# Legal Search or Violation Of School Policy?



## MJS (Jun 20, 2008)

This is an article that was in the paper a day ago. A school in Canton, CT., brought in police officers and drug sniffing dogs to conduct a search or the school and the grounds, which included cars. Some parents were concerned because there didn't seem to be any cause for this, some kids were supposedly afraid and some felt that it should have been done while school was not in session.

IMO, I see nothing wrong with this. I don't see how any kids could be traumatized, how anyone was in any danger and why parents are making an issue. I suppose they must not think drugs are a serious issue in the school system. Oddly enough though, one student was charged. Looks like there is some sort of problem afterall.

Thoughts?


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Jun 20, 2008)

Legally, the drug dog just patrolling through school grounds or parking lots isn't any privacy violation because they only thing that will alert the dogs would be presence of drugs.  If the cops unlocked every vehicle, or random vehicles, and sifted through the condoms, pirated CDs, forged doctor's notes, and other stuff the students don't want found, that'd be different.  But since the dogs are _only_ alerted by drugs, it's no privacy violation.  

As for conducting the search during school session, well, when else will the students' cars be parked there en masse?  I'll have to check out the article about why the police decided to conduct the search, but I can say that as they only used drug-dogs, there was no privacy violation.


----------



## morph4me (Jun 20, 2008)

I don't see a problem with the schools allowing police and dogs to search their property,  in fact I think it's a good idea to do it sporadically throughout the school year. I have a problem with them searching cars parked in the lot though, because the cars don't belong to the school district and they have no right giving the police permission to search them. I would have even a bigger problem if they searched the students, but there is no indication that this was done. I think an announcement made, after the police were already in the building, about what was going on, it would have alleviated the fear of the students.


----------



## MJS (Jun 20, 2008)

RandomPhantom700 said:


> As for conducting the search during school session, well, when else will the students' cars be parked there en masse? I'll have to check out the article about why the police decided to conduct the search, but I can say that as they only used drug-dogs, there was no privacy violation.


 
Great point!  Additionally, I think it makes more sense because not only are the cars there, but if someone was bringing drugs in, theres a good chance it'd be in the locker as well.  Sure, the dog will probably hit on the locker anyways, but if theres nothing there, kinda defeats the purpose.  I mean, sure they could speak with the kid in question the next day, but if there is no evidence.....


----------



## MJS (Jun 20, 2008)

morph4me said:


> I think an announcement made, after the police were already in the building, about what was going on, it would have alleviated the fear of the students.


 
Of course if this was done, I can imagine the sudden request for a bunch of people to suddenly have to use the bathroom...and while on the way, stop off at the locker, grab the goods and flush them.  

Letting people may have eliminated some fear, I agree with that, but if that was done, I'd think that they'd want to keep the kids in the classrooms to prevent what I mentioned above.


----------



## Kacey (Jun 20, 2008)

I teach in a middle school, and we've had drug dogs on the grounds once or twice, and no one complained, except the kid caught with pot in his locker (the dogs were brought in on a tip from another student) - and the kid's claim was that we had no right to search his locker, because it was private.  We hear that claim every so often - but the district policy is very clear that the lockers belong to the school, which has the right to open them and check the contents at any time, and are provided to the students as a courtesy, so that didn't hold water.  None of the parents complained except the mother of the kid who got caught... she was claiming illegal search and seizure because the pot had come from _her_ stash and she wanted it back.  And people wonder why parent involvement is so hard to get in my school.  :idunno:


----------



## punisher73 (Jun 20, 2008)

morph4me said:


> I don't see a problem with the schools allowing police and dogs to search their property, in fact I think it's a good idea to do it sporadically throughout the school year. I have a problem with them searching cars parked in the lot though, because the cars don't belong to the school district and they have no right giving the police permission to search them.


 
I know at our school to be allowed to park at the school you have to have your vehicle registered with the school.  It also states on the registration form that you give consent to have the vehicle searched if there is reasonable suspicion that the student possesses something illegal.  It must be signed by both the parents and the student. So it would not just be a random search of the vehicle, but the school would have a reason to search the vehicle.  Also, if the school has a reasonable suspicion (legally, this is one of the lowest standards we have) that a student has something illegal like drugs or a weapon they CAN legally search a student, but again it is not just on a random basis.

