An Evaluation of Various Case-Laws on Privacy

Answer

VERNONIA SCHOOL DISTRICT V. ACTON (1995)

Introduction 

Vernonia School District v. Acton (1995) was a landmark case in the Supreme Court of the United States of America. Accordingly, the Court upheld the constitutionality of random drug testing among students in public schools (Guidry and Rosselli, 2020) . Accordingly, the need for random drug testing accrued from an official investigation that established that most student athletes used drugs to enhance their performance.  However, James Acton and his parents refused to comply with such policy and were denied the opportunity to participate in the school football team. This raised the issue of whether random drug testing of high school athletes violates the reasonable search under the Fourth Amendment (Guidry and Rosselli, 2020). The Court extended such tests to students participating in any kind of sport.

The testing is a minimal intrusion.

Random drug testing does not violate the meanings of the Fourth Amendment to the Federal Constitution of the United States of America. Even though the officers have the right to test students without having any probable cause, the exercise does not infringe of privacy as only the affected student would know the result of the test 9Guidry and Rosselli, 2020). Besides, the Fourth Amendment only protects the citizens against unreasonable searches. Even though a reasonable search comes with a search warrant, conducting random tests qualifies as reasonable because it would be impractical for school heads to obtain such warrants before conducting such tests to cater to special interests. Furthermore, public school students have significantly reduced expectations for privacy since such schools act in loco parentis (Guidry and Rosselli, 2020).  Similarly, student-athletes compromise a lot of their privacy considering that they bath in public places and undergo several medical screenings that would be unreasonable to object to random testing on the grounds of privacy violations. 

Are government interests vital enough to override individual privacy?

The government interest in this particular scenario was compelling enough to override individual privacy rights under the Fourth Amendment. The Court reached this test by arguing that public schools have custodial and tutelary powers over students and thus act in their best interest. Justice Breyer, while concurring, argued that random testing was essential in cushioning the whole school from such tests, but only on student-athletes who were also subjects of other numerous medical tests (Guidry and Rosselli, 2020). Therefore, the government's interest in protecting such students is important enough to override individual privacy under similar conditions. 

Should this ruling apply to college students as well/ why?

The ruling should not apply to college students. Even though college students are more predisposed to drugs than high school students, the objective of the ruling would not serve college students. Accordingly, colleges do not have custodial and tutelary powers over college students. One of the ruling's major objectives was to cushion high school students from injuries that result from drug abuse in sports. However, college students are grown-up men and women whose protection should not be subject to precedence. If anything, subjecting college student-athletes to random drug tests without probable cause amounts to an infringement on the Fourth Amendment rights. Moreover, college students are adults who are already within the purview of other legal jurisdictions, and thus random tests of their athletes and other sportsmen would constitute an infringement on privacy. Consequently, the ruling should not extend to college students for reasons that this paragraph has discussed. 

WARSHAK V. UNITED STATES (2007)

Warshak v. the United States (2007) was a criminal case decided by the United States Court of Appeal's sixth circuit. They argued that the state violated the defendant's Fourth Amendment rights when they forced the internet provider to turn over his emails without obtaining a search warrant (Tadavon, 2020). While delivering its judgment, the Court compared the Fourth Amendment protection of emails to that of telephone communication. 

Was the judgment sound?

The court’s ruling and comparing Fourth Amendment protection of email communication to that of a telephone was sound and justified. Accordingly, breaching any form of communication amounts to violation of privacy rights regardless of the form of communication. When government agents obtain the defendants' email, they accessed several private information whose protection the Fourth Amendment guarantees. Consequently, the Fourth Amendment protects email communication as much as it does telephone communications.

Three situations in which the Court allowed for the seizure of emails by government

The first situation that the Court provided was through requesting access to emails using an administrative subpoena.  Accordingly, this is possible where the government calls a witness to testify for such access under oath (Tadavon, 2020). Alternatively, the government can only access private email communication by obtaining a court order or warrant allowing them such access from internet providers. Thirdly, the government can also invoke the exclusionary rule to obtain access to private email communications. The Court however, found that the government did not meet all the three tests and ruled in favor of the defendant.