Justice MULLARKEY
delivered the Opinion of the Court.
We granted certiorari to review a drug testing policy promulgated by the Trinidad School District No. 1 Board of Education (Board) in July 1996.1 The policy mandated [1097]*1097suspicionless urinalysis drug testing of all sixth through twelfth grade students partid-pating in extracurricular activities. At the beginning of the 1996-1997 school year, the Trinidad School District No. 1 (School District) began regular testing of all students who wanted to take part in extracurricular activities. Carlos Lopez, a senior high school student who was enrolled in two for-credit band classes and participated in the school’s marching band, refused to consent to the mandatory drug testing. Consequently, the District superintendent suspended Lopez from the band classes and the marching band.2
Lopez, by and through his parents, filed a complaint for permanent injunctive and declaratory relief on September 6, 1996 in the Las Animas County District Court (trial court). Lopez alleged among other things that the Policy violated his right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures, as guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution.3 Additionally, Lopez alleged that the Policy violated article II, section 7, of the Colorado Constitution.4 Lopez requested that the trial court enjoin the implementation of the Policy and that he be reinstated to the band classes and march-big band.
After entering a temporary restraining order that required the District to reinstate Lopez to the band classes and the marching band, the trial court conducted a two day trial on Lopez’s underlying complaint. In an order dated December 19, 1996, the trial court entered its findings of facts, conclusions of law, and judgment. The trial court held that the Policy was not unconstitutionally vague and that the Policy did not violate either the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution or article II, section 7, of the Colorado Constitution.
Lopez appealed from the trial court’s order to the court of appeals. Pursuant to C.A.R. 50, both parties then sought expedited certio-rari review in this court, which we granted. We now reverse. We hold that, under the facts of this case, the Policy is unconstitutional with respect to the marching band.5
[1098]*1098I.
The Policy, entitled “Drug Testing Student Athletes/ Cheerleaders/Extra Curricular,” mandates drug testing for all students in grades six through twelve who want to participate in an extracurricular activity.6 Under the Policy, the school principal is required to ensure that a student successfully completes an annual drug test prior to participating in the student’s chosen first extracurricular activity of the year-. In addition to the mandated testing, the Policy allows school officials to test any student participating in an extracurricular activity based on a reasonable suspicion that the student is under the influence of illicit drugs and/or alcohol. The Policy also requires that a student and the student’s parent sign a written form acknowledging the student’s consent to be tested. Any student who has been or is currently taking a prescription medication must disclose the use of that medication to school officials before taking the test.
The Policy establishes more severe consequences for successive violations. When a student’s drug test indicates a positive result, the laboratory conducting the test performs a second test to confirm the results. If the .second test is positive, the student’s parent or guardian will be notified and the principal will conduct a due process hearing with the student and his or her parent or guardian. The student then must participate in a drug assistance program and undergo weekly drug tests over a six-week period. If the student refuses, the student will be suspended from participating in extracurricular activities for the current and subsequent seasons and must be tested again prior to the next season for which the student is eligible. If the student commits a second offense, the student’s parent or guardian is notified, a due process hearing is held, and the student is suspended from participation in extracurricular activities for the current and subsequent seasons. Thus, when a student commits a second offense, the student does not have the option of enrolling in a drug assistance program in order to participate in the extracurricular activity. Finally, if a student commits a third offense, the student’s parents are notified, a due process hearing is held, and the student is suspended from extracurricular activities for the current and next two seasons.
The Board adopted the Policy after two years of study led by the District’s former superintendent. The superintendent hired The Search Institute of Minneapolis, Minnesota (Institute) to conduct an attitudinal and behavioral survey in grades six through twelve in the District.7 The Institute reported that 44% of all students in grades six through twelve had used an illicit drug during the preceding twelve months, ranging from 23% in the sixth grade to 63% in the eleventh grade. According to the Institute’s report, drug use in Trinidad schools exceeded national statistics. For example, 63% of Trinidad seniors reported using marijuana once in their lifetimes, compared to 35% nationally; 13% of seniors reported one-time cocaine use, compared to 6% nationally; and 20% of eighth grade students reported frequent drug use, compared to 5% nationally.