The courts have ruled that a drug dog can search/sniff ANY area open to the public, which is in this case a parking lot.  If the dog hits upon a vehicle, then the school/police have probable cause to search the vehicle and it is not a matter of getting consent to do so.


----------



## jks9199 (Jun 20, 2008)

I don't have a lot of time to answer -- but generally speaking, if you're on the school property in my area, you may be subject to search.  And a dog sniff around a closed vehicle isn't even a search...


----------



## Drac (Jun 20, 2008)

MJS said:


> Some parents were concerned because there didn't seem to be any cause for this,


 
Probably the same parents that tell the Press that their child is a good kid after being arrested for robbing a 7/11 ...





MJS said:


> and some felt that it should have been done while school was not in session.


 
Of course because the drungs wouldn't be there but being consumed at a friends house





MJS said:


> IMO, I see nothing wrong with this.


 
Nor do I






MJS said:


> Oddly enough though, one student was charged. Looks like there is some sort of problem afterall


 
Surprise, surprize...


----------



## Sukerkin (Jun 20, 2008)

My thanks yet again to our resident experts in American law enforcement.  We don't tell you chaps often enough how much it means to have people who know of what they speak voicing their knowledge in applicable threads :rei:.


----------



## Empty Hands (Jun 20, 2008)

Children have no rights in schools, and certainly not property/privacy rights.  Mandatory drug testing for activities and random sweep raids have become commonplace, and the parents support it.  You can't claim that the children's urine is the property of the school, being borrowed by the child.  I only see this trend getting worse.  Some of the officers have also been very, ah, _zealous _in their prosecution of these raids.


----------



## BrandiJo (Jun 20, 2008)

In my high school, if you brought it on school ground it was subject to be searched. Car, backpack, purse, locker, if it was on school grounds it was clearly stated that they can and will search it. It was part of the code of conduct, and all the parents and students where made aware of it. My school also had several bomb threats, and guns and bullets found on the grounds prior to that being instated. Most of the time they let smaller purses go with out being searched but bags and what not where open.


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Jun 20, 2008)

Empty Hands said:


> Children have no rights in schools, and certainly not property/privacy rights. Mandatory drug testing for activities and random sweep raids have become commonplace, and the parents support it. You can't claim that the children's urine is the property of the school, being borrowed by the child. I only see this trend getting worse. Some of the officers have also been very, ah, _zealous _in their prosecution of these raids.


 
Could you at least try to provide some context for this picture.  Or better yet, a source for us to check out.

If not, for me anyway, this picture is meaningless.


----------



## Empty Hands (Jun 20, 2008)

5-0 Kenpo said:


> Could you at least try to provide some context for this picture.  Or better yet, a source for us to check out.



Sure.



5-0 Kenpo said:


> If not, for me anyway, this picture is meaningless.



Unless those children had weapons, there was no reason for that gun to be pointed at them.  Low-ready is the _most _that could be justified.


----------



## CuongNhuka (Jun 20, 2008)

If anyone is thinking "they cann't do that, it violates the Constitution" my money says you're wrong. My school district made everyone sign a waiver of liablity, and waive there Constitutional Rights. So, there is actually no way to violate there rights.


----------



## Archangel M (Jun 20, 2008)

A police dog can walk around any car it likes. Not technically a search. If it hits on your car and they get a warrant to search. Thats on you.


----------



## Empty Hands (Jun 20, 2008)

CuongNhuka said:


> My school district made everyone sign a waiver of liablity, and waive there Constitutional Rights.



No, it doesn't work that way.  If it did, all the police would have to do (for example - not making accusations) is beat you bloody until you sign a waiver, and then the courts couldn't do anything.  Many rights cannot be waived, and many contracts or waivers are not valid no matter how convincingly they are signed.

In the case of schools, the Supreme Court has specifically upheld the rights of schools to perform random and/or comprehensive drug testing, and upheld the rights of schools to perform searches that do not meet the normal threshold of police searches under the 4th amendment.  This isn't just lockers, either.  In _New Jersey vs. T.L.O._, the search in question was of a purse carried by the student.


