Posted on 09/20/2006 5:14:15 AM PDT by Puppage
(New Haven-WTNH, Sept. 19, 2006 10:45 PM) _ A student's refusal to walk through a safety detector earns him a trip home.
For some the installation of metal detectors in schools is to better protect those inside.
One New Haven student is refusing to walk the walk, questioning whether his rights are being violated.
The district says it is like the right to enter a courtroom or get on a plane. It's new policy to keep young people safe.
For this New Haven student it's all about his fourth amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures.
Nick Evans is getting a lesson in the legality of school policy.
The 16-year-old was sent home after refusing to walk through a metal detector and be searched as he entered Career High School.
"They haven't done this properly. There's not policy stating that I have to," says Evans.
The high school junior is challenging the New Haven District's recent decision to implement added security measures in the building last week.
"The handbook dictating district policy states they need reasonable grounds to search me."
No where in the handbook, he says, does it spell out anything about random searches or the use of metal detectors.
"I'd like to see them actually making this legal."
But a spokesperson for the District says the Superintendent has the right to make changes in what he considers to be emergency situations. The increased security comes after a violent summer in the Elm City and the deadly shootings of a 13-year old girl and boy.
"The Superintendent has the authority in the event of an emergency to enact directives and right here he believes it's important right now to expand what we are doing in terms of security for all students in the high school," says Susan Weisselberg, New Haven Public Schools.
The district admits it has no written policy on its latest measures but says that's about to change.
"We are adopting a formal policy. We will have the first reading by the Board of Ed Monday night," says Weisselberg.
For the schools, metal detectors and student searches are about keeping kids safe.
Nick Evans says he'll follow the policies as long as they are within the boundaries of the law.
"I would if it's a good sound legal policy. If they try to trample 4th amendments rights... ah getting shaky," says Evans.
Nick Evans says he will go to school tomorrow because he doesn't want to miss his classes, however he's plans to be vigilant in making sure the district follows through.
There is also no formal written policy for the use of metal detectors at Hill House or Wilbur Cross High School but the district says that will change too.
It appears the nanny-mindset is spreading as fast as a virus. A brain killing virus. A virus that stops rational independent thought.....
It's in the spinach. Stay away from the spinach.
Does this mean your rights are not absolute? Only if you believe having a right to do something means you are free to violate MY rights without consequence.
Ultimately that is what laws do - provide consequences for violating the rights of others.
In the examples you proposed, you are saying that because one can be punished for harming another that it justifies restricting a person's rights even though he has committed no harm. That thought process is logically flawed.
Laws which punish perjury do not restrict speech, they punish a harmful act. Laws which punish child pornographers do not restrict the press, they punish someone for harming the child.
Laws which state you must be searched as a condition of entering a building are fine as long as entering that building is voluntary. When one is compelled to be there, such as a student at school, then one really doesnt have the right to avoid that search does he?
Your perspective leads to a world which makes legitimate the idea that one should not object to a search unless one has something to hide. Sorry, but i would object to the search on the grounds that you have no legitimate reason to violate my person as I have done nothing wrong. My mere presences is not your justification.
Equating this to my personal favorite - the 2nd Amendment - it is no different than preventing someone from owning a firearm unless they prove they are not a danger. This reverses the entire power flow by making the state the originator of all authority, rather than the people.
Where is the state granted the authority to subject someone to an unreasonable search just because he has decided to avoid prosecution for truancy and attend school?
Well put. Whenever I see an article about this or that issue in public schools (sex ed, creation v evolution, etc), I usually point out the root of the problem: the near government monopoly on schools. I was remiss in not pointing it out this time, not that it ever makes a damn bit of difference. But thanks for picking up the slack.
That's my point. Absolute means without restriction of anykind. Saying a right is absolute except when this or that occurrs is like saying that car is completely blue, except for the red doors, yellow racing stripe, and oranage roof. Since your rights to do not extend to the point where you can legally infringe on my rights, your rights are not absolute.
Laws which punish perjury do not restrict speech, they punish a harmful act. Laws which punish child pornographers do not restrict the press, they punish someone for harming the child.
Laws that punish you for doing something, ie, prevent you from freely doing something, are an infringement. (Go ahead and look the word up: infringement) They are also justified.
