Search by cops, principals....

[craigimass]

OK, here's a political and "freedom" issue that is currently in the Supremes.....and it seems to NOT be a con/liberal issue, although I would argue that the right to "secure in person, places and things" makes the proper decisions clear....

1. The court just overturned the rights of police to search your car without an arrest first - or a real reason to believe that you endanger them or are hiding evidence. This will certainly result in less searches of vehicles.

This one was backed by both con and lib judges on the court, and also opposed by both...a rare case.

2. Before them, but not decided, is the constitutionality of a case where the school principal strip-searched an honor student (female, in this case) because she was suspected to be carrying pills. She was- Tylenol......
The court is leaning toward ALLOWING strip searches of students, including BODY CAVITY searches (bend over, dear).


At first glance, it would seem very clear that Americans with some idea of constitutional freedoms would be against MORE government intrusion into the rights of people to carry Tylenol...or even some codeine stolen from their parents medicine cabinet...without being subject to strip search on the whim of a school administrator.

Yet, I'm sure that some who consider themselves libertarian or into "less intrusion and/or government" would support this...or both of these (the rights of cops to search cars at almost any stop)........

So, what say you, cons, libs and middle of the road?

I say, of course, that the right to be secure is enshrined in the constitution - and that we can always use the old excuse that SOMEONE might be hiding something somewhere....but that is NOT good enough. It makes sense that many students have pot or pills in their pocket on any given day, but to me that does not constitute a reason to line up the school and do body cavity searches.

The basic background, of course, is the 4th Amendment...part of the Bill of Rights:
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

So, what would Jefferson say about students being searched? Yea or Nay?

[xort]

Another fine sailing thread you've started on SAILnet. Thanks for your contributions.

Do you actually sail? Have you ever sailed? A boat?

[painkiller]

There's no excuse for a school to strip-search a minor over ANYTHING. If the school thinks it needs to be done, they should retain the child until parents arrive. If it's really serious, then police should be involved.

That particular story enrages me, to be honest. If a school ordered one of my girls strip-searched...

[WanderingStar]

I haven't heard the decision regarding cars. There are many factors involved, established by case law over the years, based on the Constitution. Police always needed either probable cause, consent, or reasonable safety concerns to search a car. Warrants are not required, because the very nature of a car (it moves) make it difficult to get the time for a warrant.
I hope that the Court rules against intrusive searches of students. The school, or your job, has a right to search their own property (lockers), and to take reasonable action to protect the students. I don't believe this ever includes removing any clothing other than a coat or hat. The police don't strip search anyone that isn't under arrest. A "frisk" or "pat-down" is based on articulable safety concerns, and does not include the removal of any clothing, nor reaching into pockets for anything other than a weapon. I can't imagine any circumstance that would justify ordering a minor to undress at school.

[bubb2]

Some background on the thinking and the law.

Constitutional Topic: Student Rights - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

[erps]

So, what would Jefferson say about students being searched? Yea or Nay?

It's not a yea or nay question. It's a question on a case by case basis as to whether the search was reasonable.

[Sailormon6]

The Constitution doesn't prohibit all searches and seizures. It only prohibits unreasonable ones. In every case, the court must decide whether the search was reasonable under all the facts and circumstances.

It isn't difficult to imagine a fact situation that would justify the strip search of a schoolchild. Suppose a schoolchild was seen shooting another child with a small pistol or stabbing him with a knife, and then she hid it in her bra. You can't just let her keep the knife or gun until the police get a warrant, or until her parents or lawyer arrive. You have to disarm the little dear, so she can't shoot anyone else. In that fact situation, there is reasonable cause to believe that she has a gun on her person, and there are exigent circumstances to justify searching her immediately, without waiting for a warrent to be obtained.

I'm not familiar with the facts of the case presently before the Court, but you can be sure there is a legal and factual twist that is causing the judges to think hard about it. If it was as simple as some people think it is, the Supreme Court wouldn't be hearing the case at all. The Supreme Court only reviews a case if it rests on unusual facts and raises a unique legal question.

[craigimass]

Originally Posted by xort

Another fine sailing thread you've started on SAILnet. Thanks for your contributions.

Do you actually sail? Have you ever sailed? A boat?

xort, you are too late. The lynch mob already came and went.

Please look carefully at the name of the forum this is posted in. It does not say hang people by the halyards.

Please add to the conversation...or else ignore it or me.

[erps]

There's no excuse for a school to strip-search a minor over ANYTHING.

A teacher watches one student retrieve a small plastic wrapped package from their underwear and hand something from the package to a second student. The second student ingests it and about a minute later, falls to the floor in convulsions. Paramedics are called to treat the unresponsive girl. They suspect she has OD'd on something. The first student is in the principal's office, refusing to say what she gave the second student. Paramedics say they can not treat the second student without knowing what she ingested. She is dying.

[craigimass]

Well, it is already established that you can take bodily fluids from school children if they want to join the chess club. That one made it through....

I assume metal detectors are 100% legal, both pass-though and wands...that would allow school officials to search little betsy for the knife or gun.

The girl in question was turned in by a classmate who said she had pills. She did - Tylenol (no kidding).

Personally, I would take my kids out of that school if this policy was in force.

Is it reasonable to think that a 13 year old girl who is in honors class is carrying a gun? My opinion would be that was WAY unreasonable.....has it even ever happened? Has any 13 year old girl in honors ever taken a gun to school and harmed people?

If the chances are 1 in 10,000 - is that reasonable? How about 1 in one million - about your chances of dying in a plane crash (notice no parachutes are in the plane?).