----------



## MBuzzy (Jun 20, 2008)

Honestly, as far as I'm concerned, they can search anything they want on school grounds.  Though I don't have a kid yet....when I do, I wouldn't mind the cops searching the kids for illegal substances, weapons, etc - and this includes my own kid.  It is inconvenient and it is borderline invasion of privacy.......but I would rather have that than my kid get sold drugs or shot.

I do think that the "unacceptable items" have gone a bit far now...expulsions for aspirin and table knives is CRAZY; but if it is kept to the stuff that we REALLY don't want around, I have no problem.

But then again, I'm also one of those crazy people who is HAPPY to be searched before getting on an Aircraft.  I figure if a blonde haired blue eyed American in the military is getting searched, so is everyone else, meaning there is a better chance that they will catch the guy with the bad stuff.


----------



## CuongNhuka (Jun 20, 2008)

Empty Hands said:


> No, it doesn't work that way. If it did, all the police would have to do (for example - not making accusations) is beat you bloody until you sign a waiver, and then the courts couldn't do anything. Many rights cannot be waived, and many contracts or waivers are not valid no matter how convincingly they are signed.


 
No matter what they can do legally, they do. I was one of the only ones who realised that the paper we sign at the begining of the year that says we read and understand the student of conduct has (in fine print) we have effectivly waived our rights by being at school. Not just in matters like this either. they have NO rights.


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Jun 21, 2008)

CuongNhuka said:


> No matter what they can do legally, they do. I was one of the only ones who realised that the paper we sign at the begining of the year that says we read and understand the student of conduct has (in fine print) we have effectivly waived our rights by being at school. Not just in matters like this either. they have NO rights.


 
The problem is, this is effectively a contract.  Contracts signed by children have very little standing in court.

Children do have rights.  They cant effectively waive their rights.

Empty Hands:

Thank you.  That type of stuff is disturbing.  Even being a police officer, I do believe that everyone has Constitutional rights that should be upheld.


----------



## MBuzzy (Jun 21, 2008)

CuongNhuka said:


> If anyone is thinking "they cann't do that, it violates the Constitution" my money says you're wrong. My school district made everyone sign a waiver of liablity, and waive there Constitutional Rights. So, there is actually no way to violate there rights.


 
So specifically, what constitutional right is it that is being taken away?

There are many other places that operate the same way, we just think of schools differently because it is our kids and because they are there every day.  But what do school do that isn't done in Airports?


----------



## jks9199 (Jun 21, 2008)

CuongNhuka said:


> If anyone is thinking "they cann't do that, it violates the Constitution" my money says you're wrong. My school district made everyone sign a waiver of liablity, and waive there Constitutional Rights. So, there is actually no way to violate there rights.


A blanket waiver like that would be unlikely to be supported as being a valid and voluntary waiver; what was your choice, sign or don't go to school?  Instead, what you were probably actually signing was advice that BY ENTERING AND REMAINING UPON school property, you consent to a search of your property.  If you refuse the search at that point, you'd be escorted off the campus...  

But the dog sniff IS NOT a search, if there is no intrusion, any more than it's a search if I look in the window and see contraband plainly visible.


----------



## jks9199 (Jun 21, 2008)

Empty Hands said:


> No, it doesn't work that way.  If it did, all the police would have to do (for example - not making accusations) is beat you bloody until you sign a waiver, and then the courts couldn't do anything.  Many rights cannot be waived, and many contracts or waivers are not valid no matter how convincingly they are signed.
> 
> In the case of schools, the Supreme Court has specifically upheld the rights of schools to perform random and/or comprehensive drug testing, and upheld the rights of schools to perform searches that do not meet the normal threshold of police searches under the 4th amendment.  This isn't just lockers, either.  In _New Jersey vs. T.L.O._, the search in question was of a purse carried by the student.


In fact, it's not limited to schools...

Your company computer, email, even "your" desk or locker can actually be searched by the company.

Which of course is another issue...  The 4th Amendment only applies to GOVERNMENTAL searches, and not even all of them.  Among other details, recall the wording: 
_The right of the people to be secure in the persons, houses, papers and effects, from UNREASONABLE searches and seizures shall not be violated..._ (emphasis added)
Note that a search found to be reasonable is not a violation...