Laws which state you must be searched as a condition of entering a building are fine as long as entering that building is voluntary. When one is compelled to be there, such as a student at school, then one really doesnt have the right to avoid that search does he?
Read my posts again. I never claimed to support any such laws. You are now attempting to put words in my mouth.
My posts dealt with Beelzebubba inference that child have a right to keep and bear arms. Their right to keep and bear arms is legally infringed upon by our government because no right is absolute.
Where is the state granted the authority to subject someone to an unreasonable search just because he has decided to avoid prosecution for truancy and attend school?
Why don't you show me where I made any such claim that the state had such an authority?
To make it easier on everyone reading this, it reads:
A just or legal claim or title.
This is where the whole thing about your rights ending where mine begin comes in. You dont HAVE a just claim on MY property or MY person. Hence, when those are violated by your actions, you are not exercising your rights, you are violating MINE. Consequently, your UNJUST and/or ILLEGAL actions are punished.
We could play this all day long and it will come down to which semantical argument one is willing to accept. Putting all of it aside, perhaps you could explain how you get from punishing actions after they occur to finding it acceptable to punish someone just in case they might do something wrong?
The law against perjury and child porn do not affect speech or publication at all. The concept you're failing to grasp is "prior restraint". Look it up. If the government stops you from speaking because you may commit perjury that would be unconstitutional, and if the government prohibited you from owning a camera because you might take pictures of naked children that would also be unconstitutional.
The goverment punishing you for perjury or child porn isn't prior restraint of conduct which could be criminal, it's punishment of a crime.
When the hell did I make any such claim?
It is implied by your argument.
sounds like a future liberal. Now's the time to nip that crap in the bud.
When did "conservative" start to mean "put up with whatever the government decides is best"? Actually he does sound like a future liberal - kinda like Washington, Jefferson, Adams, etc... You know - THOSE liberals..
I had guns in my school growing up....
Did i mention that I went to Catholic schools? You know - with God and all? Did i also mention that nobody thought a kid bringing a gun to school was odd - especially during hunting season?
The government, under threat of punishment, is restricting certain types of speach (perjury) and press (child porn). Punishment is an effecitive deterent and is used as such by the government.
You are right that the government cannot restrict speech in general or the press in general, because that speech or press may be used illegally, but it can (under very strict limitations) and does restrict speech and press under the threat of punishment.
Now speech or press that is political in nature can not be restricted (well until McCain/Feingold), but pornography (remember the common man standard and community standards) can be restricted without violating the US Constitution. This issue has been address (and will likely be addressed again) by the courts, all the way to the US Supreme Court.
By threating punishment for specific speech, the state is restricting that speech. Now the courts have rule the state must show extremely compelling reason to restrict such speech (the obvious harm that can be caused by perjury or child porn is such a compelling reason). But if the state says, "If your speach under oath is willfully and knowingly untruthful, you can be imprisioned" then it is restriction speech, specifically restriction by intimidation.
Definition #6a is a more approrpiate defintion of rights: a. Something that is due to a person or governmental body by law, tradition, or nature (ie God)
Interestingly, you mention property rights, which are not absolute either.
Also, your inference does not constitue my position. I actually think the kid is closer to right than wrong. Although the courts have ruled that minors rights may be more restricted, especially in school enviroments, so as to ensure safety and allow the school to teach, he does not immediately relinquish his rights when he enters the school. The school should provide parents with specific quidelines that will be taken if the student triggers an alarm, etc, etc. The obvious solution to all this is a school voucher system, but that is a whole other subject.
shankbear:He will lose. This has passed court muster as well as dog searches and piss tests. Whine on you little loser punk puke.No, actually the piss tests have failed.
They can test you if they have reasonable suspicion, or if you want to join the chess club, or even attend a school dance.
But they cannot make you pee in a cup just because you want to attend your mandatory K-12 classes.
Ah, the makings of a future patriot that doesn't get on their knees for the police state like you do.
Yes. I find this an odd question coming from you.
In Texas if a student parks on campus or participates in any extracurricular activity, they are subject to being pee tested. It is a very few that actually get pulled per month in the districts with which I am familiar, but that has been found OK in the Ct. of Criminal Appeals. No reasonable suspicion necessary under this scheme.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.