Fallbrook School’s Breathalyzer Tests Stir Rights Debate

Alarmed by what many describe as a rising tide of drug and alcohol use among America’s youth, parents and school officials in recent years have gone to great and often innovative lengths to encourage kids to lead chemical-free lives.

Drug education has been introduced as early as kindergarten, and many communities have formed “Parents Who Care” groups to counsel addicted teen-agers, raise community awareness of the problem and sponsor alcohol-free social events.

In Fallbrook, high school officials have become among only a handful in California to enlist yet another controversial ally in the battle--the Breathalyzer test.

When administrators chaperoning a dance or other school function in the rural community suspect that a student’s behavior indicates that he or she has been imbibing, they simply escort the youth to the principal’s office and--with the student’s permission--administer the test.

If the device, used for years by the California Highway Patrol, flashes a yellow light (for moderate consumption) or a red light (for excessive drinking) the student is suspended for five days and the parents are summoned to take their tipsy teen home. Should a student decline to take the test, school officials go with their instincts and suspend him anyway, said Fallbrook High School Principal Henry Woessner.

“If we find evidence that leads us to think a student has been drinking, such as odor on the breath, slurred speech, or staggered gait, then we are prepared to suspend the student because, to us, that’s enough evidence,” Woessner said. “However, we do offer the opportunity for the student to take the test, and that usually settles the matter.”

District Supt. Robert Thomas said the “unsophisticated device” was purchased about three years ago for $95 because school officials “got tired of playing this game of calling kids in and saying, ‘OK, let me smell your breath.’ ”

“With the Breathalyzer, everything’s very professional and there’s no gray area,” Thomas said. “It’s not like the CHP where it measures the content of alcohol in the blood. This is absolute--they’ve either been drinking or not.”

Although the Breathalyzer is generally reserved for use at campus dances or other nighttime social functions, the test is available any time a school official believes a student may be under the influence, student activities director Bob Burton said. He estimated it has been administered 10 times this school year.

According to county education officials, Fallbrook is the only district using such a device in the San Diego area. In Los Angeles County, three high schools have employed a similar test at dances and other functions--with some success. A spokesman at Mira Costa High School in Manhattan Beach said that the number of alcohol-related incidents at his school has been dramatically reduced in the three years the device has been used. Officials at the two other schools--in El Segundo and Redondo Beach--reported similar success.

In Fallbrook, officials said they had no data to illustrate whether use of the Breathalyzer has reduced alcohol use among students, although most agreed the device is an effective deterrent and probably has had an impact on drinking at campus events.

But the test is not without critics.

“Sometimes I wonder whether Mr. Woessner has ever read the Constitution,” said Lance Vollmer, a trustee of the Vista Unified School District. “I’ve got some real reservations about a test like that and am not at all convinced it doesn’t violate a student’s basic rights.”

James McCormick, president of the Carlsbad Unified School District Board of Trustees, agreed: “We have never considered anything like that in Carlsbad, and I hope we never would. I think this is an example of well-intentioned school officials taking their authority a little too far.”

In San Diego, city schools Supt. Thomas Payzant said, “I don’t know whether it’s our role as school officials to be using that kind of approach.”

On the Fallbrook campus, students interviewed appeared divided on the issue. Student body President Charles Hartford said he believes the test is “a good way to help kids learn a valuable lesson.”

“The students I’ve heard about who’ve taken it said they were happy to do so and that it was a positive experience for them,” Hartford said. “Kids shouldn’t be (drinking) in the first place, and they know it.”

But Philip Tiso, editor of the campus newspaper and one of two students suspended recently for publishing an underground newspaper, disagreed.

“I think it’s insane,” Tiso said. “It’s blatantly unconstitutional and an invasion of students’ rights. As for it being a deterrent, well, if they shot every kid on campus who looked drunk, that would be a deterrent too.”

Tiso said the test is “real arbitrary” and described a friend who was asked to take it last fall and was “real upset” by the experience.

“It was right during a really hard track practice and this girl was feeling sick,” he recalled. “So the security guard dragged her up to the office and they gave her this test--just because she had a headache. Of course (the results were) negative.”

Because the use of such devices on school grounds is rather new, there has yet to be a conclusive legal opinion on the question of whether the test is an infringement of a student’s constitutional rights. The outcome of an Arkansas case to be heard in federal court next month, however, could shed some light on the issue.

The case is being brought by the Arkansas chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) against the school district in tiny Arkadelphia, a small town in southwestern Arkansas. In 1982, the Arkadelphia Board of Education approved a policy that requires any 5th- through 12th-grade student suspected of being under the influence of alcohol or any other illegal substance to take a breath, blood, urine or lie detector test.

Penalties are rather severe. For the first offense, there is a loss of credit and suspension for one semester; for the second, a student is expelled for a year, and on the third offense, he is permanently expelled.

“This is a very, very heavy-handed policy, with the punishment being the same if a student refuses to take the test,” said Sandra Kurjiaka, executive director of the Arkansas ACLU. “It is very intrusive, and we believe the policy violates students’ Fourth Amendment rights on its face.”

While the Arkadelphia policy is clearly much broader and stricter than that in use locally, Kurjiaka said she would not hesitate to go to court on the Fallbrook Breathalyzer test.

“There is this paranoia about drugs and kids, and it’s turning our school officials into a police force,” Kurjiaka said. “I’m convinced that even though they permitted the search of school lockers, our Supreme Court justices would say this is going too far.”

Despite the lingering legal questions over the school-ground use of the Breathalyzer, Fallbrook officials defend the device as an important ingredient in their program to keep their students from using alcohol and drugs.

“You can argue the constitutionality of just about anything, but, frankly, I don’t feel we’re taking advantage of students at all,” said Ralph Enander, a member of the Fallbrook Board of Trustees. “I look at our role in the schools much the way parents view their role in the home. Parents use various methods and so do we.”

Activities Director Burton offered another argument.

“Sometimes a student is just acting silly and isn’t drunk, and this gives him or her a chance to prove it,” Burton said. “But, most importantly, I figure if we can save a life by catching a student who has been drinking and keep him from driving home, then we’ve done something good.”