----------



## MBuzzy (Jun 21, 2008)

jks9199 said:


> A blanket waiver like that would be unlikely to be supported as being a valid and voluntary waiver; what was your choice, sign or don't go to school? Instead, what you were probably actually signing was advice that BY ENTERING AND REMAINING UPON school property, you consent to a search of your property. If you refuse the search at that point, you'd be escorted off the campus...
> 
> But the dog sniff IS NOT a search, if there is no intrusion, any more than it's a search if I look in the window and see contraband plainly visible.


 
This is a good point, you are not actually forfeiting any rights.  If there were to force you without choice to do something, it would be.  But in this case, you CAN refuse, you just must be ready for the consequences.  If you refuse the search, you will probably just be escorted off campus, but without a warrant, they can't FORCE you - but again....that is a matter of how far you want to fight it.

In the case of your company computer, desk, etc....those things BELONG to the company, just like your locker does...and the company or the school has the right to ensure that nothing illegal is happening on their property.


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Jun 21, 2008)

Empty Hands said:


> No, it doesn't work that way. If it did, all the police would have to do (for example - not making accusations) is beat you bloody until you sign a waiver, and then the courts couldn't do anything. Many rights cannot be waived, and many contracts or waivers are not valid no matter how convincingly they are signed.
> 
> In the case of schools, the Supreme Court has specifically upheld the rights of schools to perform random and/or comprehensive drug testing, and upheld the rights of schools to perform searches that do not meet the normal threshold of police searches under the 4th amendment. This isn't just lockers, either. In _New Jersey vs. T.L.O._, the search in question was of a purse carried by the student.


 
I'd like to expand on this in that the Courts have recognized _some_ rights in school, such as the right to wear armbands to protest a war.  See _Tinker v. Des Moines_.  However, the students do not have free speech rights in things like class or school newspapers (I forget the case names), on two justifications: it's a school-run education program and security purposes.  The basic distinction between the school newspaper case and _Des Moines_ was that while schools can infringe on students' rights for the purpose of furthering education, they cannot do so based on simple fear of controversy.

Personally, I have my own issues about treating school grounds as curtailing most constitutional rights, but of course, I'm not the Supreme Court.  Searching lockers and preventing disruption of class programs is understandable, but to outright state that students just give up their constitutional status comes off to me as a bit too Orwellian (cue Pink Floyd's _The Wall_.)  The presumption, I would think, should be that students maintain their rights until a sufficient justification is raised, not to outright state that "well you're here to get ejicated, and you're just a kid, so deal with it".  

/off soapbox


----------



## MJS (Jun 21, 2008)

Drac said:


> Probably the same parents that tell the Press that their child is a good kid after being arrested for robbing a 7/11 ...


 
Yes, I agree, that is the line thats used waaaaay too often IMO.  A good kid? A star athlete in school?  Hmm...guess the parents must've had their eyes closed to the other things their kid was doing.


----------



## Twin Fist (Jun 21, 2008)

uh, they ARE just kids, and they ARE there JUST to get an education, not to exercise any perceived rights.

school property, they can search it for any reason, or no reason as far as I am concerned.


----------



## CuongNhuka (Jun 21, 2008)

jks9199 said:


> Instead, what you were probably actually signing was advice that BY ENTERING AND REMAINING UPON school property, you consent to a search of your property. If you refuse the search at that point, you'd be escorted off the campus...


 
JKS, you name a right, I'll name a right we lose. Evrything, we lose it. We cannot protest, organize, have no right to a trial (like we were falsely acussed of smoking pot, it doens't matter, you cannot do anything about it), and so on and do forth. No rights what so ever.



Twin Fist said:


> uh, they ARE just kids, and they ARE there JUST to get an education, not to exercise any perceived rights.
> 
> school property, they can search it for any reason, or no reason as far as I am concerned.


 
So, at work (you are there JUST to get paid) you should not have any of the rights given to you in the Constitution/Ammendements? OK, lets explain the situation more fully. You and one of your co-workers are taking a break and talking about your new manager, who you guys don't like. You're not talkling about breaking the law, or even really insulting him. You're really just saying he isn't _that great_ at his job. You're both told you aren't getting paid for a week because of it. They have no reason to give you a right to complain, or even talk amoungst yourselves. That is what you are saying. 

