Moule v. Paradise Valley Unified Sch. Dist. No. 69
| Decision Date | 09 September 1994 |
| Docket Number | No. CIV 93-2190 PHX PGR.,CIV 93-2190 PHX PGR. |
| Citation | 863 F. Supp. 1098 |
| Parties | Adam J. MOULÉ, a minor, By and Through his parents, James A. MOULÉ and Kathleen A. Moulé, husband and wife, Plaintiff, v. PARADISE VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 69, a political subdivision of the State of Arizona, and Paradise Valley Unified School District No. 69 Governing Board, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Arizona |
Daniel D. Maynard, Michael Dean Curran, Phoenix, AZ, for plaintiff.
Gary L. Lassen, Robert D. Haws, Phoenix, AZ, for defendants.
At the time of the filing of the Complaint in this action, Adam J. Moulé ("Adam") attended Horizon High School,1 a high school within the Paradise Valley School District (the "School District") in Arizona. Since Adam is a minor, the action was brought by Plaintiff through his parents, James A. Moulé and Kathleen A. Moulé.
Adam is challenging the School District's random drug testing program. He seeks a declaration that the program and the procedures implemented thereunder violate his rights under the United States Constitution and the Constitution of the State of Arizona, and asks the Court to enjoin further implementation, administration or execution of the program.
The Court set Plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction for hearing in February 1994. At the parties' request, they were allowed to conduct a trial on the merits and thereafter submit post-hearing memoranda and proposed findings and conclusions. Subsequent to the trial, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued an opinion directly bearing upon the issues before this Court. The Ninth Circuit having denied rehearing on the case before it, this Court is free to address those issues.
In the 1980s, officials of the School District and members of the District's governing board ("Governing Board") became concerned about perceived drug use among students in schools within the School District.2 In response, they implemented a "self-esteem" program to help students to "say no to drugs." (Deposition and Trial Testimony of Vicki L. Canen.) Although the program did not include drug testing,.... it appeared quite effective by the end of the 1980s. (Trial Testimony of Vicki Canen.)
School officials nevertheless became further concerned about drug usage within the School District. This concern was aroused by various athletic coaches' perception of increased steroid use among students.3 In the fall of 1989, the School District began gathering data and input from parents, student athletes, coaches and community members addressing the need for, and implementation of, a program for random drug testing of student athletes. (Joint Stipulated Statement of Facts, filed February 25, 1994, pp. 2-3.) The District and its Governing Board engaged in a lengthy analysis.
School District officials and Governing Board members were not aware of any injuries received by athletes as a result of drug or alcohol use, and were not aware of any evidence that athletes were more likely than other students to use such substances. (Testimony of John A. Stollar, Jr.; Testimony of Vicki Canen.) Nevertheless, in 1990 the Governing Board voted unanimously to adopt a program for the random testing of student athletes. (Id.)
In 1991, the School District began its random drug testing program. Under that program, students desiring to participate in interscholastic sports within the School District must meet academic, eligibility, age, residency and health requirements set by the Arizona Interscholastic Association and the School District; attend an orientation with their parents; sign a consent form; and submit to random testing involving the obtaining and testing of urine samples. (Stipulated Facts, p. 4.) Interscholastic sports are extracurricular programs at the School District; participation is voluntary and student athletes do not receive academic credit for participating. Students refusing to submit to random drug testing are not allowed to participate in interscholastic sports. Other students within the School District are not subjected to random testing. (Id.)
Student athletes are chosen for individual testing at random. If chosen, the athlete is escorted from class by a security guard and conducted to a bathroom within an office. He or she provides a urine sample in private, without direct observation. Various steps are taken to ensure the sample's integrity, to protect the chain of possession, and to protect the identity of the athlete, before and after the sample is turned over to a laboratory for drug testing by urinalysis. (Stip. Facts, pp. 4-5.) The tests screen for the presence or absence of alcohol, amphetamines, barbiturates, benzodiazepines, cocaine, methadone, methaqualone, opiates, phencyclidine, propoxyphene, cannabinoids, and anabolic steroids. (Stip. Facts, p. 6.) Drug screenings using confirmatory tests are approximately 99.9% reliable. (Id. at p. 5.)