The trial court found that the scope of the drug problem, which it described as “serious, growing, and immediate,” was confirmed by drug-related expulsions and testimony of the administrators, teachers, and coaches in the Trinidad schools. The trial court also found that the level of drug use was approximately [1099]*1099the same in the student body generally as it was among participants in athletics and other extracurricular activities.8
At the same time, however, the band director testified that he did not believe that drug use among band members had increased during the three years preceding the adoption of the Policy. He also testified that in his twenty-three years as the band director, no band member had ever been injured due to alcohol or drug use and there had never been an incident in which a band member had not been able to perform due to alcohol or drug use. In his view, band members were well-behaved and treated the other students with respect. The band director’s testimony was mirrored by Dr. Fa-bec, a Board member, who testified that, in comparison to the student body generally, band members and others participating in extracurricular activities had better discipline records, were “less problematic,” and were leaders of the student body in academic performance.
In its findings, the trial court explained the Board’s reasons for selecting students involved in extracurricular activities as the target testing group. The trial court stated:
These groups were selected for testing because they are role models for other students, and particularly for younger students. Participants in extracurricular activities have a high profile in the schools and within the community. They are representatives or ambassadors of the school district. For these purposes, marching band members are the same as student athletes, and cheerleaders. They represent the school at athletic events, fairs, and state competitions. Band members wear uniforms in the school colors with the school’s name.
The trial court also found that some student athletes were using drugs and were encouraging others to do so.
The District began implementing the Policy at the beginning of the 1997 school year. The District hired an independent testing firm, New Choices, to administer the drug tests, to arrange for chemical analysis of the samples, and to report the test results to the administration. All students participating in the fall high school activities of volleyball, football, golf, cheerleading, and the marching band were required to submit to pre-partic-ipation drug testing. The District also tested students participating in the fall junior high school activities of volleyball, football, and cheerleading. In total, 181 out of approximately 500 high school students were tested and 90 out of 338 junior high school students were tested. Thus, approximately one in every three high school students was tested and one in every four junior high school students was tested.
The New Choices Director described the collection of band members’ urine samples in the following manner. Students were called out of band class by grade level and taken to the high school gymnasium. Each student proceeded to a table staffed by the New Choices Director, presented the consent form, completed paper work related to the testing, and received a container in which the student was to provide a urine sample. A New Choices monitor then escorted the student to a nearby rest room. Once inside the rest room, the student entered a bathroom stall while the New Choices monitor stood outside of the stall.9 After the student urinated in the container, the monitor escorted the student back to the New Choices Director’s table where the student sealed and returned the container. The New Choices Director then checked the temperature of the sample and applied a label to the container. [1100]*1100To prevent the possibility of sample tampering, the water to the rest room was cut-off and blue dye was placed in the toilet bowls. In addition, students were required to empty their pockets prior to proceeding to the rest room.
While the trial court found that no student complained about the procedure, one student was unable to produce a sample. The band director testified that the student “tried five, six, seven times,” “every night after school,” but could not urinate into the container because “he was embarrassed to do so.”
After New Choices collected the students’ urine samples, the agency forwarded them to a laboratory for testing. The laboratory tested samples for illicit drugs, including marijuana, cocaine, opiates, barbiturates, amphetamines, and phencyclidine.10 The laboratory did not test the samples for alcohol.
Upon receiving the results from the laboratory, New Choices delivered a sealed report to the District’s administrative office. The District’s superintendent then transmitted the report to the respective school’s principal, who kept it in a secure location. The principal subsequently informed the coach or extracurricular activity sponsor about any positive results. No other persons had access to the testing results.
Lopez, who at the time he brought the action was a seventeen-year-old senior at Trinidad High School, was enrolled in two band classes for which he received both credit and grades and participated in the Trinidad High School marching band.11 As the trial court found, Lopez had been a member of the marching band since 1993 and was a gifted musician who played the baritone trombone, the piano, and the guitar. Lopez testified at the trial that he planned to pursue a music major in college and wanted to be a composer or enter into education.
After Lopez received the consent form in the beginning of the 1997 school year, he consulted with his parents and decided not to sign the form. Lopez testified that by not signing the form, he recognized that he “could be losing scholarship money, or experience that [he] need[ed].”12 However, he indicated that he was willing to take that risk “because it’s what this country was founded on, our rights” and that in his view, the drug testing program was “constitutionally wrong.”
[1101]*1101II.