And if you're going to ask, yes the admin do infact do these things.


----------



## Twin Fist (Jun 21, 2008)

I live in an "at will" state, we can be fired here for any reason, or no reason. So i dont have a lot of sympathy

your make believe scenario doesnt really match up with what is happening.

bottom line, you dont like the way you being treated by an employer?

quit

no one is entitled to a job


----------



## Kacey (Jun 21, 2008)

CuongNhuka said:


> JKS, you name a right, I'll name a right we lose. Evrything, we lose it. We cannot protest, organize, have no right to a trial (like we were falsely acussed of smoking pot, it doens't matter, you cannot do anything about it), and so on and do forth. No rights what so ever.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



If you are on your employer's property, then your employer's rules are in force.  Freedom of speech doesn't mean that there aren't consequences for what you say - just that you are legally allowed to say it.  If you badmouth your manager where he, or someone else above you in the corporate chain, can hear you - then yes, there may be a consequence for it, and that consequence is legal.  Likewise, a student in school can say whatever they like - but if that statement is determined to be disruptive, then the school has the right to give the student a consequence intended to prevent future disruptions.  Don't like it?  Keep being disruptive; eventually you will lose the privilege of attending school, for the benefit of those who are not disruptive.

You say you are starting Basic Training in the fall - do you intend to badmouth your trainer?  Because again - you are welcome, _legally_, to say anything you want as long as it's not libel - but your chain of command is _legally_ able to enforce discipline by giving you a consequence for choosing to voice an opinion they don't like.

Likewise, if you are using a storage compartment (locker, desk drawer, whatever) that belongs to your employer, then your employer has the right to search it - because anything illegal that is in that container is your employer's responsibility, and s/he isn't going to take the fall for you, or risk a jury not believing that s/he didn't know it was there.  That is their legal right, as well as being one method of upholding their legal obligation to provide a safe working environment.  The same holds true for a school; the lockers are on school property, and the school retains the right to open them and examine the contents at any time.

The right to privacy is superseded by the property rights of the property owner, who has the right, and the responsibility, to protect the safety of those on the property - if you don't like the way a property owner protects that safety, you are welcome to object - but there may be consequences for your objection; you could be ignored, you could be censured, you could be banned from the property.... you could get blown up, if they stop checking because people object.

Ideals are great - but real life is a series of compromises between what is right, and what is necessary.  It's a hard thing to learn.


----------



## MBuzzy (Jun 21, 2008)

Bear in mind please, that in no way do I intend to sound condescending here - I apologize if I do, but I believe that these are things that change drastically with different perspectives.  I remember feeling the same way while I was in school.

But, when you think about it, this is a constitution interpretation issue.  Bear in mind that there are people whose full time job is to TRY to interpret a document that was written a very long time ago for different circumstances.  In these interpretations, many times, you have conflicting rights - how does one decide?  That is a difficult question.  

The question of a student's constitutional rights have been fought in courts for years.  There are still many fights still going on in courts about this.  If you feel that a constitutional right has been violated, your parents (or you if you are 18) have every right to bring the case to a court.



CuongNhuka said:


> JKS, you name a right, I'll name a right we lose. Evrything, we lose it. We cannot protest, organize, have no right to a trial (like we were falsely acussed of smoking pot, it doens't matter, you cannot do anything about it), and so on and do forth. No rights what so ever.


 
First of all, if you violate a LAW, you will go to a real court.  If you violate a school rule, they have every right to treat you as they see fit.  That's the same way in the real world.  If you violate a law at your job, you will be dealt with by the authorities.  If you violate a company policy, they will handle you internally - however they see fit, according to the company policies and regulations.  The same thing exists in a school and the SCHOOL has the right and obligation to keep order and ensure the safety of the students - most of whom are minors.

