Summary 2011 WY 91

Summary of Decision June 6, 2011


[SPECIAL NOTE: This opinion uses the "Universal Citation." It was given an "official" citation when it is issued. You should use this citation whenever you cite the opinion, with a P.3d parallel citation. You will also note when you look at the opinion that all of the paragraphs are numbered. When you need to provide a pinpoint citation to a quote the universal portion of the citation will use that paragraph number. The pinpoint citation in the P.3d portion will need to have the reporter page number. If you need assistance in putting together a citation from this, or any future opinion using the Universal Citation form, please contact the Wyoming State Law Library and we will provide any needed assistance]

Summaries are prepared by Law Librarians and are not official statements of the Wyoming Supreme Court

Case Name: Hageman v. Goshen County School District No. 1

Citation: 2011 WY 91

Docket Numbers: S-10-0009

URL: http://wyomcases.courts.state.wy.us/applications/oscn/DeliverDocument.asp?CiteID=462428

Appeal from the District Court of Goshen County, the Honorable Wade E. Waldrip, Judge.

Representing Appellants: Kara Brighton and Harriet M. Hageman, Hageman & Brighton, PC, Cheyenne, Wyoming. Argument by Ms. Hageman.

Representing Appellees: Tracy J. Copenhaver, Copenhaver, Kath, Kitchen & Kolpitcke, LLC, Powell, Wyoming.

Date of Decision: June 6, 2011

Facts: In an effort to address a perceived drug and alcohol problem among its students, Goshen County School District No. 1 adopted a policy requiring all students who participate in extracurricular activities to consent to random testing for alcohol and drugs. Appellants initiated litigation, claiming that the Policy is unconstitutional. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the School District. Appellants challenge that decision in this appeal.

Issues: These issues were raised by the Appellants and adopted by the Appellees: Whether the district court erred in refusing to declare that the District’s “Mandatory Drug Testing for Students Involved in Extracurricular Activities” violates [the prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures of] Article 1, § 4 of the Wyoming Constitution. Whether the district court erred in refusing to declare that the District’s Drug Testing Policy violates Article 1, §§ 2 and 3 of the Wyoming Constitution, and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Whether the district court erred in refusing to declare that the District’s Drug Testing Policy violates Article 1, § 6 of the Wyoming Constitution, and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Whether the district court erred in refusing to enjoin the District from implementing the Drug Testing Policy. Whether the district court erred in granting the District’s Motion for Summary Judgment.

Holdings: The Court acknowledged that Article 1, § 4 of the Wyoming Constitution protects public school students from unreasonable searches and seizures. In considering whether the testing mandated by the School District’s Policy is reasonable under all of the circumstances, the Court recognized that students, particularly those who participate in extracurricular activities, are already subject to more stringent rules and regulations than adults, and so have limited expectations of privacy in the school setting. The Court found that the School District’s Policy adequately preserves the students’ personal privacy rights, and appropriately limits the degree of invasion into those rights. The Court concluded that the School District has a compelling interest in providing for the safety and welfare of its students, and that it therefore has a legitimate interest in deterring drug and alcohol use among students. On the closest question of all, the Court determined that the School District showed that its Policy requiring random, suspicionless drug and alcohol testing for all students who participate in extracurricular activities is rationally related to furthering its interest in deterring drug and alcohol use among students.

The Court further concluded that the Coalition did not demonstrate that the School District’s Policy subjects students to searches that are unreasonable under all of the circumstances. Accordingly, the Court held that the School District’s Policy does not violate Article 1, § 4 of the Wyoming Constitution.

The equal protection argument, as presented by the Coalition, can succeed only if the Coalition also succeeds on its search and seizure claim. The Court’s conclusion that the School District’s Policy does not subject students to unreasonable searches and seizures is, therefore, determinative of the Coalition’s equal protection claim as well.

The Court did not need to agree or disagree with the district court’s conclusion, because they found a more fundamental flaw in the Coalition’s due process claim. As stated above, a party claiming an infringement of his due process rights must demonstrate both a protected interest and an impermissible infringement on that interest. The Coalition has not demonstrated any infringement because it did not show, or even allege, that any of its members had sought and been denied judicial review of any decision made by the Superintendent pursuant to the Policy. The Coalition’s speculation that judicial review might be denied in the future is insufficient to support a due process claim now. Until this Court is presented with a case in which judicial review has been denied, it is premature to consider the Coalition’s claim that the Policy violates due process. The district court did not err in granting summary judgment against the Coalition on this claim.

Because the Coalition has failed to prove that the School District’s Policy is unconstitutional, there is no basis for their claim that they are entitled to a permanent injunction against implementation of the Policy, or for their claim that the district court erred in granting the School District’s motion for summary judgment. In conclusion, the Court agreed with the observation of Justice Breyer of the United States Supreme Court: “I cannot know whether the school’s drug testing program will work. But, in my view, the Constitution does not prohibit the effort.” The Court affirmed the grant of summary judgment in the School District’s favor.

Justice Burke delivered the opinion for the court.