Before discussing the constitutionality of the Policy, it is necessary to be clear about what this case is not about. Although Lopez challenges the Policy as a whole on vagueness grounds, an argument which we address below, he does not challenge the part of the Policy that allows school officials to administer a drug test to a student based on reasonable suspicion that the student is under the influence of illicit drugs.13 Rather, he challenges the suspicionless testing allowed under the Policy. Consequently, it is unnecessary to revisit our decision in People in Interest of P.E.A., 754 P.2d 382 (Colo.1988), where we considered the Fourth Amendment limitations on searches based on school officials’ reasonable suspicions that a student violated the law or a school rule. See P.E.A., 754 P.2d at 386-90 (applying New Jersey v. T.L.O., 469 U.S. 325, 105 S.Ct. 733, 83 L.Ed.2d 720 (1985), and holding that the school officials’ search of the defendant’s car in that ease was constitutional).
This case also does not require a reexamination of our prior opinion in University of Colorado v. Derdeyn, 863 P.2d 929 (Colo.1993). In Derdeyn, we considered a challenge to the University of Colorado’s random, suspicionless urinalysis drug-testing of intercollegiate student athletes attending the university. In analyzing whether the university’s drug testing policy violated the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and article II, section 7, of the Colorado Constitution, we distinguished college students from high school students. See Derdeyn, 863 P.2d at 938-39. We found the case law related to high school student athletes of “only marginal relevance” and instead followed case law involving searches of adults in the work place. Id. at 939. Thus, given that our analysis in Derdeyn centered around the testing of college students, we do not find it necessary to revisit our holding in Derdeyn that the university’s drug testing policy was unconstitutional.
III.
Preliminarily, we address two threshold issues. First, the District’s suspicionless drug testing must constitute a “search” within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment in order to trigger the protections of that amendment. Second, because Lopez is no longer a student at Trinidad High School, we must consider whether or not we should decline to review this case because it is moot.
A.
In T.L.O., the Supreme Court explained that it is now beyond dispute that the Fourth Amendment, as applied to the states by virtue of the Fourteenth Amendment, prohibits unreasonable searches by state officers. See T.L.O., 469 U.S. at 334, 105 S.Ct. 733. Equally well settled is the proposition that the Fourteenth Amendment protects the rights of students against encroachment by public school officials, including boards of education. See id. Thus, the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition against unreasonable searches and ' seizures applies to searches undertaken by public school officials. See id. at 336-37,105 S.Ct. 733.
State-compelled collection and testing of urine constitutes a “search” subject to the demands of the Fourth Amendment. See Vernonia Sch. Dist. 4-7J v. Acton, 515 U.S. 646, 652, 115 S.Ct. 2386, 132 L.Ed.2d 564 (1995) (explaining that the Fourth Amendment applies to a school district’s drug-testing program involving urine collection and analysis). See also National Treasury Employees Union v. Von Raab, 489 U.S. 656, 665, 109 S.Ct. 1384, 103 L.Ed.2d 685 (1989) (explaining that “urine tests are searches [and] it follows that the Custom Service’s drug-testing program must meet the reasonableness requirement of the Fourth Amendment”); Skinner v. Railway Labor Executives’Ass’n, 489 U.S. 602, 617, 109 S.Ct. 1402, [1102]*1102103 L.Ed.2d 639 (1989) (explaining that “[b]e-cause it is clear that the collection and testing of urine intrudes upon expectations of privacy that society has long recognized as reasonable, the .Federal Courts of Appeals have concluded unanimously, and we agree, that these intrusions must be deemed searches under the Fourth Amendment”).
In this case, the Policy requires mandatory collection and testing of students’ urine. The Policy was enacted and implemented by public school officials. Consequently, the urinalysis drug testing undertaken pursuant to the Policy is a search for Fourth Amendment purposes.
B.
The District argues in its opening brief that the case now before us is moot. According to the District, because Lopez recently graduated from high school, he is beyond the reach of the Policy. Since no other student is before this court challenging the constitutionality of the Policy, the District-asserts that there is no longer a live controversy in this case. Additionally, the District argues that we should not apply the “capable of repetition but evading review” exception to the mootness doctrine because younger students will have sufficient time to litigate fully a constitutional challenge to the Policy.
Ordinarily, a court invokes its judicial power only when an actual controversy exists between adverse parties. See In re Tomlinson, 861 P.2d 170, 173 (Colo.1993). An issue becomes moot when the relief granted by the court would not have a practical effect upon an existing controversy. See Brown v. Colorado Dep’t of Corrections, 915 P.2d 1312, 1313 (Colo.1996). When an issue is moot, a court normally refrains from addressing it. See id.