If you are accused of smoking pot in school and they deal with you internally - you are probably better off.  Chances are you'll have a much more difficult time in the public court system and if they do try to punish you accordingly, you have every right to take it to the authorities, i.e. if you are wrongly accused.  That is why school boards and local law enforcement exist.  From what I've heard, most schools are simply bringing in the local law enforcement to deal with these issues to avoid liability.  The days of "don't let me catch you doing that again" or "We'll just deal with it here and no one else has to know" are basically gone.

Your rights to organize and protest?  First off, I would be curious what is being protested?  School policies?  Again, they have the right to maintain order.  Look at this objectively, if students were allowed to protest anything that they wished on school property, what do you think the outcome would be?  Most of the students are minors and not yet mature enough to handle such freedom.  I am SURE that you know of classmates who would sit outside the office holding a picket sign instead of going to classes because they got a bad grade or don't like a teacher.  Again, even on the outside if you are disrupting society or general order with your protest, chances are, you will be removed - again, completely within rights....you just have to think about WHOSE rights we're talking about.  Basically your rights stop where mine begin.  When your "right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" impedes mine, then we have a problem....and that is why law enforcement exists.



CuongNhuka said:


> So, at work (you are there JUST to get paid) you should not have any of the rights given to you in the Constitution/Ammendements? OK, lets explain the situation more fully. You and one of your co-workers are taking a break and talking about your new manager, who you guys don't like. You're not talkling about breaking the law, or even really insulting him. You're really just saying he isn't _that great_ at his job. You're both told you aren't getting paid for a week because of it. They have no reason to give you a right to complain, or even talk amoungst yourselves. That is what you are saying.


 
First of all, in the real world, if this hypothetical situation were to happen and the company regulations and policies did not already allow for it, then you would have a VERY good discrimination suit against the company.  Any company who DID have an open policy that any employee who speaks badly about their boss would be docked a week's pay, probably wouldn't be in business for long.  Plus....everyone complains about their boss!  You just be real careful not to let them hear it!  If they do....you're in just as much trouble as you would be if you were badmouthing a teacher in school; except in the real world, it can affect your livelihood, not just a grade.

If your complaining or talking disruts the operations of the business, they DO have a right to stop you.  If my employees stand around all day BSing, I go and stop them and get them back to work.  If they spend all day complaining and not working, I try to address complaints and if it either doesn't work or is not possible, they get a warning and then they get punished.  In school, you can complain all you want after school, between classes, etc....no one is stopping you there.  You just can't do it in class!  Same deal....at a job, you complain at home....on breaks, away from company property.

The bottom line is that your constitutional rights still exist, simply within a matter of interpretation.  I personally feel that many people throw around the "violation of my constitutional rights" arguement too liberally.  It takes some real objective thinking on the matter to determine 1) if your rights are truly being violated and 2) who ELSE'S rights are coming into play here.  It is a complex game.

Honestly, when I look back at school I think "boy, it really isn't that different from the "working world.  Just a different objective."  You will be shocked at the similarities.

And on a side note - as a member of the military, you DO forfeit certain rights.  You really CAN'T openly talk negatively against your boss.  The Military is the ONLY profession that has its own legal system.  We function by a different set of rules.  Example:  I can't talk negatively (ESPECIALLY publically) about the President, Chief of Staff, or ANY member of my chain of command.  I can't attend a public protest for a great number of things; the issues that I can protest, I must do out of uniform and with no way to link me to the military.  You are even withheld on certain beliefs and behaviors that you may or may not have.


----------



## CuongNhuka (Jun 22, 2008)

MBuzzy said:


> If you are accused of smoking pot in school and they deal with you internally - you are probably better off. Chances are you'll have a much more difficult time in the public court system and if they do try to punish you accordingly, you have every right to take it to the authorities, i.e. if you are wrongly accused. That is why school boards and local law enforcement exist. From what I've heard, most schools are simply bringing in the local law enforcement to deal with these issues to avoid liability. The days of "don't let me catch you doing that again" or "We'll just deal with it here and no one else has to know" are basically gone.


 
Actually, it would be better to go to a court. See, if a student is accussed of doing druggs, and is given a drug test that shows they haven't done anything, the courts are likely to drop the case. The school will STILL do what ever it wants. And if you read what I wrote, you would have noticed that I said 'you're on a break' as in, not working and not in the work area. I could have said that one of my teachers isn't very good at his job (keep in mind that is very differnit from anything you used as an example) in my house (almost 3 miles form the school) and I could STILL get in trouble if the faculty found out.

