Posted on 03/14/2002 3:28:36 AM PST by THEUPMAN
Courts have routinely upheld the sort of drug sweeps that occurred Monday at Oconee County High School, tacitly acknowledging that in some respects, students check their Fourth Amendment rights at the door in the interest of public safety.
Oconee County Schools Superintendent Shannon Adams says he's heard no complaints about the recent high-school lockdown.
''The (U.S.) Supreme Court has been pretty supportive of school authorities in conducting these kinds of searches,'' said Sam Davis, dean of the University of Mississippi School of Law and an expert on constitutional issues surrounding school searches. ''They've given school officials a pretty wide latitude in ensuring there is a safe environment conducive to learning.''
On Monday, two agents with RAID Corps, a Spartanburg, S.C.-based private security firm, swept through the school with drug dogs searching for indications of drugs or guns around lockers and parked cars. The school's doors were locked to prevent anyone from leaving, though administrators and faculty were posted at exits in case of an emergency.
''If you don't do it all the way, you really jeopardize the security of the operation,'' said Oconee County Schools Superintendent Shannon Adams.
Adams said he will propose to the school board that it reserve funds in the next year's budget for regular spot checks.
''I believe it's a deterrent to students bringing drugs and other contraband on campus,'' Adams said. ''We're not naive enough to pretend it's not there, but this is more of a preventative measure.''
Adams said two days after the search, in which two teens were charged with misdemeanor possession of marijuana, his office hasn't heard a single complaint from parents.
''We really had not anticipated any negative reaction,'' Adams said. ''By and large parents appreciate the school system's efforts to make schools safe.''
In fact, few legal challenges have arisen from school drug searches, Davis said. ''It may be that in many cases parents don't seek to challenge it; that they support it. Maybe their lawyers do some research and conclude it would be pointless to challenge it.''
In the late 1960s, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Tinker v. De Moines School System that students could exercise their First Amendment right to free speech by wearing black armbands protesting the Vietnam War. At the time, conservatives worried that the decision would lead to chaos in the schools, with increased court interference in their operation and students in effect running the schools.
''I think what you're seeing now is the pendulum swinging back in the other direction,'' Davis said. ''The court over the last 15 to 20 years has really gone with preserving the government's interests over the individual's. There's really no question that students have less constitutional rights in a public school setting than they do outside.''
Generally, the Fourth Amendment protection from unreasonable search and seizure guarantees that searches of a person's belongings should not be done without a warrant issued after proof of probable cause is given. In schools, however, the administrators may unilaterally conduct searches without a warrant. The Supreme Court, in a New Jersey case decided in the 1990s, ruled that school officials don't need a warrant or probable cause, but merely a ''reasonable suspicion.'' The court reserved judgment, however, on the involvement of police in school searches.
Jay Russell, founder of RAID Corps, said using private firms allows school systems to avoid some of the prickly issues that surround law enforcement searches. ''A lot of times when you're a police officer and you start searching things, the ugly word 'warrant' keeps surfacing,'' Russell said. ''We don't have to get into any of those issues. We're working as an entity of the school -- we're like a school employee.''
The U.S. Supreme Court has also upheld the constitutionality of random drug testing for student-athletes, a related issue in the area of Fourth Amendment rights. Lower federal courts have upheld school drug sweeps, though they've indicated that some reasonable suspicion should exist.
''At least one of these courts has indicated you need an individualized suspicion,'' Davis said. ''In other words, you can't go searching every room, every locker, every car.''
Davis said in the context of the Oconee High search, ''one critical point might be whether there were any indications there were drug or weapon problems in the school. If there's not any demonstrated showing, then I think they might be on somewhat shaky ground.''
Adams said there were no prior indications of drug or weapon use at the school before instituting the search. He noted, however, that the school board's attorney researched the law before any search was approved.
''The bottom line is this many school systems would not be doing it if there was a serious risk of a legal challenge,'' Adams said.
''We've had people try to sue us, but they just didn't have a case,'' said Russell, the private contractor. Russell estimates his firm conducts some 250 searches a month in school systems in North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia. He said his agents have seized 300 items of contraband and 33 guns so far this year.
''Ninety-eight percent of the parents we come into contact with praise us because we make them feel good about where their child is going to school,'' Russell said.
