JFIFC    $ &%# #"(-90(*6+"#2D26;=@@@&0FKE>J9?@=C  =)#)==================================================" }!1AQa"q2#BR$3br %&'()*456789:CDEFGHIJSTUVWXYZcdefghijstuvwxyz w!1AQaq"2B #3Rbr $4%&'()*56789:CDEFGHIJSTUVWXYZcdefghijstuvwxyz ? `c?ȧ {Tէ@4h4M!֐Q^]cg-]ƀ&%@ ܚj0a9OyLuTtgU'C۪BS"Os!CCա"\n#_8IܑJBG0 R dz΀)i3hsE&yQLE/1 zՙ'DFbxOwzٴhY7n4֬luN%-I)ݏAYhď5w?ưaSyfmP606c#X5k"{xr})uhgş&UI@Iꆝ9;IRA5TX  \N"WXk_~=Z DhanCz{VܛFKѪ+H7hGdRb.-UF*t9E0HMh?CL!j )3s@u ҃Lɨ3ķ/mO5w9YMuҭg:"*b$/$(n$eI$t5̬tRI5b=kCt"]81鮷/ͧ&?[\./X7Ux DZAhn$j/ao%N#h{U# I r8h鹍t>Eׇdx! ; ?sEbm5 <>`cj{ 䗱y [:e,?S?q: jbo'yo{W+dvYNn2 No/U59II@zR=:HO?!4 E34PT:ݔq'QV\X_j1dRlxkk0E"2&BvA4[;]TQAYũo_%Y*Z1TTc(G7@N tCl{pj]#ә#tC$m:aZPGU٘lRU4߷XArg8j1 P!xz(EpcA#FhikI uI W5 -l[rz,㌜uG/LWt 'qU p0:ˡ˸sNƫu(RvϡVcxw׶"y gMDŏo :M$}}$,py*}W??i*kh!^HO~\5 B7 }3]T6[/71OSNɃz#jkmw`}W{u< y98sWXXD/2GeRW.}"YnELq6{`KcHŕi9ް | F3s=tl51^ ЏeM8+T\ x5V~W%O?vK";:%8b}j.mu9g8xN*јIYHT=@ *"Gҟ5K pޱ|-sy I?J%'9`KcV zQU- (rNP8J|񱏆; 4߅}mYPaNuE5*(Či/mn>f h :g=0.0N PhpkRH&G3Myw:fˡ+EsE; <8>S:w&g9=i^~kk2rq]ӷztt* U ;U%fXcWSg e_HʥcceV9>^0U/ihAռ ĥ=^mwoqs;=lŁ`d`OZzn [řO |sTdt҄mvMst,"2k<>mO GUӂάܝàqULqwLP#+S!'xo֓vG<zn JqSN1u'lq;ӗ$yH UV\8GCW#$r+0bZm[dU5RQߊ`N3TT~aޘdqsU#Y̕$uZdxՏ&qQ|mnFt [7_hdE-|ƸaĻOEb&l[27'Ʒ5}]aSR'U; cjMA/5,`d`jMn~n,>jeUbȫ,8ЕV]cJA֣{VWyUL2랕'>ǥ"g*J7u=I0v{QASO{7o^)H}8O\Hp O~=/48ƳکA>tg!˴҄[m>^#FcֲU)#K"A̽ \E#Xž=}m- 8b`̣##>àŘ10ɣ\6V'AzUEM;a\~s3k`nrG zki1o}hf=x=N9韦;r~n 8=1I t1ir@"(ϧ.weMȍ1=+WOnP$Uԍ 'qRŢJ;WM8Ӛ62c*IH@PBޜXN9h/ɠd#ޗ }$GPy |Ќc}i<br>And the Court Says...<br><br>In 1995 the Supreme Court ruled that drug testing student athletes was legal. The case name was Veronia School District vs. Acton. An official investigation led to the discovery that the high school athletes of Veronia School District participated in the use of illegal drugs. School officials were concerned that drug use increased the risk of sports related injury. The school district adopted a student athlete drug testing policy which authorized random urinalysis drug testing of its student athletes. James Acton, a student, was denied participation in his high school football program when he and his parents refused to consent to the testing.<br><br>The constitutional question was:  Does random drug testing of high school athletes violate the reasonable search and seizure clause of the Fourth Amendment? The conclusion by the court was that it did not violate these rights. In the case of high school athletes, under the state s supervision, during school hours, they are subject to greater control than other free adults. The privacy interests comprised by urine samples are negligible since the conditions of collection are similar to public restrooms, and the results are viewed by limited authorities. The court also stated that governmental concern over the safety of minors, under their supervision, overrides intrusion of the student-<br>athlete s privacy.<br>This case answers the question about drug testing student-athletes, but the question of testing the total school population is still open to the court.<br><br>Summary<br><br>More and more schools, in Arkansas, have been going to the drug testing program, not only to test athletes, but to test total school popula