The mootness doctrine, however, does not always close the door to judicial review. We have stated that there are two exceptions to the mootness doctrine. See Board of Chiropractic Exam’rs v. Stjernholm, 935 P.2d 959, 971 (Colo.1997). First, we may resolve what is an otherwise moot case when the issue involved is one that is capable of repetition yet evading review. See id.; see also Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 125, 93 S.Ct. 705, 35 L.Ed.2d 147 (1973). Second, we may decide a moot case involving issues of great public importance or recurring constitutional violations. See Board of Chiropractic Exam’rs, 935 P.2d at 971.
In our view, both exceptions apply in this case. First, we reject the District’s argument that the “capable of repetition yet evading review” exception does not apply because younger students in the District would have sufficient time to litigate fully the constitutionality of the Policy prior to graduating from the District. Were we to accept that argument, we would preclude students approaching the end of their education in the District from challenging the Policy. Consequently, those students would be forced to rely on the hope that a younger student and his or her parents would initiate a case against the District. We will not require Lopez (and students similarly situated) to depend on other students to assert a violation of the Constitution simply because it is not possible for Lopez to litigate a case through the appellate process prior to graduating from the District.
Second, we consider the potential invasion of students’ constitutional rights to be a matter of great public importance. The fact that Lopez no longer falls within the purview of the Policy does not diminish this conclusion. Although Lopez no longer has to submit to the mandated urinalysis, all other students currently wishing to participate in extracurricular activities in the District must do so. Thus, it is appropriate for us to review Lopez’s constitutional challenges to the Policy, notwithstanding the fact that he is no longer a student in the District.
IV.
Lopez first argues that the trial court abused its discretion in finding that the District had a “serious, growing, and immediate drug problem.” Lopez specifically challenges the Institute’s report and the trial court’s reliance on that report when it made its finding regarding the District’s drug problem.
[1103]*1103We review the trial court’s findings concerning the level of drug abuse in the District under a clearly erroneous standard. Colorado Rule of Civil Procedure 52 provides in relevant part:
In all actions tried upon the facts without a jury or with an advisory jury, the court shall find the facts specially and state separately its conclusions of law thereon.... Findings of fact shall not be set aside unless clearly erroneous....
C.R.C.P. 52. In Ornelas v. United States, 517 U.S. 690, 699, 116 S.Ct. 1657, 134 L.Ed.2d 911 (1996), the Supreme Court similarly explained that while determinations of reasonable suspicion and probable cause under the Fourth Amendment should be reviewed de novo on appeal, a reviewing court should review findings of historical fact for clear error. Thus, while we review the trial court’s conclusions about the constitutionality of the Policy de novo, including its analysis concerning the reasonableness of the Policy, we review the trial court’s findings regarding the level of drug abuse in the district under the clearly erroneous standard.
Applying that standard here, we do not agree with Lopez that the trial court erred in finding that the District had a serious drug problem. We agree with the trial court that the Institute’s report provided credible evidence of drug use in the District. Accordingly, we do not find that the trial court’s reliance on the Institute’s report was clearly erroneous.
Having concluded that the trial court’s findings concerning the District’s drug use problem in general were not clearly erroneous, our review of the record indicates that the trial court’s order contains two specific findings of fact that were clearly erroneous and both findings bear on our analysis. First, the trial court found:
The level of drug use is approximately the same among the student body generally and participants in athletics and other extracurricular activities in particular. The high level of participation in activities (at least one-third of the total school population) and the high level of drug use logically support such a conclusion.
This finding has no basis in the record and is nothing more than speculation. The portion of the Institute’s report concerning drug use was based on overall drug use in the District and did not quantify drug use by particular groupings, such as drug use among those participating in athletics axtá/or those participating in other extracurricular activities. Additionally, while the District presented anecdotal testimony from teachers and coaches concerning their impressions of drug use in the District, the trial court did not have before it any testimonial evidence, other than testimony from the high school football coach, which allowed the trial court to compare across extracurricular groups the percent of students abusing drugs generally or the percent of students using particular types of drugs.14 Thus, we do not accept the trial court’s findings that the level of drug use in the District generally was the same as the level of drug use across extracurricular activities. Without a discrete study focused on a particular subset of the entire student body, no conclusion can be drawn about the rate of drug use in that subset. The rate may be higher, lower, or the same as the rate for the student body as a whole.
