Student's "defiance" leads to suspension

[Mizmoon]

A claim that her civil rights were being violated got Pleasant Valley High School junior Meghann Trott suspended for three days.

A drug-sniffing dog visited the school for a random drug check Tuesday afternoon and Trott refused to leave her belongings in Dan Beadle's sixth-period science class. She claimed it violated her civil rights to be subjected to random searches.

According to Ginger Picchi, assistant principal, the dogs are provided by an outside service and have been used at both Pleasant Valley and Chico high schools since the beginning of the 2004-05 school year.

The decision to use Interquest Detection Canines at the high schools was approved by the Chico Unified School District's board of trustees in August 2004.

Picchi explained that the school conducted assemblies in the fall to inform the students about the process.

"This is the first student who has refused," said Picchi, and she had not heard complaints from any others. "Students have been very receptive."
----------------
http://www.chicoer.com/Stories/0,1413,135~25088~2714115,00.html

[Stuckinthebush]

1. If you don't have anything to hide, why worry about it?

Sound familiar?

[saigon68]

37. Preparing the SHEEP for a full Fascist Republic

Your papers Sir----


I wonder how much these "Drug Dogs" cost the taxpayers of this district.

They should have spent the money "Improving education.

But alas-- That won't happen

Welcome to the rise, of the age, of the AMERIKAN GESTAPO

[GiovanniC]

2. I DEMAND That Meghann Trott Be Sent To Washington Immediately

So that Democrats can see what a real fucking backbone looks like.

[bearfan454]

3. I think Howard Dean will tell the Dems to fight back.

No more of this repuke lite shit.

[smirkymonkey]

29. Here, here!

[Bo]

45. I second the motion!!!

Thats Backbone!!!

[mudderfudder77]

4. Supreme Court...

Ruled on this long ago.

[sybylla]

5. Ruled what?

They can search the school grounds, which includes lockers. They can sniff cars in the parking lot on school property. But I would refuse a random search of my person anywhere, including personal possessions I'm carrying like a backpack and my purse. There's a difference and I hope the ACLU takes up her cause.

[depakid]

7. He doesn't know

or he would have mentioned the case and/or the rationale.

The Supreme Court also ruled that it's pefectly constitutional to execute an innocent person.

It must be true and it must right. Scalia said so in Herrera v. Collins

[OrwellwasRight]

25. Actually, I am not sure that the SC has ruled on this exact question

However, as a former teacher, I can tell you that it is very, very common to have the drug dogs come in, and they specifically keep them away from the student's persons, but they can and do sniff the student's work areas, bags, lockers, and cars.

I think the SC would allow it because:
1) students are not adults and do not have full status as citizens to all legal rights (this justifies the locker, etc, searches, which have been standard for more than 20 years);

2) schools have "in loco parentis" responsibility for the children while they are in the school's care (taking the place of the parent and having legal liability for anything that goes awry); this has also been used to justify locker searches/drug tests;

3) the SC has upheld random drug testing (urine) for no reason AT ALL as a condition of participating in sports, band, student government, and a host of other activities; this is much more invasive than a sniff of your backpack.

Unfortunately, if you think Scalia, et al. would prohibit this practice, I think you are in for a big disappointment. There is a grand chasm between the rights we think we have and the rights the SC has whittled them down to be.

[GiovanniC]

32. Locker Searches Are Justified Because They Are the Property of the School

However, if the school was to charge rent for the lockers, then they would not be within their rights to search them without a warrant or at least probable cause.

[OrwellwasRight]

43. I'm not sure the SC would agree with you because

of the other factors (student safety, diminished expectation of privacy as a "cild"). Even if that were true, schools probably couldn't charge rent for lockers because it would discriminate against students who could not pay (that is why a lot of schools have gotten into trouble for charging fees to ride the school bus).

Also, if it is a public school, what does it mean that the locker belongs the school? Aren't we the school? Don't we as citizens already own it?

[GiovanniC]

44. Your Employer Can Give Police Permission to Search Your Office

Even if your employer is, say, the US Department of Commerce, they can give police permission to randomly search your office in their office building even though technically the US Department of Commerce is "owned" by we the people. (If you worked at home and telecommuted, though, they wouldn't be able to do that.) The fact is, though, most employers have nothing to gain from allowing such searches without cause and probably wouldn't.

Schools have random searches of lockers and desks all the time. Lockers and desks are considered "school property". Now, they SHOULDN'T be able to randomly search students or their property (cars, bookbags, etc.) but I'm not saying that they don't and I'm not saying that the Supreme Court necessarily has upheld what is essentially my belief based on my interpretation of the Fourth Amendment. I see searches of people and their bags, briefcases, purses, etc. all the time when they enter government buildings all the way from the National Archives in Washington down to the BFE County Courthouse. I'm not saying that's right... Just that they do it.

