Drug dogs in public schools-It's about time (Whitefish: attorneys, elementary school)

[AQHA]

Originally Posted by Radek

The contract they sign says that they'll agree to the rules.

There has to be at least one sheet of paper students and parents sign, and somewhere on that it says something to the extent of "you agree to abide by the rules and policies of the school, school district, state, federal laws, etc etc".

That's exactly right. The fact that a poster does not remember signing it (or having their parent sign it in this case) means nothing, these are things people sign and turn in without reading.

[jimj]

Originally Posted by AQHA

You're not reading it correctly jimj.

Look closer at these two passages from the court opinion you included--

"Under ordinary circumstances, a search of a student by a teacher or other school official will be "justified at its inception" when there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that the search will turn up evidence that the student has violated or is violating either the law or the rules of the school."

This one is closer to to our point,


"This standard will, we trust, neither unduly burden the efforts of school authorities to maintain order in their schools nor authorize unrestrained intrusions upon the privacy of schoolchildren."

In my post I was answering the question as to why they cannot take search dogs into the schools and search all the kids in their classrooms.
While I think this would be a great deterrent, it would be a violation of their 4th amendment and in violation of the court opinion you included, as there has to be "reasonable grounds" (which is synonymous with Reasonable Suspicion, which is a step below Probable Cause).

In other words, they cannot legally bring a search dog into the school and just start searching students without Reasonable Grounds. They can search the lockers because those are school property and normally the school will not issue those without the waiver being signed.

Ok, here is the final opinion of SCOTUS NEW JERSEY v. T. L. O. that holds to pretty much what I thought. While the 4th amendment is there they're giving what it seems is wide lattitude to the school.
You can attempt to be a philly lawer and pick it apart and you may get the school to back down and you may not but in the end this is what it seems the schools hang their hats on when they bring dogs in and search cars,lockers etc.

Do I think they should be out searching all cars in the lots or adjacent streets as they do here? No, not without some idea that something is in them like if they got a hit on someone's locker then in my mind it would be reasonable to go look at thier car and them as well.
Do I think they should be runing the dog in the school checking lockers? In todays climate I have to say sadly yes.
If they do find something in a random car search I'd say that it isn't right for them to use it to discipline the kid (which they do btw) but at a maximum should let the parent know what was found and drop it there or what really should happen is if a dog hits on a car in the lot call the parents down and ask them if they're willing to open it up since they are the vehicles true owner.
My son's friends have been nailed for having bullets forgotten in their cars after a weekend hunt, having chew/cigs hidden under their seats or having a hunting knife after a boyscout camping trip.

[bigtrees]

Originally Posted by Radek

Which plant? I don't remember drug dogs up at Everett. I spent most of my time in 40-26 thru 40-36, but a lot of time spent in the 56 as well.

I've personally seen the dogs working at the Renton plant but believe they also work at the Everett plant as well. They're not drug dogs, but they are bomb-sniffing dogs (same thing, just trained with a different scent) and they sniff the delivery trucks as they enter the plant to make sure no one is bringing a bomb into the plant.

[bigtrees]

Originally Posted by AQHA

That's exactly right. The fact that a poster does not remember signing it (or having their parent sign it in this case) means nothing, these are things people sign and turn in without reading.

What you and Radek are confusing is the way things should be and the way things are.

You don't have to sign a contract to abide by the rules of the school district when on their property because by being on their property you are agreeing to the rules.

The same applies elsewhere as well. For example, at an airport they were doing random searches of people in the months following 9/11. (I think they still do to some extent.) You haven't signed a contract with the TSA that allows them to do that - but by entering a limited access area they have the power to do that.

Seattle city parks are moving to that direction. The mayor recently signed a ban on firearms in the park, and I believe the police are allowed to check people (at random) for firearms. But it's a civil - not criminal - code violation and they can't issue a criminal citation.

In general, you don't have to sign contracts or agreements to abide by government laws. I didn't sign any agreements with Montana to abide by their laws, nor have I in the other states I've lived in. Same goes with the government - I've never been provided a copy of the code of federal regulations and been asked to sign that I will abide by them.