Second, in'its findings of fact, the trial court stated the following:
All students in the junior high school and the high school are required to attend [1104]*1104physical education classes. In connection with these classes, the students dress, undress, and shower in communal facilities on a daily basis.
The only evidence in the record concerning physical education in the high school came from a physical education teacher and Lopez himself. The physical education teacher testified that students in the high school are required to take only one year of physical education while in high school and are not required to shower. Lopez explained that the high school students enrolled in physical education are not required to undress completely and that they are not required to shower. As for junior high students, the junior high principal stated, “[S]ome students have to take showers and some students have a problem with that so we have them meet with a counselor. Sometimes, we make arrangements for them to come in earlier to dress or later after the kids until they are comfortable in showering with them.” (Emphasis added.) Thus, based on a review of the record, we conclude that the trial court’s findings on the type of undressing and showering that occurs in the District during physical education are clearly erroneous and we reject them. See C.R.C.P. 52; Arapahoe County Bd. of Equalization v. Podoll, 935 P.2d 14, 18 (Colo.1997) (“Ordinarily, we will defer to the district court’s findings of fact unless they are clearly erroneous and not supported by the record.”).
Thus, for purposes of this opinion, the evidence shows a serious drug problem in the general student body. However, other than anecdotal information about the football team, there is no relevant information about drug usage among students who participate in extracurricular activities. Also, there is no evidence of diminished expectations of privacy among the student body at large based on participation in physical education classes.
V.
Lopez argues that the Policy is unconstitutionally vague.15 The essence of his vagueness argument is that the Policy refers to “extra curricular” in the caption of the Policy, while the remainder of the Policy refers only to athletes and cheerleaders.16 He also asserts that the Policy is deficient because it does not address which drugs the test is designed to detect, but rather, leaves that decision up to the District's business manager and a New Choices representative.
Due process requires that “laws give the person of ordinary intelligence a reasonable opportunity to know what is prohibited, so that he may act accordingly.” Village of Hoffman Estates v. Flipside, Hoffman Estates, Inc., 455 U.S. 489, 498, 102 S.Ct. 1186, 71 L.Ed.2d 362 (1982) (quoting Grayned v. City of Rockford, 408 U.S. 104, 108-09, 92 S.Ct. 2294, 33 L.Ed.2d 222 (1972)). In our view, “extracurricular” is not a vague term and it is clear that students participating in extracurricular activities are included within the Policy. Moreover, the consent form which students took home and which was referenced in the Policy explicitly states that students participating in extracurricular activities must submit to drug testing and that the substances tested are those considered illegal or controlled by the Food and Drug Administration. The drugs actually screened by the test fell within the parameters indicated by the Policy. Accordingly, we do not agree with Lopez that the Policy was unconstitutionally vague.
VI.
Before directly addressing Lopez’s arguments that the Policy gives rise to an unconstitutional search, we first analyze the actual scope of the Policy. Trinidad High School [1105]*1105offers two elective band classes, a brass/percussion class and a woodwinds class. Both of these classes are for-credit classes and are graded. A student enrolling in either or both of these classes is required to' participate in the marching band and a student’s grade depends in part on the student’s performance in the marching band. Conversely, in order to participate in the marching band, a student must enroll in one or both of the band classes.17 In other words, two for-credit classes that are part of the regular curriculum of course offerings are inextricably linked to the “extracurricular” activity of marching band. Properly viewed, there are two aspects to this connection. First, in order to take a for-credit class, for which the student will receive both credit and a permanent letter grade, the student must participate in the marching band. The record reflects that the consequence of enrolling in a class and failing to participate in the marching band is severe: the student will receive a failing grade. Second, in order to participate in the marching band, the student must also take the for-credit class. Thus, while a cursory reading of the Policy indicates that it reaches only those students who are participating in voluntary extracurricular activities, the real scope of the Policy is not so limited. Under the Policy, students who are enrolled in a regular class must provide a urine sample for drug testing. With this more accurate understanding of the Policy in mind, we now consider whether or not the Policy can withstand constitutional scrutiny.
In Vemonia, the Supreme Court established the framework for analyzing the constitutionality of a public school district’s drug testing program similar to the one we consider here. See Vernonia, 515 U.S. at 654-64, 115 S.Ct. 2386. The drug testing program at issue in Vemonia authorized random urinalysis drug testing of students who participated in that school district’s athletics programs (the Vernonia policy).18 See id. at 650, 115 S.Ct. 2886.