Still, constitutional law scholars worry about the rights students are surrendering in public schools. ''Right now I think the pendulum is still swinging in giving teachers and administrators more authority,'' Davis said. ''I'm concerned in how far that is going to go.''
coming soon to a theater near you ...
leave your rights at the door upon entering.
Well, there ya go. They make 'em feel good about where their kid goes to school. That's important.
Or the real question .... If you don't stand up for your rights, do you deserve them?
Once these kids are taught to give up their rights, do you think they will ever have the nads to "ask" for them back?
what was that about trading freedom for safety ......
National Education Association’s Commission on the Reorganization of Secondary Education, a.k.a. The Gang of Twenty-seven, now long forgotten but certainly not gone. They builded better than they knew, and their souls go marching on in every school in America today. The Commission was established in 1913, the year that also brought us the income tax. Many of its members were functionaries of school bureaucracies, from the United States Commissioner of Education himself
from
The Graves of Academe
by Richard Mitchell
If you believe children under the age of 18 have full rights, then you believe children can give permission for medical procedures without their parents consent. In many states, this would apply to abortion.
KIDS DON'T HAVE THE RIGHTS OF ADULTS. PARENTS CAN AND SHOULD SEARCH THEIR TEENAGE KIDS ROOMS FOR DRUGS, ETC. SCHOOLS SHOULD DO THE SAME.
I turned 18 my senior year. I believe that any student who was 18 at the time of the search does have a legitimate grievance. The children under 18 are not protected by the constitutional requirement for reasonable search. Students over 18 are. It is very specific.
You start giving full constitutional rights to kids and you have just torpedoed our country as we know it.
Yeah, when the things they are looking for became a problem in the schools. It's kind of like a return to the fifties.
Now if the ACLU would just allow corporal punishment again, we would have swung most of the way back from the nonsense of students rights started just as I was entering Jr. High in the '60's. It has been a total and completely failed experiment.
I'll say it again: Children don't have rights - their parents/guardians do. Their parents/guardians aren't being searched. If you don't like the searches in your kids school, you can complain. If enough parents do, the school will respond. It's just like any other school issue. Rights are not even germain here.
Again, someone says, in one sentence, what it took me two paragraphs to say. Thanks...
Sure, it was in 1965.
Why? Is the inside of a school any less a part of the United States than the outside of a school.
I will agree that people under the age of 18 years have fewer rights than those over that age but when it comes down to fewer rights JUST because they enter shool property I have to question this.
You start giving full constitutional rights to adult citizens and you have just torpedoed our country as we know it.
So you approve of "private " police who are exempt from the "warrant" thing?
Man, I could go ten directions with that one, both comedic and serious 8^>
I think the reason might be that if the parents, collectively, have a problem with school searches, they will probably stop. In other words, in schools, they are doing the will of the parents, who are the responsible party regarding their kids rights.
If, on the other hand, a cop pulls over a car load of 17 year olds and just starts searching because they don't have the rights of adults, I have a problem with that - except in "mayberry" type towns, where everyone knows everyone (and I'm being serious here). That's why cities are so icky, by the way - anonymity.
In other words, in schools, they are doing the will of the parents, who are the responsible party regarding their kids rights.
I don't think it's the WILL of the parents. The parents are just too lazy to exert themselves to keep an eye on, and control of, their own kids.
Spare the rod and spoil the child has been completely forgotten by the schools.
I don't advocate beating children but corporal punishment is sometimes the only thing a child WILL fear. At least anymore.
My preference (my essay is at the top of the page) would be to drop the mandatory (read: Communist) nature of education. Then we can ask a student to submit to a search. If they refuse, they don't have to return. Simple, organized, Constitutional, and maintains a decent learning environment. But that's just me.
It should be ended.
RobRoy wrote: You start giving full constitutional rights to kids and you have just torpedoed our country as we know it. 17
You start giving full constitutional rights to adult citizens and you have just torpedoed our country as we know it. 25
So true. I would like for RobRoy to give a serious answer instead of the ambiguous response he gave in his post
"Man, I could go ten directions with that one, both comedic and serious" 27 in response to 25
KIDS DON'T HAVE THE RIGHTS OF ADULTS. PARENTS CAN AND SHOULD SEARCH THEIR TEENAGE KIDS ROOMS FOR DRUGS, ETC. SCHOOLS SHOULD DO THE SAME.
Hamilton,Jay
Children under the age of 18 are not citizens, they do not have uniform rights granted adults in the constitution.