And by 'protest' I meant protest anything. If a student wanted to protest the Beijing Olympics, they could actually get in trouble for it. They could have called in, and done everything they are supposed to, and still get in trouble for it. You seem to think that this is some 'essentially good group of people trying to keep order' and it's not. The adminstration at my school distract is essentially tyranical.


----------



## MBuzzy (Jun 22, 2008)

CuongNhuka said:


> Actually, it would be better to go to a court. See, if a student is accussed of doing druggs, and is given a drug test that shows they haven't done anything, the courts are likely to drop the case. The school will STILL do what ever it wants. And if you read what I wrote, you would have noticed that I said 'you're on a break' as in, not working and not in the work area. I could have said that one of my teachers isn't very good at his job (keep in mind that is very differnit from anything you used as an example) in my house (almost 3 miles form the school) and I could STILL get in trouble if the faculty found out.
> 
> And by 'protest' I meant protest anything. If a student wanted to protest the Beijing Olympics, they could actually get in trouble for it. They could have called in, and done everything they are supposed to, and still get in trouble for it. You seem to think that this is some 'essentially good group of people trying to keep order' and it's not. The adminstration at my school distract is essentially tyranical.


 
I really think that Kacey said it best...you do have the right to say anything that you want - anywhere that you want.  But you must be prepared for the consequences.  I did read exactly what you read.  On a break or not, on school grounds or not...school or company, the same thing applies.  No one is STOPPING you from saying it, but if you do, you must be prepared for the consequences.  You obviously KNOW what the standards of behavior are, so if you say something outside that range, you should be prepared.

As for the drug issue, first off all, in the school situation, it has a lot to do with WHY you were wrongly accused.  Plus, watch the news.  If you are accused of doing drugs, take a drug test, are proven clean, and are not in violation of any other rules....and they STILL punish you, then you have rights.  If a school punishes a student unjustly, the parents and student have the right to take the issue to the school board or local authorities.  No guarantees that you'll get off, but then there are no guarantees that you will be proven innocent in a court of law if you are innocent.  A lot of this is just life.

I really see no value added in allowing students to protest on school grounds.  If you want to protest, go somewhere else....there is no reason to do it there.  If you're protesting the Beijing Olympics on school grounds, what's your objective?  I'm not quite following the "called in, and done everything they are supposed to" if protesting is allowed and there is a process....I'm not getting how someone still gets in trouble?  Basically this sounds to me like the school says "Ok, you can protest, just call us and tell us first" Then you call, get approved and you get in trouble when you try to do it.....I've got nothing to say on that one, that's flat out corruption and lying and should be addressed to an authority.

School administration is tyrannical.  As it should be.  Again, the vast majority of students are not mature enough to handle total freedom of action.  I ask you to think some of these things through to conclusion and extend them to other jobs.  You will find that the same things happen outside of school and that if the school DID allow certian behaviors it would be abused and disrupt order.

There was a time, even when I was going to school that students had a great deal of freedom.  My locker was NEVER searched, nor was my car.  I still thought the administration was a bunch of jerks and were evil tyrants, but when I look at what students can do now....I'm amazed by what we could do.  The restrictions that exist now are there for a reason.....school shooting, more drugs, more nervous parents, sue happy parents, etc.....you have to remember that some of these rules are there to protect the school's administration as well.

If a drug ring is found operating out of the school and no searches were ever done and no action was taken to prevent it or deal with it, you can BET that some people are losing their jobs.....


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Jun 22, 2008)

The equation of a work place and school does not work for one very simple reason.  People have a right not to work.  Children do not have the right not to go to school, at least up to a certain age.

Now the question is, does a government, which mandates school for children, then have the right to say that those children also have to forgo their constitutional rights to go to a government run school?  My position is that they do not.

Now, if government run education, just like private education, were voluntary, then by all means, have the parents and children alike abide by rules which in essence violate their constitutional rights.  Because essentially then become private businesses run by the government.  But how do you force them to do both.  

