[MAD-AS-HELL]

Not really. Passing thru a detector could be argued as not being a search since no one is actually searching him.

[gridlock]

Passing thru a detector could be argued as not being a search since no one is actually searching him.

A metal detector without a search policy is useless. In the event of an alarm, the student must be searched, otherwise all false positives must be denied access, and that is just not gonna happen.

All the metal detector does is reduce the number of physical searches that must be employed by pre-screening out the bulk of the students. But, ultimately, the policy is to search students because they have triggered a metal detector. Since 99.99% of these searches will be for false positives, the fact that the metal detector goes off does not really constitute reasonable suspicion.

[Rick.Donaldson]

Not really. Passing thru a detector could be argued as not being a search since no one is actually searching him.

Ummm NO. If you pass through a metal detector, it DETECTS metal on your person. That is a "search", legal, illegal, invasive... it's all really irrelevant. We have a policy here... you walk into my facility, you agree to submit to random searches. By simply entering a government facility. Whether you chose to carry something you shouldn't be carrying into the base (or out) is up to you.

But, the policy is indeed stated up front.

the kid is RIGHT, if there is no written, publically stated policy regarding "random searches" then they have no business placing metal detectors there. Period.