On the first one above: A minor (un-emancipated) child's rights are actually exercised by the parent. So violating any of that child's rights should be the same thing as violating the parent's rights.
If the parent's consent to the minor child being searched, there is nothing the child can do about it.
However, the government in no way shape or form should be allowed to search the person, or personal effects, contained in a government-provided locker or not, without the consent of the parent, or a warrant. That includes any government employee, not just police.
And the government going out and hiring a private firm to execute the search should not absolve them of the responsibility for having either a warrant or consent.
On the second above: Citizenship is not a prerequisite for the rights protected by our Constitution. The rights protected there existed prior to the creation of the Constitution, and the drafters of that document considered rights universal, not part of this country alone, and not dependent on minority or citizenship status. Un-emancipated children have rights, the only difference is that the parents are the ones who exercise them.
In addition, when I was naturalized in 1967, I was a little over a year old. I received papers that defined me, at the tender age of one, as a "Citizen of the United States of America". I still have the same papers, and they still say the same thing. They even have a cute little picture of my one-year-old self on them. Never had to have them upgraded or anything, so I guess I was a citizen from the age of one...
-
Colonel Sanders
Maybe the kids will learn something from all this.
Besides the state agenda of 'co-operation', obedience, and submission to arbitrary authority, of course.
OK, here's my serious response: I haven't got time. This topic doesn't interest me enough to pursue to that level. That's all I really meant.
I did assume the "adult citizens" remark was a joke suggesting the adult population of this country has become little more than children who couldn't control their own destinys if their life depended on it - after all, most of them voted for Clinton twice and Gore after that. I assumed that's what he meant because that is what I believe. As P. J> ororke (sp?) said, "...have you ever been to the mall and seen 'em?"
Oh yeah! That's why we fought the War of Independence. To secure the governments interests.
Jay Russell, founder of RAID Corps, said using private firms allows school systems to avoid some of the prickly issues that surround law enforcement searches. ''A lot of times when you're a police officer and you start searching things, the ugly word 'warrant' keeps surfacing,'' Russell said. ''We don't have to get into any of those issues. We're working as an entity of the school -- we're like a school employee.''
When did schools obtain the authority to act as agents of law enforcement? And if they do have that authority how is it that they are exempt from the Constitutional application of the law? The fourth amendment doesn't apply when government schools are enforcing the law?
The Alliance for the Separation of School and State is looking for support to find an alternative to goobermint run schools. They need money and ideas but you can help them without pain by signing their 'Proclamation' which is essentially a petition of support. It is amazing how many teachers, school administrators and former teachers and administrators have signed it. That says something to me.
Balogna.
Perhaps then you've heard of the ugly phrase "False Imprisonment". Or perhaps since Schools are an agent of the U.S. Govt, you might have heard of the ugly protection against unreasonable search and seizure.
Sorry, non citizens do not have the same constitutional rights as citizens, that is absolutely false. Don't believe me? Check the agreements that came with your green card or visa. You can be detained, deported etc for any number of acts that a citizen may do. While there are certain HUMAN RIGHTS that predicate the constitution, not all rights of a Citizen are the same or even close for a visitor. You are here as a guest, and at the will of the Government, which can be revoked at any time.
When you are in a public school, the "person" responsible for you is the "school." The school is kind of like a day care in that when "non-adult kids are there, the school has been trusted with the safety of the kids - they have been given responsibility for the children while they are at school.
With that responsibility comes authority. Authority to punish, "search their rooms," (I am referring to their lockers, cars, or anything else on school property) control their ability to come and go and any other "rights" the parents enjoy to protect and educate their own children have all been granted by the parents when they drop their kids off. The school has authority to keep kids from leaving the school property and can even be held responsible for children injured off school property if the children are allowed to leave.
There was even a case about 20 years ago of a kid in the Beverly hills (I think) school district who was struck by a car while running across the street playing hooky. The mom sued the school district because his safety was the responsibility of the school. I am not aware of the outcome of that case.
This thing is a red herring. The only people that really protest searches in schools are the students, often because they think they will get caught or don't like facing up to the fact that there is no privacy on school property, or libertarians/anarchists that want a textbook form of constitutional principles to be applied to everyday life. I'm a parent with two girls in high school. I would love the school to do random searches once a week of all lockers and cars! If they came to my house or my daughters car parked on the street to do the same thing, they would have crossed a line, and I would protest vehimently.