And here is another question.  How is it that as soon as they step off campus, those children then regain those rights?  I do not know of another institution where the government can chose to take away or allow Constitutionally protected rights regarding citizens.

And that is yet another reason why I do not believe in state run education.


----------



## Empty Hands (Jun 22, 2008)

Kacey said:


> The right to privacy is superseded by the property rights of the property owner, who has the right, and the responsibility, to protect the safety of those on the property...



No, not really.  From _O'Connor v. Ortega _: "Searches and seizures by government employers or supervisors of the private property of their employees are subject to Fourth Amendment restraints."

There are other cases which establish when and when not an employee has a reasonable expectation to privacy.  The standard does not always or even usually rise to the level of a warrant, but it cannot be arbitrary.  A reasonableness standard is common.


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Jun 22, 2008)

Empty Hands said:


> No, not really. From _O'Connor v. Ortega _: "Searches and seizures by government employers or supervisors of the private property of their employees are subject to Fourth Amendment restraints."
> 
> There are other cases which establish when and when not an employee has a reasonable expectation to privacy. The standard does not always or even usually rise to the level of a warrant, but it cannot be arbitrary. A reasonableness standard is common.


 
In the first case, you are using the government as the employer.  That causes a certain standard to have to be met.  Only the government must uphold search and seizure laws.  Private citizens (employers) have no such obligation.

Can you give case law regarding what standards a private employer must meet?


----------



## Tez3 (Jun 22, 2008)

I'm still digesting the fact that school children have cars they take to school!


----------



## Rich Parsons (Jun 22, 2008)

MJS said:


> This is an article that was in the paper a day ago. A school in Canton, CT., brought in police officers and drug sniffing dogs to conduct a search or the school and the grounds, which included cars. Some parents were concerned because there didn't seem to be any cause for this, some kids were supposedly afraid and some felt that it should have been done while school was not in session.
> 
> IMO, I see nothing wrong with this. I don't see how any kids could be traumatized, how anyone was in any danger and why parents are making an issue. I suppose they must not think drugs are a serious issue in the school system. Oddly enough though, one student was charged. Looks like there is some sort of problem afterall.
> 
> Thoughts?




MY thoughts.

The vehicles that were owned by the public should have been off limits until they found cause to search an individual vehicle not all vehicles. 

In the late 70's in Junior High School, they searched all the lockers on the floor I was on during class. They were looking for drugs. As the lockers were school property, even the richest and most connected child had no grounds to stand on. But the problem was not that they found drugs. They found a pocket knife or two and these were not of concern, as people carried them walking to and from school. But they also found lots of gun powder. The most being in my locker. So I was dragged out of class and brought in front of the police and the school officials without my parents present. They then proceeded to yell at me and try to get me to confess to trying to blow up the school. I denied that the gun powder was mine. I told them I had never seen it before. And guess what? It was all true. After school started, I got a new locker partner, and this partner had brought it in for the science teacher to test for purity and consistency as he had made it at home. But you see the school officials had one paper note that this person was added, and nothing in the filed records. In the end, one "bright" person asked me, then whose could it be. I then stated, why not ask my locker partner. They tried to apologize. But I had little respect for those involved, on the police to the school officials. they expected us children to act like adults. To not make mistakes. To document all our quotes and be able to prove everything we did in our work, and here they all made mistakes and no one got punished. They threw an off hand apology, and did not even bother to call my parents. They just sent me back to class, where everyone thought I was a criminal. 

Nope no trauma for me. I just learned at 11 years old the 7th grade that adults lie, and cover up, and look for scape goats. In the end, they told the other kid that he should not have brought it in. Why? so nice to him? Because they had screwed up so royally with me. In the end one could say it helped me. I learned at an early age to challenge authority and ask why, and what allows them the right. But it has also caused lots of problems as many of those authority figures never did like being questioned.


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Jun 22, 2008)

Tez3 said:


> I'm still digesting the fact that school children have cars they take to school!


 
I drove to high school during junior and senior year, sure as hell beat taking the bus.


----------



## BrandiJo (Jun 22, 2008)

Tez3 said:


> I'm still digesting the fact that school children have cars they take to school!


i had a car the day i turned 16, bought it my self with the money from a job i got (and kept) the day i turned 14.


----------

