Constitutional Rights at school?

[tkwetzel]

Originally Posted by Amanda Morrison

A few comments to this thread:

My old high school, where my brother attends, recently disallowed students wearing hoodies of any sort, stating that firearms and drugs are too easily concealed.

They also recently tried to ban students from wearing the color pink, citing it as a gang symbol.

Keep in mind that this is one of Hammond's four PUBLIC high schools. The other schools do not have this ban.

What do you think?

I think that is outrageous. I know they have banned certain things in my previous high school because they can be gang signs (bandanas, hats, etc.), but never a whole color. And the hoodie thing is completely ridiculous. I would be in there fighting that, I would wear a hoodie everyday and take that to the school board and court if necessary. They have gone too far.

[Eria4044]

Originally Posted by tkwetzel

I think that is outrageous. I know they have banned certain things in my previous high school because they can be gang signs (bandanas, hats, etc.), but never a whole color. And the hoodie thing is completely ridiculous. I would be in there fighting that, I would wear a hoodie everyday and take that to the school board and court if necessary. They have gone too far.

I can see the point about hoodies and gang symbols but banning an entire color is just plain stupid. I guess if they ever have school uniforms there won't be any pink in them.

[Adam Y.]

They also recently tried to ban students from wearing the color pink, citing it as a gang symbol.

You can tell who is wearing the gang symbol pink and just wearing pink because it's pink. The people who are wearing pink as a gang colors look like they tried washing clothes for the first time. It's the shade of pink that you get from bright red shirt that bled into a white t-shirt. Im not sure whether to laugh or be afraid at all those people wearing those shirts.

[gsensel]

The whole hoodie thing is messed up. I am at college now and even in HS i never wore a coat unless it was REALLY cold. So I always wore a hoodie or sweat shirt. I just wore it all day and took it off if I got warm.

[Petey]

Originally Posted by Levin571

I find it quite odd that at schools here in America where students learn about the constitutional rights, like the right of free speech and the right to no unresonable search and seizure, that these rules are bent and broken by the administration to the point where they are essentially nul and void.

An example is that I rescently discovered that my boarding school uses a program called "AIM sniffer" to log the AIM messages of all the students on our intranet (both incoming and outgoing). This is a clear violation of both the first and fourth amendments, and even thought cases like this have been brought to court, it still persists.

Another one is the locker inspections that sometimes occur at high schools, where even if there is basis for the search. While this can catch potential crimes or other actions, what about those innocent students who are just bystanders?

I want to know what is the opinion of the CD community on this issue (yes i know it had nothing to do with robotics, but i feel it is a resonable question concidering how many of us are or were students at one time).

Actually, in numerous instances the court has decided that schools have a compelling interest in the well being of the students, and that the school itself acts in loco parentis.

Just as your parents can infringe upon certain constitutional rights, so can the school.

For instance, a few years back there was a case in which a girl had been seen smoking on school grounds. When the administrator went through her purse, they found, besides cigarettes, marijuanna and a list of people she'd been dealing to.

Now, had this happened off school grounds, and had the person doing the search been searching for cigarettes only, she could not have been prosecuted for the marijuanna because it wasn't the item that was being searched for.

The most famous phrase from Tinker may be that "students rights do not stop at the schoolhouse door", but that doesn't mean that the rights cannot be modified.

It's not the school--it's the courts, who have, in decades of case law, given schools the privilege to infringe upon the Constitutional rights of students if "necessary".

--Petey

[Petey]

Originally Posted by Levin571

I find it quite odd that at schools here in America where students learn about the constitutional rights, like the right of free speech and the right to no unresonable search and seizure, that these rules are bent and broken by the administration to the point where they are essentially nul and void.

For my answer to this, see my previous post.

An example is that I rescently discovered that my boarding school uses a program called "AIM sniffer" to log the AIM messages of all the students on our intranet (both incoming and outgoing). This is a clear violation of both the first and fourth amendments, and even thought cases like this have been brought to court, it still persists.

How is that a violation of those amendments? They are not infringing upon your speech. It is not unreasonable search or seizure, either. You are using the school's network--they may do what they darn well please on their own property!

Another one is the locker inspections that sometimes occur at high schools, where even if there is basis for the search. While this can catch potential crimes or other actions, what about those innocent students who are just bystanders?

Then what have they to hide?

Again, the point is that schools have a compelling interest in that. Read up on some case law to see how the courts have interpreted it. Try www.findlaw.com

I want to know what is the opinion of the CD community on this issue (yes i know it had nothing to do with robotics, but i feel it is a resonable question concidering how many of us are or were students at one time).

My opinion is that schools have the ability to do anything the courts say they can do, and that I will abide by the opinion of the court.

--Petey

[Cory]

Originally Posted by Petey

For instance, a few years back there was a case in which a girl had been seen smoking on school grounds. When the administrator went through her purse, they found, besides cigarettes, marijuanna and a list of people she'd been dealing to.

Now, had this happened off school grounds, and had the person doing the search been searching for cigarettes only, she could not have been prosecuted for the marijuanna because it wasn't the item that was being searched for.

--Petey

Wait, so say I get stopped by the cops at a checkpoint for drunk drivers on a saturday night. They think they smell booze on my breath, and Im acting drunk, and the car smells like alcohol, so they ask me to get out and search the car.

Now they don't find any alcohol, but they find a few bricks of cocaine. They can't prosecute me for the cocaine? The hell they can't

[tkwetzel]

Originally Posted by Petey

For instance, a few years back there was a case in which a girl had been seen smoking on school grounds. When the administrator went through her purse, they found, besides cigarettes, marijuanna and a list of people she'd been dealing to.

Now, had this happened off school grounds, and had the person doing the search been searching for cigarettes only, she could not have been prosecuted for the marijuanna because it wasn't the item that was being searched for.