So no - while we were provided a copy of the student handbook and asked to acknowledge that we received it (similiar to a traffic ticket where you have to sign that you received it but are not admitting guilt), I never signed anything saying I would abide or agreed to the rules. If I didn't abide by them, they made it known they would simply give me the boot.

So I'm not saying this is how it should be or this is proper or right but this is how it is in the Whitefish School District.....

[AQHA]

Originally Posted by jimj

You can attempt to be a philly lawer and pick it apart

I'm not trying to be a "philly lawer" but I have studied law and I know how it works in principle and practice. I've also spent considerable time on the witness stand in various court rooms.
The courts do, and should, give more wiggle room with the 4th amendment in schools, but there are certain guidelines that must be followed. Even kids have rights.

[Radek]

Originally Posted by bigtrees

I've personally seen the dogs working at the Renton plant but believe they also work at the Everett plant as well. They're not drug dogs, but they are bomb-sniffing dogs (same thing, just trained with a different scent) and they sniff the delivery trucks as they enter the plant to make sure no one is bringing a bomb into the plant.

heh. They sure didn't sniff our delivery trucks when I was working there. Hell, if they had... they probably would've picked up the smell of pot off some of our drivers... trained or not.

And theres no syllabus? Nothing? I guess the district could just have the fact that you're attending school there be a verbal commitment that you're going to follow the rules. But I bet that on A piece of paper somewhere, you or your child has signed saying that they understand and agree to the rules.


However, when you get a State issued ID or Driver's License, you're telling me there's no line, fine print, etc that when you sign, you're also agreeing to abide by the laws of the state, etc?

I will agree that your presence in a city, state, country, school, etc is for the most part a sign of your willingness to accept and abide by the rules/laws and that ignorance of them is no excuse.

That being said, the rules set forth by a school, employer, city, state, etc cannot supercede federal law (if contrary) and the constitution.

And, allowing schools to randomly sniff cars does exactly that.

[AQHA]

Originally Posted by Radek

I bet that on A piece of paper somewhere, you or your child has signed saying that they understand and agree to the rules.

I don't know if you picked it up from a previous post but this is the child and he/she does not know for certain what his/her parent signed. This part of the debate is meaningless.

[Mt-7]

Maybe in the school handbook you get at the begining of the year, usually had a tear out page that you signed on back to school night when they hand you a mountian of papers.

[bigtrees]

Originally Posted by AQHA

I don't know if you picked it up from a previous post but this is the child and he/she does not know for certain what his/her parent signed. This part of the debate is meaningless.

Um, I'm going to exit this conversation. I added a few comments to say how it worked at Whitefish High School but AQHA feels that I am wrong and don't know what I'm talking about. I disagree, but AQHA can believe what he/she wants.

You may be interested in this link that governs the search/seizure policy at Bozeman School District. http://www.bsd7.org/district_policie...eries/3231.pdf Notice there is no place to sign at the bottom of the policy.

In particular, note the section on drug dogs, which is the subject of this thread.

The Superintendent, building principal, and the authorized assistants of either, may request the assistance of law enforcement officials to conduct inspections and searches of lockers, desks, parking lots, and other

school property and equipment for illegal drugs, weapons or other illegal or dangerous substances or material. Such inspections may include the use of specially trained dogs.

[jimj]

Originally Posted by AQHA

I'm not trying to be a "philly lawer" but I have studied law and I know how it works in principle and practice. I've also spent considerable time on the witness stand in various court rooms.
The courts do, and should, give more wiggle room with the 4th amendment in schools, but there are certain guidelines that must be followed. Even kids have rights.

This actually sperned quite an interesting conversation with my 17 yr old son. His opinion is just like yours and after debating this back and forth (he was in speech and debate btw) we came to the agreement that cars that are on and off campus (but near the school) should NOT be searched without the same probable cause as would apply to an adult. Kids in the school fall under a different set of conditions where it drops to reasonable suspicion and lockers are fair game. I can respect his opinion, he's really adamant that the 4th amendment doesn't say kids are excluded just because they're in school. He also said that since he parks off campus across the street they had better present a warrant if they ever ask to open his car. I'd have to agree.
Smart kid, I guess he won't be the type just to roll over because someone says so but I do still have to teach him temperence.