OFFICE, AND THIS WAS FOR PRIVACY. WE DIDN'T O'CLOCK THAT IT WAS APPROPRIATE TO HAVE -- WE DIDN'T THINK IT WAS APPROPRIATE TO HAVE AN IN-SCHOOL PARENT OR TEACHER TYPE OF COMMITTEE. IT WOULD BE KEPT QUIETER THAN THAT, AND IT WOULD BE A HEARING AT THE AREA OR REGION OFFICE, WITH APPEAL TO THE SCHOOL BOARD, AND SINCE IT IS NOT A CRIMINAL HEARING, WE DIDN'T FEEL THAT IT WOULD BE NECESSARY TO HAVE AN ATTORNEY, BUT ANY STUDENT THAT WISHED TO COULD CERTAINLY BRING THEIR OWN ATTORNEY, BUT NO ATTORNEY WOULD BE PROVIDED. AND THE FINAL DECISION WOULD BE THE SCHOOL BOARD, REGARDING APPROPRIATE PUNISHMENT. WE DIDN'T, REALLY, DISCUSS WHAT THAT PUNISHMENT WOULD BE, SINCE THAT REALLY WASN'T INCLUDED IN THE SCOPE OF THIS EXERCISE. AND THE ADMINISTRATION HAS THE BURDEN OF PROOF. WHEN WE DID DISCUSS, SHOULD THAT BE BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT OR WHAT WOULD BE THE STANDARD, AND WE DECIDED THAT IT WAS CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE, WHICH WAS KIND OF THE MIDDLE GROUND.

ALL RIGHT. GREAT OF THE THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. THERE WE ARE. [APPLAUSE]

WELL, WE HOPE THAT YOU ENJOYED THE DAY, AT LEAST THIS MORNING, AND THAT WE, ALSO, HOPE THAT YOU HAVE ENJOYED DISCUSSING AND THINKING ABOUT THE FOURTH AMENDMENT, WITH ITS SEARCH AND SEIZURE PROVISIONS, THE FIFTH AMENDMENT, WITH PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS, YOUR RIGHTS OF PRIVACY, AS STANDARDENTS, AND WHAT CAN AND -- AS STUDENTS AND WHAT CAN AND CANNOT BE DONE IN A SCHOOL SETTING, AND FOR THOSE OF YOU THAT WOULD LIKE TO REVISIT THIS TOWN HALL MEETING AND PERHAPS SEE YOURSELVES OR LISTEN TO YOURSELVES OR PERHAPS LOOK AT THESE ISSUES AGAIN, WE HAVE THE SUPREME COURT HOMEPAGE, AND IF YOU ACCESS THAT, AND YOU SHOULD, HOPEFULLY, HAVE SOMETHING THERE WITH YOU, AND HOPEFULLY IT IS ON A SDWRINKS AS WELL, WHICH GIVES OUR ADDRESS, AND JUST CLICK ON TO EDUCATION, CLICK ON TO THE JTI, WHICH IS THE JUSTICE TEACHING INSTITUTE, AND HIT TOWN HALL MEETING, AND THERE IT WILL BE, ONCE AGAIN, IN THE FUTURE. WE HOPE IT HAS BEEN EDUCATIONAL. WE HOPE IT HAS BEEN INFORMATIVE. WE THANK YOU FOR JOINING US. HAVE A GREAT DAY AND THANK YOU ALL, AS WELL. [APPLAUSE]