If a test is positive, the student athlete and the athlete's parents are informed. An athlete who believes the result is a false positive may have the sample retested or may provide a sufficient explanation for the result. (Stip. Facts, p. 5.) A "true positive" will result in temporary athletic ineligibility, which may be reduced by attending counseling. No further disciplinary action is taken. (Id. at 5-6.) From inception of the random drug testing program to December 1, 1993, no more than three student athletes have tested positive; those students tested positive for cannabinoids. Although one student voluntarily sought help for steroid use, the tests have not resulted in any positives for steroids. (Stip. Facts, pp. 7.)
Adam Moulé has been tested twice and has received negative results both times. He is an exemplary student; in addition to being an avid participant in sports activities, he participates in band and several clubs, is a member of the National Honor Society, and has a class ranking of 19 out of 631. (Testimony of Adam Moulé; Testimony of John Stollar.)
Adam Moulé and James Moulé concede that they attended the drug testing orientation and signed consent forms on at least two occasions. (Testimony of James Moulé.) Moreover, Adam Moulé voluntarily participated on the Horizon High School cross country team in August through November of 1991, 1992 and 1993, and participated on the Horizon track team in January through May of 1992 and 1993. (Stip. Facts, pp. 1-2.) James Moulé testified, however, that he did not sign the forms voluntarily; sports are very important to his son, and he felt it was not proper to deprive Adam of his right to participate. (Testimony of James Moulé.) Mr. Moulé voiced his objections by speaking with school officials, indicating on the consent form that he was being forced to sign and did so under protest, and by seeking counsel to challenge the constitutionality of the School District policy. (Id.)
Adam Moulé submits that the School District's random drug testing program and the procedures used to administer the program constitute an unreasonable search and an illegal invasion of his privacy, in violation of his constitutional rights under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article 2, Section 8 of the Arizona Constitution.
Defendants Paradise Valley School District No. 69 and the Paradise Valley School District No. 69 Governing Board are organized and existing under Arizona law and are governmental entities. (Stip. Facts, p. 2.) This Court has jurisdiction over Plaintiff's Fourth Amendment claim. 28 U.S.C. § 1331; 42 U.S.C. § 1983; Acton v. Vernonia School Dist. 47J, 23 F.3d 1514, 1517 (9th Cir.1994), reh'g. denied (July 8, 1994). It has supplemental jurisdiction over the Arizona constitutional cause of action. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a); Acton, 23 F.3d at 1517.
Plaintiff alleges that Defendants violated both federal and state constitutional provisions. This action bears unmistakable similarities to a recent Ninth Circuit case, Acton v. Vernonia School Dist. 47J, 23 F.3d 1514 (9th Cir.1994), reh'g. denied (1994). In that case, an Oregon high school student athlete's parents challenged, on the student's behalf, the constitutionality of a school district's imposition of random drug testing of student athletes. The Court will largely employ the analytic process set forth in Acton.
In lawsuits asserting violations of federal and state constitutions, a federal court must determine whether the state and federal constitutional provisions are "coextensive." If they are, the court may address the federal constitutional claims, as resolution of those claims necessarily will decide the state constitutional claims. Acton, 23 F.3d at 1518 (citation omitted). If the state and federal provisions are not coextensive, however, and the state constitution affords more protection than the federal constitution, the court decides validity under the state constitution "in order to avoid addressing federal constitutional claims unnecessarily." Id. at at 1518 (citation omitted).
The Arizona Constitution, in Article 2, Section 8, provides:
No person shall be disturbed in his private affairs, or his home invaded, without authority of law.
The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article 2, § 8 of the Arizona Constitution prohibit unreasonable search and seizure by government authorities. State v. Ault, 150 Ariz. 459, 724 P.2d 545, 549 (1986). In fact, Arizona's privacy provision is broader than the Fourth Amendment. Id.4 This Court must first attempt to decide the validity of the School District's drug testing program under Arizona's Constitution. That is not an easy task, as Arizona courts have never decided a random drug testing case. Where state law is silent, the court may refer to federal Fourth Amendment law for...
To continue reading
Request your trial