Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Vernonia School District 47J v. Acton, 515 U.S. 646 (1995), was a U.S. Supreme Court decision which upheld the constitutionality of random drug testing regimen implemented by the local public schools in Vernonia, Oregon. Under that regimen, student-athletes were required to submit to random drug testing before being allowed to participate in ...
Board of Education v. Earls, 536 U.S. 822 (2002), was a case by the Supreme Court of the United States in which the Court held, 5–4, that it does not violate the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution for public schools to conduct mandatory drug testing on students participating in extracurricular activities.
Drug testing of welfare recipients has been proposed but not implemented in Canada, the UK, [2] and Australia. [3] In New Zealand, recipients of some payments may be required to take a drug test if this is a requirement of a potential employer or trainer. [2]
Travis C. Williams, 39, Kokomo, is now facing a misdemeanor charge of invasion of privacy for his alleged role in the investigation, according to a KPD media release. The release didn't indicate ...
Expectation of privacy must be reasonable, in the sense that society in general would recognize it as such; To meet the first part of the test, the person from whom the information was obtained must demonstrate that they, in fact, had an actual, subjective expectation that the evidence obtained would not be available to the public. In other ...
Whalen v. Roe, 429 U.S. 589 (1977), was a case brought before the Supreme Court of the United States. [1] The case involved a New York state prescription monitoring law requiring reporting and storing of information concerning all Schedule II drug prescriptions.
Crow, 45, of Washington, Pennsylvania, was charged with 39 counts of misdemeanor criminal invasion of privacy, Police Chief Charlie Kush said in a news release.
DNA testing is not analogous to fingerprinting but an invasion of privacy that citizens have the "right to secure their persons, houses, papers, and effects." There cannot be exceptions for searches of parolees or a special needs exception, which does not require a warrant, because those arrested maintain reasonable expectations of privacy ...