FWIW, I have not ties/loyalty to Lorreta Nall, just found the topic interesting.
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
It seems to me, that unless there is evidence that indicates the parent(s) are violating some law, then this judge is violating the Constitution of the United States by ordering them to undergo drug tests. But then again, maybe my definition of 'unreasonable' differs from his.
Drug court is a rehab-oriented approach to juvenile drug use. The juvenile agrees to go to NA or AA, to be counseled, and to be drug tested by a probation officer on a weekly basis. This is offered as an alternative to juvenile incarceration. I see no problem with asking a parent to be drug tested as a condition of participating in such an alternative sentence.
As a parent who went through this with a stepson, I can tell you that it is a lame-a$$ approach to the problem. The whole drug court system is a big waste of time and money. They allowed the kid 3 dirty tests, and made him go back every month. As parents, we had to take him to meetings, take him to and pay for counseling, and go to the court sessions every month. This did nothing to change the propensity of the kid to smoke pot, and even after a boot-camp type of incarceration for failure to comply, he still smokes pot to this date, 14 years later. All we did was pay money to a social services agency for counseling, and fees for participating.
The ultimate outcome is that he is a pot-smoking liberal.
To bad they can not apply this test to the people on welfare.