Why Homeschool? Because School Officials Argue They Can Cavity-Search Young Girls

Quote:

---

I'm already a fairly paranoid individual, so I'll send my daughters to private school so that I'm actually in charge of my children's rights.

---

When you send your child to a private school they will also have lots and lots of rules you have to agree to , many parents would love choosing a school that had a really strict set of drug rules and a vigorous no nonsense application of those rules , but of course they wouldn't think that their little darling might become a victim of those rules .

Quote:

---

Land of the free...

---

Shhhhh...don't burst their bubble

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

When you send your child to a private school they will also have lots and lots of rules you have to agree to , many parents would love choosing a school that had a really strict set of drug rules and a vigorous no nonsense application of those rules , but of course they wouldn't think that their little darling might become a victim of those rules .

---

Zero tolerance coming back to bite them? Agreed. Most parents, when they see these laws envison some black thuglet who is giving the police lip, not there little blonde starlet hiding her advil. I guess this proves stupitidty can be hazardous! Now the question becomes do we save the hysterical idoits from themselves or let them repeat the performence?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Shhhhh...don't burst their bubble

---

Better than your islands piss poor drunken attempnt at Switzerland. ~;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

Most parents, when they see these laws envison some black thuglet who is giving the police lip, not there little blonde starlet hiding her advil.

---

I read that as anvil. :oops:

If Scalia, Ginsberg, Fox, NPR and the ACLU agree that schools have no right to do this, hell hath frozen over. I believe that the 4th amendment exists for a reason and that except at border and practical border areas authorities better have a warrant for all searches of this nature on anyone who doesn't give probable cause. Teachers are not appropriate authorities.

My kids will never be touched by anyone ever - under penalty of death.

Of course Breyer and Souter embarassed themselves in court on this issue as they embarass the nation daily.

Quote:

---

I beleive that the 4th amendment exists for a reason and that except at border and practical border areas authorities better have a warrant for all searches of this nature on anyone who doesn't give probable cause.

---

Damn straight man , you tell em like it is .
errrrrr...hold on there , probable cause ?
would that be like being told that someone is alledgedly on the premesis with drugs that they are going to illegaly supply to others on the premesis?

Quote:

---

Better than your islands piss poor drunken attempnt at Switzerland.

---

:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
That only really affects the idiots who swallowed the hype and couldn't see the inevitable result coming .:2thumbsup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Damn straight man , you tell em like it is .
errrrrr...hold on there , probable cause ?
would that be like being told that someone is alledgedly on the premesis with drugs that they are going to illegaly supply to others on the premesis?

---

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probable_cause

They can call the police for actions like this. The funny thing is that the school just had a hunch. The even funnier thing is that they found nothing on the girl. There was no probable cause involved - a hunch doesn't satisfy the requirement and a peace officer didn't conduct the search.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

Are you just going for affect, or do you really think widespread body cavity searches on small children by a private police force is a good idea? :dizzy2:

---

Is that a serious question? He's playing devils advocate. All affect, no substance, no exceptions.

What is the statistical likelihood of someone disagreeing with the majority 100% of the time?

I think we should save the outrage factor until the court has returned their descsion in a couple months? Nothing has happened yet, no one has given school officals the right to strip search. In fact the lower court has already ruled for the child. In all likelyhood the case will go to the child.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

Is that a serious question? He's playing devils advocate. All affect, no substance, no exceptions.

What is the statistical likelihood of someone disagreeing with the majority 100% of the time?

---

Zero-tolerance means just that. You don't need probable cause. You and tribesman are both wrong.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

Zero-tolerance means just that. You don't need probable cause. You and tribesman are both wrong.

---

I didn't realize school codes were higher then the Constitution, interesting.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

I didn't realize school codes were higher then the Constitution, interesting.

---

We were flat out told "we don't need probable cause, ya'll are minors on (public) school grounds"

Zero tolerance policies are carte blanche to schools.

I'm not entering this debate, but anybody who does not have a full understanding of in loco parentis needs to take five minutes and read up. If we could all get clear on what the law actually is, I predict the quality of this discussion would skyrocket.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

We were flat out told "we don't need probable cause, ya'll are minors on (public) school grounds"

Zero tolerance policies are carte blanche to schools.

