Libertarian ping.To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here
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.
Libertarian ping.To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here
Thanks for adding to the discourse. Informed citizens like you that are willing to share their well reasoned and deeply held opinions are what make America a great country.
Connecticut state law?
Then my brother-in-law would be breaking the law by homeschooling his 13-year old for eight years. Shhh!
I didnt miss your point at all. You want to believe somehow that the metal detector is a magical panacea which will stop deranged nutjobs and thus justifies the complete disregard for the rights of everyone else.
Meanwhile, back in the real world, I defy you to show me a single example of a metal detector actually stopping a crime.
To someone determined to do something like what you suggest, the metal detector is a lock on a screen door. Makes those who dont think feel better, but has no real effect on the outcome.
Among other reasons, because they dont WANT you to get hurt. Has nothing to do with liability - it has to do with natural adult responsibility for children.
Believe it or not, there was a time in this country when people took responsibility for their own screw-ups and didnt blame someone else if they fell down and skinned their knee. Oddly enough also, even during that time, people still admonished others not to do something stupid, which could cause them to fall down and skin their knees.
A little scary and sad. There are posters on this thread who are unable to differentiate between mandatory and voluntary searches, between government-imposed dictates and privately instated policies, between rules for being somewhere voluntarily and rules for being somewhere the state compels you to be by law, and between the inviolate nature of rights and the idea that certain of those rights can be held in trust and exercised by guardians of minors until the age of majority. The sad thing is that the kid wasn't even denying the state's right to search - he just wanted them to do it by legally implementing a policy rather than instantly mandating them by fiat.
"It's for the children" seems to have become the 21st century version of "it's for the proletariat", even amongst some who I would think consider themselves stauch defenders of the Constitution and conservatism.
Ok. I was taking an extreme example and not suggesting that metal detectors are a cure all. I do think they are necessary in light of the society we have today. On that note, what would you do if you were placed in charge of security of a school since you are against metal detectors.
No, you proved my point. Rights are not absolute. We do not have an absolute right to freedom of speech. We do not have an absolute right to freedom of press. We do not have an absolute right to keep and bear arms.
You can not legally commit perjury, produce child porn, or own a nuclear missile. Why? Because your right of freedom of speech (not free speech but freedom of speech, it is an important distinction), freedom of press, or right to keep and bear arms, like all rights, is not absolute.
Why don't you try again.
Thats right - there has to be a REASON. Simply being there isnt a reason now is it?
Entering a public school is a reason.
Really? You mean there is a reason to assume all students are criminals because they have entered a school their parents pay for and they are legally obligated to attend?
Wow - imagine that...all this time i thought they were just going to school.
Entering a stadium at a college football game is a reason.
So because I have paid to view a college football game, that gives the state reason to believe I may commit a crime, thereby granting it the authority to search me? Again - wow - i thought i was going to watch a game, drink some beer, and have a good time.
Entering the white house or capital building.
Now i can see a legitimate reason for the White House, but not for the Capitol. There are all SORTS of reasons that J. Random Citizen may wish to enter the Capitol - not the least of which being the obligation of the Legislature to hold open sessions and all that... That hardly grants the state the authority to simply assume i am there for nefarious purposes thereby searching me "just in case".
Suspicion that you're driving drunk.
Said suspicion had better carry articulable reasoning. Just because I'm in the car is NOT reasonable.
Suspicion that your transporting biological weapons.
Well if the state had been given a tip that I may be doing just that then by all means, search me. On the other hand, just because i am in public doesnt give the state any reason to think i am doing that now does it?
The government is obligated to protect the citizens.
Really? Where did you hear that? Here i've been laboring under the assumption (and mountains of legal precedent) that the state was empowered to protect the borders but individual safety was the responsibility of the individual. You mean the state must involve itself to protect me from any and all harm? Cool! When DID that become possible?
But no one is subect to these searches. Only those who want to enter or use goverment owned facilities.
So basically if you leave your house the government can search you? No im sorry my friend, life does not work that way here in the US. I am not accountable to the government, it is accountable to me.
