A recent state appellate court decision, "Commonwealth of Pennsylvania versus Cass," suggests that careless or misguided handling of drug searches (especially random drug-sniffing searches) will not hold up in court. Unless advance warnings are provided, administrators should conduct only narrowly focused searches that satisfy…

Public employee status in relation to office privacy has not been clarified by the recent Supreme Court decision in "O'Conner v. Ortega." The 1986 Handicapped Children's Protection Act's provision allowing courts to award attorney fees to parents who win cases on administrative rights is ambiguous. The implications for schools are…

Reviews court cases related to search of students and extracts guiding principles administrators can use to reconcile the students' legitimate privacy interests with the educational necessities of the school. (JM)

Regarding school searches, courts have provided guidelines balancing individual students' rights against the larger school community's rights. Administrators are bound by the Fourth Amendment, which stresses reasonable grounds of suspicion and related circumstances. Strip searches, metal detectors, hidden cameras, and locker searches may meet…

Courts generally rule against drug testing of public employees. A urine sample represents "unreasonable search" under the Fourth Amendment. Testing unreliability was illustrated in "Jones v. McKenzie." Factual, "reasonable suspicion" must exist for judicial approval. Tests do not resolve employee drug abuse;…