---

Just because the schools say, "Zero tolerance, we have full powers now." Does not make it true. The fact that the lower court agreed with the girl proves it is not true, unless some unforeseen way of thinking emerges in the Supreme Court and they rule against the girl.

Sometimes I want to convince my Congressman and/or Senator to introduce a Constitutional Amendment that allows minors the rights given by the 1st and 4th Amendments. I tire of having Americans live about 1/5th of their life without rights.

EDIT: From Lemur's article:
Partly in reaction to free speech movements, other changes came as courts recognized that students at public colleges and universities were entitled to full enjoyment of their First and Fourth Amendment rights.

Yay! Now why is this strip search crap happening still?

Quote:

---

Yay! Now why is this strip search crap happening still?

---

because it is a school not a college or university
if you are going to quote something make sure you read it :yes:

Quote:

---

They can call the police for actions like this. The funny thing is that the school just had a hunch. The even funnier thing is that they found nothing on the girl. There was no probable cause involved - a hunch doesn't satisfy the requirement and a peace officer didn't conduct the search.

---

:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
School officials acting in their capacity are government officials , so they have use of both the probable cause thing and the addition of the locomotive parents .

So probable cause is a reduction of reasonable doubt , so it gives more leeway .But as this is a school then schools have even more leeway as they only have to have reasonable suspicion .
So you lose again Tuff as under all circumstances for school searches and sweeps the level defining what is unreasonable under your constitution has been set out .
So the question is did this search fit all the criteria set out in law covering these cicumstances ?
And the answer is yes .
Sad isn't it , but its only shocking for those who labour under the illusion that their countries revolution made them a country of great freedoms .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

I'm not entering this debate, but anybody who does not have a full understanding of in loco parentis needs to take five minutes and read up. If we could all get clear on what the law actually is, I predict the quality of this discussion would skyrocket.

---

Any parent trying to force a stip-search of their child would be filed under child abuse here. And rightly so.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

Yup, the lawyer for the school district in Safford, Arizona that strip-searched (IE, requiring her to take off or move aside all of her clothing) a 13 year old girl because they suspected she might have a legal painkiller pill on her person

---

I dunno. Drugs are bad. There's a War on Drugs too.

I say use enhanced interrogation techniques to find out where these kids are hiding drugz. Waterboard 'em.


(or, there is so much wrong with this that I can't be bothered to write anything but some sarcastic commentary.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

because it is a school not a college or university
if you are going to quote something make sure you read it :yes:

:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
School officials acting in their capacity are government officials , so they have use of both the probable cause thing and the addition of the locomotive parents .

So probable cause is a reduction of reasonable doubt , so it gives more leeway .But as this is a school then schools have even more leeway as they only have to have reasonable suspicion .
So you lose again Tuff as under all circumstances for school searches and sweeps the level defining what is unreasonable under your constitution has been set out .
So the question is did this search fit all the criteria set out in law covering these cicumstances ?
And the answer is yes .
Sad isn't it , but its only shocking for those who labour under the illusion that their countries revolution made them a country of great freedoms .

---

Any government official has the right to conduct a strip search? Who gave teachers and other school officials the right to conduct strip searches?

You believe that it is cut-dry, but then why did the lower court find for the girl - most likely to be followed by the Supreme Court? The reality is that you don't have a clue either - you're just a cynic and contrarian. Again - insubstantial, all affect.

Teachers can not strip search children on mere suspicion. The concept of parental rights being conferred on teachers is nonsense and I've never seen it applied in any school that I've been in, Lemur. Teachers around here are sensible enough not to try it. They have certain rights on public school grounds to regulate property, but never childrens bodies. This seems to be the death knell for any remnants of the concept that a teacher is anything more to a child than an overpaid librarian.

The concept that some American citizens can have their consitutional rights abridged by government officials needs to end.

I agree Louis - as long as there is due process, waterboarded the crap out of kids...:sweatdrop:

(we need a better icon for waterboarding)

Quote:

---

The reality is that you don't have a clue either - you're just a cynic and contrarian. Again - insubstantial, all affect

---

You really should follow your own links Tuff , its all set out there in both plain english and legal jargonese:yes:

Quote:

---

The concept of parental rights being conferred on teachers is nonsense and I've never seen it applied in any school that I've been in, Lemur.

