Wayne Acton and Judy Acton, Guardians Ad Litem for James Acton v. Vernonia School District 47j

Good Law
23 F.3d 1514·94 Daily Journal DAR 6121·1994 WL 164666·1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 9882·94 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 3210
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitMay 5, 199492-35520California18,492 words

Opinion

lead Opinion

Fernandez, J.

Wayne and Judy Acton, guardians ad litem for James Acton, appeal the district court’s judgment at trial that the Vernonia School District’s mandatory random drug testing policy for participants in interscholastic athletics (“the Policy”) does not violate James’s right to be free from unreasonable searches, under either Article I, Section 9 of the Oregon Constitution or the Fourth Amendment. We reverse.

BACKGROUND

The District runs two schools, Washington Grade School and Vernonia High School. Several teachers in the District testified that prior to 1985 drugs and alcohol were used by only a small group of students and that there were very few discipline problems in the schools. Between 1985 and 1989, however, teachers and administrators began to perceive a marked increase in disciplinary problems, student drug use, and the glorification of drug culture. Athletic coaches noticed an increase in the number and severity of injuries, which they attributed to greater drug use. They testified to a number of incidents where students had, or were suspected to have, used drugs. They personally saw some of the problems, but were told of others. Some of the involved students were athletes…

concurrence Opinion

Reinhardt, J.

concurring:

Although I am in complete agreement with the reasoning and the result in Judge Fernandez’s opinion for the court, I write separately to emphasize that while our opinion holds expressly that Vernonia School District’s drug testing policy is violative of Article I, Section 9 of the Oregon Constitution, it also necessarily holds that the policy violates the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Indeed, the opinion cannot be read otherwise: there is no way to “avoid” a federal constitutional holding in this case, because Article I, Section 9 and the Fourth Amendment are textually identical and are interpreted “eoextensively.” Moreover, our decision is based almost exclusively on the application of federal law. Under the circumstances, our holding cannot be confined to one of Oregon law.

Generally, federal courts will avoid federal constitutional issues when the alternative ground of decision is one of state statutory or constitutional law. Hewitt v. Joyner, 940 F.2d 1561, 1565 (9th Cir.1991) (state “no [religious] preference” clause, rather than dissimilar religion clauses of First Amendment, held proper ground for decision). Where, however, a question…

Opinion

23 F.3d 1514 62 USLW 2714 , 91 Ed. Law Rep. 495 Wayne ACTON and Judy Acton, guardians ad litem for James Acton, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. VERNONIA SCHOOL DISTRICT 47J, Defendant-Appellee. No. 92-35520. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted Nov. 3, 1993. Decided May 5, 1994. Thomas M. Christ, ACLU Found. of Oregon, Inc., Portland, OR, for plaintiffs-appellants. Timothy R. Volpert, Chris L. Mullman, Tremaine, A. Gregory Powell, Davis Wright Tremaine, Portland, OR, for defendant-appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Oregon. Before: REINHARDT, BRUNETTI, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges. FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judge: 1 Wayne and Judy Acton, guardians ad litem for James Acton, appeal the district court's judgment at trial that the Vernonia School District's mandatory random drug testing policy for participants in interscholastic athletics ("the Policy") does not violate James's right to be free from unreasonable searches, under either Article I, Section 9 of the Oregon Constitution or the Fourth Amendment. We reverse. BACKGROUND 2 The District runs two schools, Washington Grade School and Vernonia High School. Several teachers…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.