Wait, the Fourth Amendment IS supposed to apply to students?

The Constitution contradicts itself when saying that students have Fourth Amendment rights in school. School officials are allowed to search lockers, people, and belongings merely because they have "reasonable" suspicion. Basing a student's rights on "reasonableness" gives them absolutely no certainty or sense of security in a school system. What determines reasonableness? It's simple. Basically anything that the school wants to abolish, for example, drugs, can be backed up by "reasonableness". The ambiguous nature of students' rights to privacy in school creates an unfair environment. But, if schools do not implement some form of restriction on the Fourth Amendment, then there would be a lot more drugs going around. How do you find a balance that puts the government's and students' best interests in mind?

The best solution that I can come up with is to simply eliminate all drug testing in high schools. Many people will argue that it is an invasion of privacy, but I really do not believe that a urine analysis is a brutal violation of one's Fourth Amendment rights. I think the only reason that can actually back up a privacy concern is that the person getting tested knows that their results will come back positive. It is a weak argument.

Although, I still maintain that overall, implementing random drug testing in schools is not a wise decision. Because the test will show drug usage, students will result to other dangerous behaviors, such as alcohol. Since alcohol will not necessarily show up on a drug test, students will be more inclined to partake in this activity. Initiating drug testing will only encourage students to find other, and sometimes more dangerous, ways of seeking whatever it is they look for in illegal substances.

When students try to find ways to make their test results read negative, they will be more likely to behave in other ways that undermine authorities. More and more students will learn how to slide past the   radar as time goes on. I do believe that drug testing would be very effective, but in the long run, the drug tested generation would be better off without the tests.

In New Jersey v. T.L.O., I believe that T.L.O. should get in trouble for smoking in a restricted area, but she should not be charged for the other things in her purse. The search was over because they had found what they were looking for. The fact that "probable cause" is not even needed to search a student or their belongings is unconstitutional. This relates to drug testing because random drug testing also does not need a probable cause to test on students. I think that if a school were to get a lead or have plausible suspicion that a student is partaking in illegal and harmful behavior, they should be allowed to drug test.  But randomly testing a student who is just in the fencing club or HUMAN RIGHTS CLUB (you should join - we meet in the library after school on Mondays) denies students their Fourth Amendment rights, no matter how trivial they were to begin with in a school.