Originally Posted by Cory

Wait, so say I get stopped by the cops at a checkpoint for drunk drivers on a saturday night. They think they smell booze on my breath, and Im acting drunk, and the car smells like alcohol, so they ask me to get out and search the car.

Now they don't find any alcohol, but they find a few bricks of cocaine. They can't prosecute me for the cocaine? The hell they can't

First of all, off school grounds the girl would not have her purse searched because smoking is not illegal and there is no reasonable cause for a search. But if they had reason to search her for anything, then whatever they find is fair game. If they search her for a weapon and find drugs or as Cory said, stop you for drinking and find cocaine, then you are screwed for having the drugs/cocaine.

[Petey]

Originally Posted by Cory

Wait, so say I get stopped by the cops at a checkpoint for drunk drivers on a saturday night. They think they smell booze on my breath, and Im acting drunk, and the car smells like alcohol, so they ask me to get out and search the car.

Now they don't find any alcohol, but they find a few bricks of cocaine. They can't prosecute me for the cocaine? The hell they can't

Depending on the situation, no, they cannot.

We were talking about this the other day in law class, and in last year's Mock Trial competition, this was the crux of the case.

They think they smell booze on your breath, and you're acting drunk, and the car smells like alcohol, they can do a plain view search of your car, and even arrest you for driving while intoxicated, but they can't search the rest of your car unless you give them your consent.

If they search it anyway, anything they find cannot be used against you in a court of law.

If they detain you and wake up a judge to get a warrant signed--unlikely--then they have to specify exactly what they are looking for. If their warrant said they were searching for illegal firearms, and they found cocaine, you could not be prosecuted for the cocaine because it was found in an illegal search. It was not specified in the warrant, and you did not give consent.

--Petey

[Petey]

Originally Posted by tkwetzel

First of all, off school grounds the girl would not have her purse searched because smoking is not illegal and there is no reasonable cause for a search.

The girl was 14. Should have mentioned that.

But if they had reason to search her for anything, then whatever they find is fair game. If they search her for a weapon and find drugs or as Cory said, stop you for drinking and find cocaine, then you are screwed for having the drugs/cocaine.

Nope.

Not unless the contraband was in plain view or if you gave your consent to have the car searched.



Gotta love the vagaries of the law.

--Petey

[tkwetzel]

Originally Posted by Petey

The girl was 14. Should have mentioned that.

Nope.

Not unless the contraband was in plain view or if you gave your consent to have the car searched.



Gotta love the vagaries of the law.

--Petey

It doesn't matter if the girl is 14 or 25. The cops could not search her off school grounds. And if a cop searches you for ANYTHING legally and finds something other than what he was looking for that is illegal you can get prosecuted for it. If the cop illegally searches you or your car then whatever he finds will not hold up in court.

[Joshua May]

I'll just add in a couple anecdotes to this conversation.

First of all, I have a breach of my own for an example. Two years ago, a teacher who I will say is now spending some quality time in an institution, called in a bomb threat to the school. The school called a fire drill, and all 4,000 students and teachers stood outside for 2 hours. When we returned to class to get our backpacks, we found that my teacher's door was unlocked (she had locked it when leaving) and many of our bags had been noticably moved and apparently searched through. In this case, the school did, in fact, search through every students' private property. Searching through the rooms, fine, its their property, but the students', its not.

Also, many items of clothing have been barred from my school, including any and all sports jerseys, red/blue shoelaces, red/blue shoes, etc. Now, we are also in Socal, and not the good version you see on TV, and there are many gangs (and a big problem last year concerning large gang brawls) at school, and a gun is found on a student 1-2 times a month. So perhaps some liberties are validly broken, but I am against many of them.

[Petey]

Originally Posted by tkwetzel

It doesn't matter if the girl is 14 or 25. The cops could not search her off school grounds.

They could only do a Terry stop, true, but they could detain her for smoking as an infraction.

I misunderstood you.

And if a cop searches you for ANYTHING legally and finds something other than what he was looking for that is illegal you can get prosecuted for it. If the cop illegally searches you or your car then whatever he finds will not hold up in court.

If the search was legal, yes. If it was in plain view, or if you gave your consent.

I think we agree, we're just saying different things. I was disagreeing with Cory, 'cause he said that an illegal search could result in stuff that would hold up in court.

--Petey

[tkwetzel]

Originally Posted by Petey

They could only do a Terry stop, true, but they could detain her for smoking as an infraction.

I misunderstood you.


If the search was legal, yes. If it was in plain view, or if you gave your consent.

I think we agree, we're just saying different things. I was disagreeing with Cory, 'cause he said that an illegal search could result in stuff that would hold up in court.

--Petey

The girl smoking can not be detained unless they can tell that she isn't 18, which they usually won't do becuase it is really hard to prove and the girl is not required to carry an ID while smoking. So as long as she doesn't look REALLY young, the cops wouldn't usually do anything. And about the legal searches, that includes a search with a warrant. Even if the warrant says that they are looking for something specific, anything they find can be used to prosecute you, even if it wasn't what they were looking for. Other than that fact, I believe we agree.

[Petey]

Originally Posted by tkwetzel

The girl smoking can not be detained unless they can tell that she isn't 18, which they usually won't do becuase it is really hard to prove and the girl is not required to carry an ID while smoking. So as long as she doesn't look REALLY young, the cops wouldn't usually do anything. And about the legal searches, that includes a search with a warrant. Even if the warrant says that they are looking for something specific, anything they find can be used to prosecute you, even if it wasn't what they were looking for. Other than that fact, I believe we agree.

I'll see if I can dig up some case law on the warrant thing. I'm pretty sure that's the case--my argument, that is.

--Petey