# Theodore v. Delaware Valley School District

> Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · November 6, 2000 · 761 A.2d 652

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9732068

## Case

- **Full name:** Louis THEODORE, Mary Ellen Theodore, and Jennifer Lynn Theodore, Individually and Louis Theodore and Mary Ellen Theodore, as the Natural Guardians of the Infant Kimberly Ann Theodore, Appellants, v. the DELAWARE VALLEY SCHOOL DISTRICT
- **Court:** Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** November 6, 2000
- **Citations:** 761 A.2d 652; 2000 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 600; 2000 WL 1653836
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Leadbetter
- **Judges:** Doyle, Colins, McGinley, Smith, Pellegrini, Friedman, Leadbetter
- **Cited by:** 3 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9732068

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding unconstitutional a suspicionless drug testing policy applicable to those participating in extracurricular activities and driving to school

## Opinion text

LEADBETTER, Judge,
dissenting.
I agree with virtually all of the analysis of the majority. The student-appellants have complained that the testing program initiated by the Delaware Valley School District violates their privacy rights in violation of the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and Article 1, Section 8 of the Pennsylvania Constitution. Following the standards set forth in Vemonia, 1 F.B. 2 and Cass 3 , the majority properly concluded that the district has articulated a sufficient governmental interest [prevention of accidents and injuries resulting from the use of alcohol and controlled substances] to justify the minimal intrusion of a “generalized drug and alcohol testing program.” I fully agree and believe that conclusion mandates affirmance without further adieu.
Nonetheless, because the district tests only certain students, the majority requires that the district identify an independent governmental interest justifying their selection of the students to be tested. This requirement has nothing to do with the privacy issue before the court. The district’s interest in protecting the health and safety of the school community is in no way diminished by the fact that it has attempted to limit the intrusiveness of its program by testing only those students who voluntarily participate in elective activities. Indeed, providing an “opt-out” mechanism for those who have strong objection to being tested, by lessening the intrusiveness factor, tips the Vemonia analysis further in the school district’s favor. What the majority has done is engage in an equal protection analysis, inquiring whether the government has shown some interest which bears a rational relationship to the class of students selected for testing. This issue, however, was not briefed and argued by the parties. Because I see no circumstances in this case which warrant our raising the issue sua sponte, I must respectfully dissent.
President Judge DOYLE and Judge McGINLEY join in this dissenting opinion.
. Vernonia Sch. Dist. 47J v. Acton, 515 U.S. 646 , 115 S.Ct. 2386 , 132 L.Ed.2d 564 (1995).
. In re F.B., 555 Pa. 661 , 726 A.2d 361 , cert. denied, 528 U.S. 1060 , 120 S.Ct. 613 , 145 L.Ed.2d 508 (1999).
. Commonwealth v. Cass, 551 Pa. 25 , 709 A.2d 350 , cert. denied, 525 U.S. 833 , 119 S.Ct. 89 , 142 L.Ed.2d 70 (1998).

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9732068. Public record. Not legal advice.