In considering the constitutionality of the Vernonia policy, the Supreme Court first reviewed the problem of drug abuse in the Vernonia schools and among the student athletes. See id. at 648-50, 115 S.Ct. 2386. The Supreme Court explained that “[n]ot only were athletes included among the drug users but, as the District Court found, athletes were the leaders of the drug culture.” Id. at 649, 115 S.Ct. 2386. The Vernonia School [1106]*1106District’s administrators were particularly-concerned about the risk of sports-related injuries due to drug use. See id. The Supreme Court also noted the trial court’s findings that a large segment of the student body, particularly those involved in athletics, was in a state of rebellion, which coincided with the school staffs observations of drug use and glamorization of drug use. See id.
Next, the Supreme Court reviewed the purpose and scope of the Vernonia policy. See id. at 650-51, 115 S.Ct. 2886. The expressed purposes of the Vernonia School Board in adopting the Vernonia policy were to prevent student athletes from using drugs, to protect their health and safety, and to provide drug users with assistance programs. Under the Vernonia policy, students wishing to play sports were tested at the beginning of the season for their sport. In addition, ten percent of the student athletes were randomly selected for weekly testing.
After concluding that the drug testing at issue in Vernonia fell within its “special needs” Fourth Amendment jurisprudence,19 the Supreme Court applied a three factor test. See id. at 653-64, 115 S.Ct. 2386. First, the Court considered “the nature of the privacy interest upon which the search here at issue intrudes.” Id. at 654, 115 S.Ct. 2386. Second, the Court looked at “the character of the intrusion that is complained of.” Id. at 658, 115 S.Ct. 2386. Third, the Court assessed “the nature and immediacy of the governmental concern at issue here, and the efficacy of the means for meeting it.” Id. at 660, 115 S.Ct. 2386. We discuss below each of these factors as they apply in this case.
1. Nature of the Privacy Interest
The Vernonia Court explained that, while “children assuredly do not ‘shed their constitutional rights ... at the schoolhouse gate,’” Vernonia, 515 U.S. at 655-56, 115 S.Ct. 2386 (quoting Tinker v. Des Moines Indep. Community Sch. Dist., 393 U.S. 503, 506, 89 S.Ct. 733, 21 L.Ed.2d 731 (1969)) (omission in Vernonia), the Fourth Amendment rights are different in public schools from elsewhere. See id. at 656, 115 S.Ct. 2386. At the outset, the Supreme Court emphasized that the State’s power over school children is custodial and tutelary in nature. See id. Noting that students are routinely required to have physical examinations and vaccinations, the Court next explained that students within the school environment have a lesser expectation of privacy than members of the population generally. See id. at 656-67, 115 S.Ct. 2386. The Court then turned specifically to the student athletes’ privacy expectations, explaining that athletes have an even lesser expectation of privacy for two reasons. First, the Court highlighted that “[ljegitimate privacy expectations are even less with regard to student athletes.” Id. at 657, 115 S.Ct. 2386. On this point, the Court observed that “[sjchool sports are not for the bashful” as they “require ‘suiting up’ before each practice or event, and showering and changing after-wards.” Id. Second, the Court explained that “[b]y choosing to ‘go out for the team,’ they voluntarily subject themselves to a degree of regulation even higher than that imposed on students generally.” Id. Accordingly, “students who voluntarily participate in school athletics have reason to expect intrusions upon normal rights and privileges, including privacy.” Id.
In discussing the students’ expectations of privacy, the trial court in this case concluded that the privacy interests at stake for students affected by the Policy were the same as those in Vernonia. The trial court explained:
The School District exercises substantial authority over student conduct in furtherance of its recognized custodial and tutelary role. Conduct in the school environ[1107]*1107ment is highly regulated. All students are subject to a comprehensive Code of Conduct governing their behavior. Some student athletes are also subject to more stringent regulations as team members. All students also have a reduced expectation of personal privacy, not just student athletes. All students participate in “communal undress” in the required physical education classes.
After analyzing the Policy and the record, however, it becomes abundantly clear that the latter two points concerning student athletes which the Supreme Court emphasized in Vernonia do not apply to members of the marching band. We therefore do not agree with the trial court that this case is indistinguishable from Vernonia in terms of the privacy interests affected by the Policy.