Punishing people for violating anothers rights is not a restriction of rights
This is really a simple concept that I am shocked you don't understand: Rights are not absolute. The state can legally and morally restrict your rights if they infringe on the rights of other.
Tell me, do you believe you have an absolute freedom of speech under the US Constitution?
Infringing on rights, whether legally or not is a restriction on rights. Some restrictions are moral (prohibition of child porn, perjury) and some are not (McCain/Feingold) but they are an infringment or restriction nonetheless.
I agree, but one right you do not have is to infringe upon the rights of another.
This is really a simple concept that I am shocked you don't understand: Rights are not absolute. The state can legally and morally restrict your rights if they infringe on the rights of other.
That is correct - they can. Up until the point that you violate the rights of another person, your rights ARE absolute. The examples you gave (perjury and child pornography) are not an exercise of your rights, but the violation of another's rights. Hence the punishment.
Tell me, do you believe you have an absolute freedom of speech under the US Constitution?
Trick question. The literal answer is no, but not for the reason you might think. The Constitution does not grant me any rights. It recognizes my existing ones and charges government with safeguarding them.
To answer the question i think you intended to ask, yes, the Constitution DOES prohibit Congress from applying any restrictions to my speech.
In no way does this mean that I cannot face legal action for violating the rights of another person. Speech which violates another's rights may be criminally actionable
With all that being addressed, exactly how does any of this justify the search of someone merely because they have entered a building in which they are legally permitted, and in some cases, obligated to be?
What better way to learn about the Constitution and the legal system than to challenge something that should be in the handbook (had plenty of time before school started to add the policy). Yes it is going to be taxpayer money used to fight the lawsuit but they can easily bypass it by just saying that from today forward there is a policy, put it in print to hand out to the students (sign off on) and that it will be in the next handbook.
Ok. I was taking an extreme example and not suggesting that metal detectors are a cure all.
Fair enough
I do think they are necessary in light of the society we have today.
I dont. I think they're a crutch used by some to make it appear to the many that they are doing something about a problem caused by something else.
On that note, what would you do if you were placed in charge of security of a school since you are against metal detectors.
The same things that were done prior to the invention of them. Identify who the bad kids are, watch them, come down on them like a ton of bricks when they do anything wrong, and if they refuse to learn - expel them. Its pretty simple really.
Where the problem comes in is administrators are afraid to offend anyone, and in attempting to avoid that, the offend everyone.
I dont know about you, but when i was in school, the teachers knew which kids were bad and had to be watched. They didnt worry about the Chess Club kids too much for example, or the Band Geeks, or even just J. Random Student who showed up, was polite, and got straight C's.
If a teacher or school administrator cannot identify which kids are the trouble makers, perhaps they need to find a new profession as they obviously do not even remember being children, let alone understand them.
Amen! Government skooling is child abuse.
Wow. Colombine. I was thinking we became a terrorized nation post 9/11. But I forgot Colombine. This country went absolutely hysterical. I guess that's what ushered in this golden age of the zero tolerance gestapo.
You're kidding right. If the right has a point it can no longer be exercised, it cannot be absolute. You aren't really that dense, are you?
The Constitution does not grant me any rights. It recognizes my existing ones and charges government with safeguarding them.
That why I wrote "under" the constitution, not "provided" by it.
To answer the question i think you intended to ask, yes, the Constitution DOES prohibit Congress from applying any restrictions to my speech.
Then the laws against perjury (a restriction, albeit a reasonable one, on speech) in federal courts would be unconstitutional? Before you answer, let me give you the answer. No, a law restricting your freedom of speech to prevent you from committing perjury is not unconstitutional, even though it is a law passed by Congress, and it restricts your speech.
That would be all well and good it the students attended voluntarily. However, they are forced by the state to attend by dint of state and federal attendance laws.
Entering a public school rises to the level of probable cause? Like weaving in and out of your lane on the road or having someone sign an affadavit that you have bought tons of phospate fertilizer yet have no farm or garden? I repeat ... public schooling is child abuse.
Smart kid. He's learned enough to know what his rights are when they are being infringed. As he looks further into this hopefully he will come to realize that the entire socialist system of government schooling is un-Constitutional and coercive in nature.
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.