Every thing in life is black and white to me. If a thing appears gray, it is merely because it has not been broken down into it's black and white components. This school search issue is completely different than if the students were over 18. The constitutional rights card simply is not played the same with citizen children as with free adult citizens.
One of the things I looked forward to, before I turned 18, was the freedom and responsibility and rights that came with it. When I was a child, all the searches, etc. did not "prepare me to have the same thing done to me as an adult." On the contrary, it caused me to look forward, with anticipation to the day I became an adult, with it's freedom, responsibility and authority. It also caused me to respect and value those things.
Balogna (sic).
Intelligent response. Not only is it limited in its scope, you didn't even spell it right.
Sorry, non citizens do not have the same constitutional rights as citizens, that is absolutely false. Don't believe me? Check the agreements that came with your green card or visa. You can be detained, deported etc for any number of acts that a citizen may do. While there are certain HUMAN RIGHTS that predicate the constitution, not all rights of a Citizen are the same or even close for a visitor. You are here as a guest, and at the will of the Government, which can be revoked at any time.
I don't have a green card, or a visa. I am a citizen...naturalized, but still a citizen.
Still, while the INS and the federal government may have created regulations that state these things, and the Supreme Court may have even upheld them, it does not mean the original intent of the Constitution provided for it. The Supreme Court has upheld many things which are provided for nowhere in the Constitution . It does not make it right.
Freedom of speech, religion, the right to keep and bear arms, the right to be free from search and seizure without a warrant...all of these apply to all people. Or perhaps you can point me to the passage in the Bill of Rights that states it is for citizens only.
The framers of the Constitution envisioned the Bill of Rights as applicable to people in the general sense, not to just the citizens of the US.
In addition, your assertion originally stated that children were not citizens. That was, and is, an incorrect assertion.
When you are in a public school, the "person" responsible for you is the "school." The school is kind of like a day care in that when "non-adult kids are there, the school has been trusted with the safety of the kids - they have been given responsibility for the children while they are at school.
This doctrine is called in loco parentis, and was established by the Supreme Court as a method for bypassing the rights of children (read: parents) in many cases, the most relevant being New Jersey v TLO (489 US 325). Where a student's purse was searched for cigarettes she was suspected of smoking.
According to the Supremes, a parent gives implied consent for the school system and administrators to act in loco parentis by sending their children to public school.
Teachers and school administrators in publicly funded schools are not parents. They do not act as parents, they do not have the same responsibilities as parents, and how anyone could claim that they act in loco parentis is beyond me. They are agents of the state, and as such should suffer from the same Constitutional restrictions as policemen or federal agents.
If public schooling were truly optional in all states, they may have a valid argument. However, to make school mandatory, then tell poor people who cannot afford private school that the parents are giving "implied consent" by sending their children to public school makes it coerced consent.
With that responsibility comes authority. Authority to punish, "search their rooms," (I am referring to their lockers, cars, or anything else on school property) control their ability to come and go and any other "rights" the parents enjoy to protect and educate their own children have all been granted by the parents when they drop their kids off. The school has authority to keep kids from leaving the school property and can even be held responsible for children injured off school property if the children are allowed to leave.
When I was in school (twenty some years ago), my parents had to have a permission slip for all of the above things on file. Permission to punish, permission to perform medical checks...etc. The school had no authority outside what they had permission slips for. We even had to have permission slips for books we were reading. The school was required to inform the parents of anything and everything going on at the school...this is "informed consent"...which leads to the proper implementation of "implied consent".
The government has taken that and turned it into in loco parentis.
There was even a case about 20 years ago of a kid in the Beverly hills (I think) school district who was struck by a car while running across the street playing hooky. The mom sued the school district because his safety was the responsibility of the school. I am not aware of the outcome of that case.
If you don't know the outcome why quote it? My next door neighbor sued our across the street neighbor for planting a tree. The outcome of the case was: he was laughed out of court. The outcome of the case is the only relevant part - not the fact that the case was filed.
This thing is a red herring. The only people that really protest searches in schools are the students, often because they think they will get caught or don't like facing up to the fact that there is no privacy on school property, or libertarians/anarchists that want a textbook form of constitutional principles to be applied to everyday life. I'm a parent with two girls in high school. I would love the school to do random searches once a week of all lockers and cars! If they came to my house or my daughters car parked on the street to do the same thing, they would have crossed a line, and I would protest vehimently (sic).