First, one can hardly argue that the marching band is “not for the bashful.” Vernonia, 515 U.S. at 657, 115 S.Ct. 2886. Although band members wear uniforms, they do not undergo the type of public undressing and communal showers required of student athletes.20 While the trial court stated that all students undergo “communal undress,” the record indicates a qualitatively different type of undressing from the communal undressing the Supreme Court described in Vernonia. As we previously explained, Lopez testified that high school students taking physical education are not required to undress completely. Lopez and the high school physical education teacher both testified that students enrolled in physical education do not have to shower. Additionally, high school students are only required to take one year of physical education class and Lopez testified that he only took physical education for three semesters in high school. Thus, all students in the District are not required to enroll in physical education every school year. And, for those who do enroll, they do not undergo the same type of communal undressing and showering that the Supreme Court described in Vernonia. Additionally, the junior high school makes special arrangements for those students who are not comfortable showering after physical education classes.
Second, the Trinidad testing program is not limited to students voluntarily choosing to participate in an athletic activity. As discussed, students who take a for-credit instrumental music class offered by the school will be subjected to drug-testing. In our view, the type of voluntariness to which the Vernonia Court referred does not apply to students who want to enroll in a for-credit class that is part of the school’s curriculum.
The trial court failed to acknowledge these distinctions in concluding that Vernonia dictates upholding the Policy. While we recognize that students in the public school system have lesser expectations of privacy than adults in the general population, we view the absence of voluntariness and the qualitatively different type of undressing in this case as significant. See Vernonia, 515 U.S. at 666, 115 S.Ct. 2386 (Ginsburg, J., concurring) (explaining that the Supreme Court reserves the question on whether a school district could impose mandatory testing on all students and noting that “[t]he Court constantly observes that the School District’s drug-testing policy applies only to students who voluntarily participate in interseholastie athletics”); see also 4 Wayne R. LaFave, Search and Seizure § 10.11(b), at 821 (3d ed.1996) (explaining that the Vernonia Court “deemed'important” the student athletes’ lower legitimate expectations of privacy and the voluntariness of athletic participation). We thus conclude that the students tested here had higher privacy expectations than the students in Vemonia.21
[1108]*11082. Character of the Intrusion
The trial court, similar to the Vernonia opinion, likened the mandated urinalysis testing in this case to every day use of the rest room. The trial court stated:
Moreover, the conditions during the taking of the urine sample are indistinguishable from the ordinary use of the school restrooms. The Court concludes that, as in Vernonia, the personal privacy interest allegedly affected in gathering the urine samples from students is “negligble.”
(Citation omitted.)
We question the trial court’s conclusion that the ordinary use of the school’s rest rooms was indistinguishable from the drug' testing that took place here. Ordinarily, a student has some choice about when to use the rest room and when to urinate. The fact that one student was not able to urinate after several attempts because he was too embarrassed underscores this point. Ordinarily, a student does not have an official monitor, a person whose sole purpose is to prevent a student from altering the student’s urine sample, listening to (and perhaps watching from behind) the student urinating. Ordinarily, a student does not have to urinate into a container and present his or her urine sample to a school district representative for temperature assessment, labeling, and preparation for analysis. Ordinarily, a student urinates simply because- the body requires it, not because a school district insists that the student provide a urine sample on demand in order for the school district to search it for the presence of drugs. Although we have difficulty understanding the equation of the testing here with every day use of the rest room, we will assume that the analysis set forth in Vemonia dictates that we treat the intrusion here as negligible.22
3. Governmental Concern and Efficacy of Means
In its order, the trial court explained the nature of the school district’s interest in combating the drug problem in the District. The trial court explained:
It is beyond argument that the School District’s interest in maintaining a safe school environment, free of criminal activity, and in protecting its students from the substantial dangers of illegal drug use is extremely significant, even compelling. The evidence clearly demonstrates that a serious drug-use problem exists in the Trinidad Schools, that it has resulted in a dramatic increase in major disciplinary problems, and that ordinary methods, such as- drug education, have been ineffectual.
We agree that the nature of the Board’s and the District’s concern “is important— indeed perhaps compelling.” Vernonia, 515 U.S. at 661, 115 S.Ct. 2386. Our main disagreement with the trial court’s analysis, however, lies not in its emphasis on the District’s drug problem, but in how the trial court treated the efficacy of the Board’s cho[1109]*1109sen means for addressing that problem. The trial court stated:
The decision to address this problem by the drug testing procedure set forth in Policy 5541.1 was also reasonable. Plaintiff takes issue with the Board’s selection of participants in extracurricular activities for drug testing because the evidence does not establish that students in these groups had a greater incidence of drug use than the student body as a whole. The relevance of this argument is slight.
