or student with deviant behavior or student with specific problems is accomplished by requiring students such as Plaintiff and also their teachers to complete test questionnaires. (Plffs' Exhs. 1 and 2) The questionnaires ask such personal and private questions as the family religion, the race or skin color of the student (Defendants have since stipulated to dropping this question), the family composition, including the reason for the absence of one or both parents, and whether one or both parents "hugged and kissed me good night when I was small", "tell me how much they love me", "enjoyed talking about current events with me", and "make me feel unloved". In addition both students and teachers are asked to identify other students in the class who make unusual or odd remarks, get into fights or quarrels with other students, make unusual or inappropriate responses during normal school activities, or have to be coaxed or forced to work with other pupils. Students are at no time given any guidance as to what should be considered an odd or unusual remark or what is to be considered an inappropriate response. For example, there is no warning that political differences or unusual and imaginative insights should not be looked upon as odd remarks or inappropriate responses. (N.T. 5/18/73 at 120-121)
13. Although the CPI Program constantly refers to confidentiality, no specifics are given in the Program itself as to how confidentiality is to be maintained after evaluation. Mr. Streit did testify on this subject but that testimony is far different from what appears in the printed CPI materials. The Program, by its own terms, contemplates the development of a "massive data bank" and also dissemination of data relating to specific students to various school personnel, including superintendents, principals, guidance counsellors, athletic coaches, social workers, PTA officers, and school board members. (Plffs' Exh. 6) In fact, at a meeting of the Norristown School Board on Monday, October 23, 1972, parents were advised that teams of faculty members had already been selected to receive data back from the CPI Program in order to implement the intervention stage of the Program in the various schools in Norristown. (N.T. 5/18/73 at 170-171)
14. Even if those who are to be working with the CPI Program were to try and be as confidential as possible, in accordance with Mr. Streit's testimony, there is absolutely no assurance that the materials which have been gathered would be free from access by outside authorities in the community who have subpoena power. Thus, there is no assurance that should an enterprising district attorney convene a special grand jury to investigate the drug problem in Montgomery County, the records of the CPI Program would remain inviolate from subpoenas and that he could not determine the identity of children who have been labeled by the CPI Program as potential drug abusers. (N.T. 5/18/73 at 172-173)
15. The second step of the CPI Program is "intervention" or "remediation". The stated purpose of this phase is "to change the cognitive and affective domains of potential drug abusers and other forms of deviant behavior". (N.T. 5/18/73 at 164-166) Intervention may take several forms, some of which are compulsory for the student and which seriously limit and infringe upon individual liberty. For example, one form of intervention, Guided Group Interaction (GGI) is specifically described in the CPI Program as an "involuntary assignment". GGI operates as follows:
a. "The peer group acts as a leveller or equalizer insuring that its members do not stray too far from its ranks".
b. The objective is "specific alteration in acting out or deviant behavior", both undefined terms.
c. "Deviancy is painstakingly defined and discouraged by the group itself. It can include not only socially proscribed behavior but any action which violates the group's specific normative system."
d. Members are compelled to "explain . . . why they have been assigned to the program . . ."
e. The group may impose sanctions on members, including "work detail, withdrawal of past privilege, recommendation to a special unit for intensive training, or the assignment of more onerous tasks". (Plffs' Exh. 6)
16. Intervention is also another major threat to the confidentiality of the CPI Program. For example, one form of intervention is Referral Intervention. Under this program, "responsible school personnel make referral interventions when remediation needed by a particular student far exceeds available school resources. This referral intervention utilizes community resources such as clinics, hospitals, rehabilitation centers, etc. to help the seriously disturbed or serious drug-user student." Another form of intervention is Adult Role Model in which "teachers [are] . . . asked to select two children from the list of identified emotionally handicapped children. They would be given background information on each child . . ."
17. The CPI Program results will not be made available to parents unless they affirmatively request them. (N.T. 5/18/73 at 170)
The CPI Program as presented above is considered by its advocates, the Defendants, as a voluntary program in which affirmative parental consent is now given before participation by the student; and a student may return a blank questionnaire when the test is administered without apparent recrimination. It is contended that the Program is constitutional and is within discretionary power of the School Board.
The Plaintiffs assert that the Program is not voluntary because individuals' constitutional rights are waived without knowing, intelligent and aware consent. See Brady v. U.S., 397 U.S. 742, 90 S. Ct. 1463, 25 L. Ed. 2d 747 (1969). Before the Court reaches the question of the voluntariness of this Program, we will examine the alleged violations of the Constitution and state why individual constitutional rights are involved in this litigation.
