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

[ICantSpellDawg]

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



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.

[Tribesman]

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 .

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.

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

[Seamus Fermanagh]

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.

[Hosakawa Tito]

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.

[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 Fermanagh]

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.

[ICantSpellDawg]

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?

[Tribesman]

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 .

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 .

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 .

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.