---

:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
its not nonsense, its a long established legal thingy .
Just because you havn't seen it doesn't mean its not there , two easy explanations for your not seeing it are firstly you simply didn't look , or secondly you did look but didn't have a clue what you were looking for .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

You really should follow your own links Tuff , its all set out there in both plain english and legal jargonese:yes:


:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
its not nonsense, its a long established legal thingy .
Just because you havn't seen it doesn't mean its not there , two easy explanations for your not seeing it are firstly you simply didn't look , or secondly you did look but didn't have a clue what you were looking for .

---

I see that they are able to search belongings in the link i've provided. Are you arguing that teachers become police officers when they have reasonable suspicion?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Jersey_v._T._L._O.

I agree with this case as well. Property is one thing. Nobody asked a girl to strip to her underwear and shake in this case. When people go to a museum or concert they have their bag checked without suspicion and I don't have a problem with that. If the guys at the museum believed that they could just strip search at leisure, they're wrong.

Quote:

---

I see that they are able to search belongings in the link i've provided. Are you arguing that teachers become police officers when they have reasonable suspicion?

---

They don't have to become police officers , their position as teachers with charge of and responsibility for the students is enough .
As for reasonable suspicion , thats the clincher , if it had of been just a hunch as wolf suggested then there would be a problem , but it was demonstrated that a reasonable person (as defined by law) would have reasonable suspicion(as defined by law) so they covered there arse legally as tht is set out as a legal step above a hunch . Even when the initial information could be described as hearsay and as such have legal complications itself , it doesn't in this case as it has been ruled that in forming a reasonable suspicion hearsay is perfectly OK .

Quote:

---

When people go to a museum or concert they have their bag checked without suspicion and I don't have a problem with that. If the guys at the museum believed that they could just strip search at leisure, they're wrong.

---

:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
What a strawman . who on earth suggested that people can just strip search at leisure .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

I see that they are able to search belongings in the link i've provided. Are you arguing that teachers become police officers when they have reasonable suspicion?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Jersey_v._T._L._O.

I agree with this case as well. Property is one thing. Nobody asked a girl to strip to her underwear and shake in this case. When people go to a museum or concert they have their bag checked without suspicion and I don't have a problem with that. If the guys at the museum believed that they could just strip search at leisure, they're wrong.

---

The concept I referenced earlier and for which Lemur provided the excellent link above is what dominates here: in loco parentis. Under U.S. law and custom, schools are considered to be acting in place of the parents. If you give over your children to a public school, they DO have the right to conduct such searches pursuant to the rules established by the local school board (your representatives). Once the policy has been instituted, your placement of your child in the care of that school CONSTITUTES CONSENT TO THEIR POLICIES. You do not get to pick and choose. If you do not agree with those policies, school your child in some other manner.

Do I think that many of these zero tolerance policies/practices are bollox? YES.

Do I think that many of them should be changed? YES.

Do I think we'd be better served if we decriminalized all of this drug stuff and spent more energy focusing on education? **** Yes.

To the best of my knowledge, my county does NOT conduct such searches without proper authorities and/or parents present. If it starts, then I will either RAPIDLY get the policy changed by petition or I will move my children to a different school.

What he^^^ said. If you are a concerned parent, than find out what your school policy is. Attend a school board meeting and bring up the subject, get involved before this type of situation occurs.

Heh, if my "little angels" really screw up, they know their biggest worry won't be the school authorities, it'll be Mom & Dad.

Just one thing Seamus ...( nice post BTW , whoda thunk it was that easy to understand eh).... that decriminalising thing , as other legal drugs like beer and fags have age restrictions how would it have worked in this case as the individual was a minor ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Just one thing Seamus ...( nice post BTW , whoda thunk it was that easy to understand eh).... that decriminalising thing , as other legal drugs like beer and fags have age restrictions how would it have worked in this case as the individual was a minor ?