The Plaintiffs claim that the CPI Program will interfere with and impede the Plaintiffs' rights of freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, privilege against self-incrimination and right to privacy guaranteed by the First, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States.
The main thrust of the Plaintiffs' argument that the CPI Program is an involuntary invasion of constitutionally protected rights, is the violation of the right to privacy. They base their argument mainly on Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 85 S. Ct. 1678, 14 L. Ed. 2d 510 (1965), in which the Supreme Court ruled that inherent in the first nine Amendments to the Constitution is a right to privacy which is binding on the States as well. In a more recent case, the Supreme Court re-emphasized its position on the right of privacy in Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 93 S. Ct. 705, 35 L. Ed. 2d 147 (1973), and restated some of the general factual situations to which this right would apply. The Court said in Wade, supra, at 152-153, 93 S. Ct. at 726:
"The Constitution does not explicitly mention any right of privacy. In a line of decisions, however, going back perhaps as far as Union Pacific R. Co. v. Botsford, 141 U.S. 250, 251 [11 S. Ct. 1000, 35 L. Ed. 734] (1891), the Court has recognized that a right of personal privacy, or a guarantee of certain areas or zones of privacy, does exist under the Constitution. In varying contexts, the Court or individual Justices have, indeed, found at least the roots of that right in the First Amendment, Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U.S. 557, 564 [89 S. Ct. 1243, 22 L. Ed. 2d 542] (1969); in the Fourth and Fifth Amendments, Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 8-9 [88 S. Ct. 1868, 20 L. Ed. 2d 889] (1968), Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 350 [88 S. Ct. 507, 19 L. Ed. 2d 576] (1967), Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616 [6 S. Ct. 524, 29 L. Ed. 746] (1886), see Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438, 478 [48 S. Ct. 212, 72 L. Ed. 1017] (1928) (Brandeis, J., dissenting); in the penumbras of the Bill of Rights, Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S., at 484-485 [85 S. Ct. 1678]; in the Ninth Amendment, id., at 486 [85 S. Ct. 1678] (Goldberg, J., concurring); or in the concept of liberty guaranteed by the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment, see Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 399 [43 S. Ct. 625, 67 L. Ed. 1042] (1923). These decisions make it clear that only personal rights that can be deemed 'fundamental' or 'implicit in the concept of ordered liberty,' Palko v. Connecticut, 302 U.S. 319, 325 [58 S. Ct. 149, 82 L. Ed. 288] (1937), are included in this guarantee of personal privacy. They also make it clear that the right has some extension to activities relating to marriage, Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 12 [87 S. Ct. 1817, 18 L. Ed. 2d 1010] (1967); procreation, Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541-542 [62 S. Ct. 1110, 86 L. Ed. 1655] (1942); contraception, Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S.  at 453-454, id., at 460, 463, 465 [92 S. Ct. 1029, 31 L. Ed. 2d 349] (White, J., concurring in result); family relationships, Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158, 166 [64 S. Ct. 438, 88 L. Ed. 645] (1944) and child rearing and education, Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510, 535 [45 S. Ct. 571, 69 L. Ed. 1070] (1925), Meyer v. Nebraska, supra." (Emphasis added)
This Court will look closely at the factual situation as it relates to family relationships and child rearing. The CPI Program questionnaire asks whether the student's family is "very close, somewhat close, not too close, or not close at all." (Plffs' Exh. 1 -- Question 7) In addition, the student is asked to answer questions of such intimate things of his parents as to whether they "hugged and kissed him good-night when he was small" (Question 53); whether they told him how "much they loved him or her" (Question 54); whether the parents "seemed to know what the student's needs or wants are" (Question 116); and whether the student "feels that he is loved by his parents" (Question 112).
The above questions are samples which represent the highly personal nature of the entire questionnaire. These questions go directly to an individual's family relationship and his rearing. There probably is no more private a relationship, excepting marriage, which the Constitution safeguards than that between parent and child. This Court can look upon any invasion of that relationship as a direct violation of one's Constitutional right to privacy.
The fact that the students are juveniles does not in any way invalidate their right to assert their Constitutional right to privacy. In a "freedom of speech" case involving the wearing of black arm bands protesting the Viet Nam War by students, the Supreme Court, in Tinker v. The Des Moines School District, 393 U.S. 503, at page 511, 89 S. Ct. 733, at page 739, 21 L. Ed. 2d 731 (1968), said:
"School officials do not possess absolute authority over their students. Students in school as well as out of school are 'persons' under our Constitution. They are possessed of fundamental rights which the State must respect, just as they themselves must respect their obligations to the State."