***WHACK*** Wow...watch where you swing that broad brush.
I, too am a parent. I home school, therefore the problem doesn't exist for me. However, I protest what I consider to be unreasonable government intrusion into other people's lives everyday. I don't plan on going to jail, but if I do, I like to think that people out there (who also don't ever plan on going to jail) would stand up and protest if my rights were violated.
And just because you or even say...99% of the rest of the people, wanted to make a law banning guns, and institute house-to-house searches for them, without amending the Constitution and changing the second amendment, does not mean you have the power to do so. Your feelings are irrelevant.
Every thing in life is black and white to me. If a thing appears gray, it is merely because it has not been broken down into it's black and white components. This school search issue is completely different than if the students were over 18. The constitutional rights card simply is not played the same with citizen children as with free adult citizens.
You are correct - the rights of children are different from adults. The Constitutional rights of children belong to the parents, along with the responsibility for the child's actions. The courts have upheld that the school acts in loco parentis, therefore they assume the responsibility for the rights of the children, and can do pretty much whatever they want.
I contend that regardless of the opinions of the Supremes, the doctrine of in loco parentis is a joke. Teachers and school administrators in public schools are agents of the state, and unless the child is a ward of the state, then the state has no power to disable that child's rights without parental consent or a warrant.
If people like you want their children periodically searched for no reason, then fine. All the school needs is to have your permission slip for that action on file. If a parent chooses not to consent, then the school should have no power to perform the action.
Also, you should remember that this sword cuts both ways. If you have your way, and the Supremes have theirs, then the school could eventually allow students free and unfettered access to birth control, allow them to read/watch what some people consider to be pornography, or even worse, take it to it's farthest extreme, authorize abortions for students without parental consent.
After all, while the child is in school, the school acts in loco parentis.
Regarding your abundant use of "(sic)" I have to say it seems a touch arrogant to apply the standards of published works to a discussion thread. Yes, there is a spelling threshold that must be met, but calling out attention to occasional misspellings of somewhat rarely used words seems to flirt with the area of backhanded name calling.
Regardless, I can only focus so much time on this subject - and I still stand by every word I have typed, correctly spelled or not.
Regarding your abundant use of "(sic)" I have to say it seems a touch arrogant to apply the standards of published works to a discussion thread. Yes, there is a spelling threshold that must be met, but calling out attention to occasional misspellings of somewhat rarely used words seems to flirt with the area of backhanded name calling.
Regardless, I can only focus so much time on this subject - and I still stand by every word I have typed, correctly spelled or not.
My "abundant" use of "(sic)" only applied to words that were misspelled. I believe one by you and one by Hamilton,Jay - no great descendant of his namesake...
Apologies, but in order to ensure that no one suspected me of changing the spelling, I added the notation.
However, "Bologna" is not a rarely used word around my house. I will give you vehemently. I try to avoid the use of that one wherever possible.
In addition, Hamilton,Jay opened himself up to my sarcasm by posting a one-word reply that was not worth the bandwidth it occupied. Doing something such as that should open one up to criticism, especially if that one word reply is misspelled.
Does it flirt with name-calling? I highly doubt it. However, if you feel it does, please do not hesitate to report me to Jim.
I come here (very rarely I might add - I used to hang here very often about two years ago, but for various reasons, I no longer do) for lively debate, not to hug and be hugged. This is not a support group. If he is going to make incorrect assertions, then when challenged dismiss the challenger with a one word reply, misspelled, then he is going to get laughed at. If he, or anyone else, cannot handle it, perhaps they should take up badminton....debate is obviously too mentally challenging.
BTW - I am glad you stand by what you typed. People should have opinions.
so what are you trying to say ....
slam dunk , set and match..... thanks for the post
The spelling thing is a hot button with me because I have seen people trying to support ludicrous positions by pointing out others spelling errors. It is often used as a way of "dissing" other posters, which is why I categorize it with name calling. Sorry, your were clearly not being overtly offensive with it.
It's just that for someone to cut and paste someone elses remarks and then manually add the "(sic)" implies a certain thought process, at least from my perspective. That is, I sure know what I'm trying to communicate when I do it, otherwise it's not worth the trouble.
One thing puzzles me though, I thought the spelling of the word bologna, or is it baloney, was as squishy as the spelling of the word catsup, or is it ketchup...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.