We disagree with the trial court’s conclusion.
In considering the efficacy of the Policy, the trial court failed to give proper weight to three important facts: 1) that the Policy swept within its reach students who were enrolled in for-credit, instrumental music classes and participated in the marching band, 2) that the Policy included student groups that were not demonstrated to have contributed to the drug problem in the District,. and 3) that there was no demonstrated risk of immediate physical harm to members of the marching band.
Unlike the Vernonia policy, the Policy included all students participating in all extracurricular activities, as well as students who want to enroll in a for-credit class. There is no evidence in the record to suggest that marching band members are like “school athletes, where the risk of immediate physical harm to the drug user or those with whom he is playing his sport is particularly high.” Vernonia, 515 U.S. at 662, 115 S.Ct. 2386. Indeed, the band director testified that during his twenty-three years as the band director, there had never been a drug-related injury to a student participating in the marching band. Nor is there evidence to suggest that the drug problem existing in the District was “largely fueled by the ‘role model’ effect” of the students who fell within the Policy’s purview.23 Id. at 663, 115 S.Ct. 2386. To the contrary, the marching band director stated that he had never had a problem with drug use interfering with marching band members’ performances and there had been no increase in drug use among marching band members in the three years preceding this case. The band director described the marching band members as “better quality kids in the school,” meaning “well-behaved,” and that they treated their fellow students with respect. As noted, a school board member who supported the Policy similarly explained that band members and students participating in extracurricular activities had better discipline records and performed better academically than did students in the general population. In our view, simply being a role model by virtue of participation in an extracurricular activity is insufficient to support a conclusion that the school’s mandated drug testing program was reasonable. See Chandler v. Miller, 520 U.S. 305, 117 S.Ct. 1295, 1304, 137 L.Ed.2d 513 (1997) (“Indeed, if a need of the ‘set a good example’ genre were sufficient to overwhelm a Fourth Amendment objection, then the care this Court took to explain why the needs in Skinner, Von Raab, and Vernonia ranked as ‘special’ wasted many words in entirely unnecessary, perhaps even misleading, elaborations.”).
The large number of students who were tested in this ease raises an additional concern under the reasonableness inquiry. We acknowledge that students who participate in extracurricular activities that are strictly independent of a school’s offered curriculum (unlike the marching band) do so on a technically volunteer basis. However, the reality for many students who wish to pursue post-secondary educational training and/or professional vocations requiring experience garnered only by participating in extracurricular activities is that they must engage in such activities. Lopez himself is the quintessential example. Additionally, involvement in a school’s extracurricular offerings is a vital adjunct to the educational experience. See Todd v. Rush County Schs., 139 F.3d 571, 571-73 (7th Cir.1998) (Ripple, J., dissenting from denial of rehearing) (“Exclusion of a high school student from all extracurricular activities deprives that student of a great deal of what the modern American high [1110]*1110school has to offer in terms of academic and personal development.”). Being subjected to this type of search as part and parcel to that experience should give us pause before we accept wholesale the notion that drug abuse in the general student population requires such testing.
VII.
Based on our analysis of all of these factors, we conclude that the Policy is not reasonable and thus cannot stand under the United States Constitution. First, the nature of the privacy interest invaded was different from that of the student athletes described by the Vernonia Court. The absence in this case of both true voluntariness and the type of communal undressing that occurred among the student athletes in Vernonia is significant. Second, while the District established that it has a drug abuse problem, the means chosen to deal with that problem were too broad. The Policy’s actual scope extended vastly beyond the policy upheld in Vernonia. The Policy swept within its reach students participating in an extracurricular activity who were not demonstrated to play a role in promoting drugs and for whom there was no demonstrated risk of physical injury. The Policy also effectively included students enrolled in a for-credit class offered by the District. Even accepting the trial court’s reasoning that the invasion of the students’ privacy interests was negligible, we find these other distinctions between this case and Vemonia to be dispositive. Accordingly, having considered together the three factors announced by the Vernonia Court, we hold that the Policy is unconstitutional. We therefore reverse the trial court’s order and remand the case to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
SCOTT, J., dissents, and VOLLACK, C. J., joins in the dissent.
KOURLIS, J., does not participate.