[OrwellwasRight]

46. Yes, that is exactly what I was saying.

What Scalia et al. have done to the 4th Amendment is to cramp it in to the size of a walnut. Becuase they have upheld virtually every single school search case placed in front of them, I do not think they would hang their hat on a "rented locker" distinction. Did you know that probationers and parolees can have their private homes searched w/o probable cause? That searches w/invalid warrants are VALID so long as the police had a "good faith belief" that the warrant was valid? If people only kew about, read, and understood these decisions, they would be appalled (or maybe not, I mean, they voted for Bush). Anyway, suffice it to say, it is a nice thought that students backpacks can't be searched or that rented school lockers are safe. In my experience, though, they are not. What should be allowed to be searched is unfortunately different from what the SC has allowed to be searched.

[adigal]

23. Since Columbine, many schools

no longer even allow students to carry backpacks around with them, so they have to be left in the lockers. I don't know the law regarding purses or your person.

[damntexdem]

6. Good for Meghann!

American idiots subjecting their young to more humiliation in the name of a war that can't be won -- this time, the war on drugs, not even Iraq.

[northlake1]

8. I would be proud of my child

I would be proud of my child if anyone of them refused, as this fine young freedom loving rightious, person/student did. I would say "cool". I would also wonder why more had refused to stupid tactics. I hope her parent(s) suport her.

[Samoflange]

9. "If you don't have anything to hide...."

"..you don't have anything to worry about."

My counter to that argument is:

"If you don't have a reason to suspect me of anything, you don't need to search."

Private property in the possession of an individual, regardless of location, is only searchable subsequent to, and in support of, a legitimate stop made through probable cause...

Any rookie street cop can tell you that.

Compulsory attendance to a public school in itself does not create a probable cause to search someone's belongings. If a student were acting suspicious, performing an illegal act, or defying a lawful order from a law enforcement official, then yes; their stuff can be searched as a result...

But a private security company with search dogs can hardly justify searching someone's possessions merely because they're at the school...

(At least, this is what I would argue if I were a lawyer, which I'm NOT...I'm probably wrong, but it makes sense to me!)

[BiggJawn]

21. "Implied Consent"

That's how they get you to blow into the breathalyser in Indiana. Too many drunks were making a case that they were too looped to give informed consent to a test, so they made it Law that if you hold a driver's license, then the implication is that you have already and forever consented to a breathalyzer test.

By continuing to attend a school where you have been informed of the possibility of random searches, they could make a case that you have implied your consent to be searched.

The ACLU's got their work cut out for them.

[sybylla]

24. Your premise assumes a student has a choice

Drivers Licenses are voluntary. Kids are required to attend school by law. If there is one public high school in a district that does this, I bet you they all do it, so there is no alternative. And for most districts, there is only one high school anyway. I believe what ever law they contorted to fit the drivers license shouldn't apply here.

If this is a private school, they can do whatever they want - no rights allowed. But kids in public school have no choice and though there are school administrators out there who want to see kids lose all their rights in school, it won't happen. Courts have ruled that they are still guaranteed their first amendment rights, they have their second amendment rights. Unreasonable search and seizure should also still apply.

Yeah, it's a fine line but the ACLU has drawn it before. They'll do it again.

[BiggJawn]

34. Well, your premise hinges on kids having Rights.

And I get the impression most school districts don't think anyone inside their buildings have rights, unless they own a PhD.

I think that has been argued in the courts, tooJust how few rights a school kid does have.

And they would make the case that you don't have to attend THAT particular school, even though they all have the same policy. I think it's called Catch-22.

I hope the ACLU hangs them out to dry. I'm sick of seeing our children treated like Death Camp inmates in the name of "Safety"...

[merwin]

40. But you are legally required to attend school. You're not legally required

to have a driver's license.

[BiggJawn]

41. Only until age 16 in most places...

And you can always find another school, or get Home-Schooled.

Remember, we're talking schools here. logic does not apply.

[ernstbass]

10. What a courageous young woman!

[LiberallyInclined]

11. on a related note-

i personally don't have any problem with random locker searches in public schools- the lockers are the school's property, not the students, and the schools are responsible for the safety of the studenets in the school. students are minors, so it should be a moot point anyway. And- any kid that would bring something into the building that would get them busted in a locker search is a moran to begin with.

[High Plains]

50. You shoulnd't call people "morons"

until you know how to spell the word correctly.

And who cares about students' privacy, anyway?

[LinuxInsurgent]

12. Meghan needs to contact the ALCU - STAT!

Political Opinions are just that...opinions...until they are brought into a court for validation or negation.

I believe that she shouldn't be subject to random searches, for absolutely no reason, and she's got a Constitutional argument.

But...she needs to bring it to court...or sadly, the status quo balance of power is in the hands of the school to make their own dictates, absent a Court order.

[0rganism]

14. She did contact them. That's why she stood up for her rights.

Apparently she's only student who gave a shit and knew where to look for the answers. Maybe she should tell Pleasant Valley High to fuck off and start studying for the LSAT instead?