---

Well, I suppose none of those things will be legalized for minors anytime this century, and nor will currently illegal drugs, even if all such are decriminalized for adults. So in some ways that takes us back to square one.

Schools will always have banned items/substances/modes of dress or some such.

PTA's and keeping your schoolboard honest are a necessary response.

The parents are the only ones who can do this as their children have little or no legal standing and are legally accorded the right to life and not a lot else in most places.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Just one thing Seamus ...( nice post BTW , whoda thunk it was that easy to understand eh).... that decriminalising thing , as other legal drugs like beer and fags have age restrictions how would it have worked in this case as the individual was a minor ?

---

Seamus, Lemur and Tribes. You do make it so simple to understand HOWEVER - why is it a case/which way do you believe that the court will find?

If the court finds that the search was innapropriate then your concept will be incorrect. Educators are not parents, nor are they peace officers. The right to search needs to have a limit and it does. I believe that limit should be shorter than a parent's or police officer's and I hope the court will find that it is. These people are strangers using legal technicalities to exert their power over children over trivial issues. We need clear rules and they should be consistent with the 4th amendment.

We extend amendments to all human citizens unless they require another amendment. At the time of the writing of the Constitution I'm sure parents would have had a problem with teachers stripping their children.

Ask yourself: what parent would strip search their own kids? If parents wouldn't, why would in loco parentis give anyone that right?

Quote:

---

HOWEVER - why is it a case/which way do you believe that the court will find?

---

Why is it a case ? because there are always cases , millions of them .
How the court will find ? well what has so far been presented ticks all the boxes from previous cases , it appears to fit all the legal criteria , so the schools assistant principle and the two female school officials did nothing wrong .

Quote:

---

The right to search needs to have a limit and it does.

---

Yes it needs a limit and it does have one , this case is well within those limits .

Quote:

---

These people are strangers using legal technicalities to exert their power over children over trivial issues.

---

For staters allegations of illegaly supplying drugs to kids in school isn't a trivial matter , and they are not using legal technicalities .

Quote:

---

We need clear rules and they should be consistent with the 4th amendment.

---

There are clear rules and they are consistant with the constitution .

I understand your concerns , anyone reading the opening post would go WTF thats outrageous , but then you actually look and should realise the opening is entirely misleading and the case itself is not what it is being presented as.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

because it is a school not a college or university
if you are going to quote something make sure you read it :yes:

---

1. You use too many smilies your posts.
2. It is absurd to say that higher public education allows for your rights to asserted and then say that those in lower public education have none.

Quote:

---

2. It is absurd to say that higher public education allows for your rights to asserted and then say that those in lower public education have none.

---

:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
It is absurd that you don't understand that proxy parental rights given to teachers over minors in their charge are not the same when those minors become adults .
Besides which, no one said children do not have any rights so your whole line is complete bollox:yes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
It is absurd that you don't understand that proxy parental rights given to teachers over minors in their charge are not the same when those minors become adults .
Besides which, no one said children do not have any rights so your whole line is complete bollox:yes:

---

The teachers are responsible for the education and safety of the students, nothing more. They have no override on their privacy.

The fact that the school decided that they could strip a girl down with just an accusation from someone to back them up shows that minors are treated as if they have no rights. I guess I can say some random guy in my class is carrying pills and he will be strip searched by the end of day as well. They should not have the ability to strip search her, lets have some perspective here for once. If they think she is carrying, they need to get the police, inform them of the situation and ask them to get a warrant or find some probable cause so they can strip search her after parental notification and if they can not get a warrant or probable cause then just send her home for the day to make sure the child can not cause harm to other students if she is guilty.

I just don't see how when a human being is over eighteen they have full rights over their educational institute, but until that second they turn eighteen, it is acceptable for random government paid workers to have full control of the student's body as if eighteen is the magical number when a human can fully appreciate his or her rights.

Quote:

---

The teachers are responsible for the education and safety of the students, nothing more.

---

And safety of the students includes ensuring there are no drug dealers in the school .

Quote:

---

I just don't see how when a human being is over eighteen they have full rights over their educational institute

---

:dizzy2: they don't have full rights , they just have more rights because legally they are an adult not a child so the parental bit is no longer valid
You really don't understand the topic at all do you .