[Occulus]

38. Opinions mean nothing unless one stands for the principles therein. n/t

[Megahurtz]

13. Hmmmmmmmmm........

I just got a letter from my daughter's high school here in Orange County last week and they said they would start the Drug Sniffing Dog program, but they said there would NOT be any locker searches OR backpack searches. The program is only used as a deterrent.

Isn't this a search and seizure issue?

[tcoursen]

16. what are they gonna sniff?

If the dogs are not gonna sniff lockers and backpacks what exactly are they gonna sniff? What do they expect to find? If there is a drug dealer in the school they certainly are gonna know that the dogs aren't gonna be sniffing the lockers so that is absolutely where they would keep their stuff. This one makes no sense to me.

[Megahurtz]

18. I understand what you're saying, but

sniffing is a lot different than searching your personal belongings. For example, a policemen cannot come to your door and demand to search your house just because he thinks something is in there, he must have a warrant.

As I said in my first post, the school I was referring to said they were using dogs as a deterrant only.

Just like a policemen cannot pull you over on the highway and force you to open your trunk.

Only if you allow them.

Also I will correct myself to say that they are able to search school lockers at any time because they are school property.

They just cannot force anyone to open their backpacks and personal belongings.

[0rganism]

17. If they aren't searching based on individual suspicion, it's an issue

Personal searches without any probable cause are questionable at best.

[Megahurtz]

15. Oh and by the way Seig Heil!

The schools seem to be becoming pretty Hitleristic these days.

[NNN0LHI]

19. Good to know the rest of the kids acted like proper little Nazis n/t

[NorthernSpy]

20. why I no longer give a toss about the public schools

Increasingly, I just can't seem to care whether the public education system survives or not. And the willingness of those who staff the schools to subject other people's children to this sort of abuse is the reason why...

[BiggJawn]

22. They're only doing what they're told to do....

Raise the next genertion of Holy Warriors and unquestioning ReTHUGlican WalMart slaves.

[DawgHouse]

26. I love this kid! eom

[OrwellwasRight]

27. Folks, there is one and only one reason for the drug war:

It never was anything more than a very clever way to slowly but surely erode civil rights in this country.

All else (e.g., CIA crack profits used to fund the Contras) has been a fringe benefit.

Every single automobile search case since 1980 has mentioned the "terrible scourge of drugs;" each of these cases diminshed our 4th Amendment rights.

The cases that allow police to fly over your house and search w/o a warrant are the direct result of the "need" to stop people from growing pot.

The fact that cops can now randomly stop us on the road to see if we are drunk is part of the "war on drugs."

And every single school search case (I think perhaps one school search challenge was upheld since this nonsense began) is beased on the terror that drugs cause in schools.

These are not sad by-products of the war on drugs; they are the point of the war on drugs. The don't really care if we do drugs; the want the right to search us, scare us, and silence us. It is all part of the overall plan.

Look how accustomed were are to being patted down every single day on our way into work or as we board a plane. We should be outraged, but we take it like sheep because we are conditioned to. Sad.

[kath]

30. Very good point, Orwell. We are SOOOOOO screwed...

[Solly Mack]

28. Just 1 student stood up? 1?.... Pathetic

if those good little rule followers are any indication of "our future"....we have no future.

[ausiedownunderground]

31. What the hell is "an Interquest Detection Canine"??????

Didn't George Orwell write about one of these????

This girl needs to be recruited to run in 2006! One of Howard Deans "Real" Democrats!!!!!

[DU GrovelBot]

33. ## PLEASE DONATE TO DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND! ##

==================
GROVELBOT.EXE v3.0
==================



This week is our first quarter 2005 fund drive. Democratic
Underground is a completely independent website. We depend almost entirely
on donations from our members to cover our costs. Thank you so much for
your support.

[Thor_MN]

35. No drug sniffing dogs in my day, but if there were...

I think that I'd see if they had rules against "accidentally" spilling a container of Cayenne pepper on/in my backpack. Not that they would have found anything anyway, but if you don't trust me not to bring drugs to school, there's not any trust in our relationship.

[Technowitch]

36. Good for her!!! (n/t)

About friggin' time people started standing up for their rights again.

[genieroze]

39. One kid that doesn't want to be a sheeple, good for her. eom

[baldguy]

42. “Education is not the teaching of the three Rs."

"Education is the teaching of the overall citizenship..."

If we teach our children to be sheep, how can we expect them to act as citizens?

[OrwellwasRight]

47. So true, baldguy. nt.

[baldguy]

48. So says Thurgood Marshall

I can't take credit.

[dsc]

49. This could make for an interesting case

It strikes me that she really should win as there is a pretty big difference between searching a student's school provided locker and his or her self provided book bag. Usually schools only use the dogs on lockers not purses or book bags.