Georgia Libertarians condemn school drug raid

A commando-style police drug raid on a high school in South Carolina was "a new low" in America's War on Drugs, Georgia Libertarians have charged.

"Police entered a school and intentionally terrorized over 100 innocent children, all in the name of a War on Drugs we all know to be an abysmal failure," said Georgia LP State Chair Helmut Forren.

"[The War on Drugs has] trampled the rights of law-abiding citizens, and now jeopardizes our most precious resource, the lives of our children. America hit a new low in the War on Drugs."

On November 5, about a dozen police officers and drug-sniffing dogs burst into Stratford High School in Goose Creek, South Carolina. With guns drawn, they wrestled students to the floor and restrained 14 students with plastic handcuffs. No drugs were found and no arrests were made.

The incident was filmed on school security cameras and broadcast on news shows around the world, sparking harsh criticism of police tactics.

But such raids are an inevitable byproduct of the War on Drugs, said Georgia LP Legislative Director James Bell.

"This can and will continue to happen in our schools as long as our nation continues to treat drug use as a police matter rather than a health issue," he said.

Goose Creek police defended their actions, saying they had not "intentionally" pointed guns at school children.

However, such excuses won't heal the trauma students felt when being confronted by a swarm of armed officers, said Georgia LP Vice Chair Garrett Michael Hayes.

"Once again, the drug war brings violence into our schools," he said. "This time, though, it's the police, waving guns in the faces of children. If we worry that children are becoming desensitized, we don't need to blame video games; the real-life authorities are doing enough on their own.

"When are they going to realize that their medicine is worse than the disease -- a disease that should be treated as a public health issue, not a criminal one?"

Goose Creek, which has a population of 30,000, is about 15 miles north of Charleston, South Carolina.

Yes, I read #19. I also have read a few other threads on this. The bottom line is that the Principle suspected a specific set of kids. No number is discussed, but he did not suspect all 107 kids that take the early bus to school. He suspected a few of the kids that take the early bus to school.

Restricting the search to the main hallway still resulted in a large number of kids that were not under reasonable suspicion. All of the kids were detained with the threat of force. In fact, if a kid did not immediately obey the orders of the police, they were physically detained with the plastic strips that pass as handcuffs. If this is not unconstitutional siezure of a person, then what is?

In addition, the police storm the school with guns drawn, they physically point the barrell of said guns at students that were not under suspicion. Think about it, the students are constantly told that guns are dangerous, they are taught to report people that own such dangerous items, they hear about all the danger for their entire scholastic career. They are indoctrinated with a major fear of guns. Then the police come rushing in with guns pointed at them. Do you think they felt that they felt at risk or do you think they felt comfortable in the situation? If that is not a violation of the right to be "secure in their persons" then what is?

You keep addressing only one element of this action by the school and how in your opinion it is not a violation of the constitution. The above violations clearly show it was a violation. If we don't afford these minors the basic rights provided by the constitution, then the state no longer can protect them from harm. If the state is a threat to them, then when will they ever feel safe? What did this action do to the learning environment in that school? I garuntee, that these students, in fact the entire school is much more distracted from learning than what was caused by the few students that the principle suspected. Don't you believe that these actions against the 107 students has affected the rest of the 2K+ students? If not, then how is the entire community affected, yet the remaining students aren't?

"The suspected group of about 10 students comes to school in early buses ... tapes show a network of lookouts ... they know where the cameras are ... faculty can view the students from other cameras, but from quite a distance away. They see silhouettes."

So, which one of these "silhouettes" are you going to pull from class? Assuming the word doesn't get out and the suspects dump the marijuana in the classroom before they come out for your search.

Yes, they were after 10 and netted 107. They did try to restrict the number of students (6:40am raid, only the main hallway, "20 administrators and teachers helped steer other students away").

"McCrackin, who has two children at the school, said the problem mostly stems from students who transferred into the school this year from out of state."

How has this affected the rest of the sudents? My guess is that they want things to get back to normal -- to get back to the way it was before these tranferees arrived.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Let me post it again and I will answer your questions specifically:

"So, which one of these "silhouettes" are you going to pull from class?"

The ammendment above states that they must particularly describe the place and persons to be searched. They (authorities) have a responsibility to investigate the suspicions and provide evidence that can lead them to the correct persons to search. If the principal has two children in the school, they may have been able to assist. If he can't even see a face in the video, how can he determine that they are dealing drugs? The increased use of drugs does nothing to narrow the suspects down either. An investigation was warranted before this action took place.

Think of it this way, a drug dealer works on your street. No one knows where the dealer lives, so the police bust into all the houses on the street and search them while holding all the homeowners at gunpoint. That would be unconstitutional and a normal investigation would have led them to a legitimate suspect that they could have taken appropriate action against.

"Yes, they were after 10 and netted 107."

They netted 0 (zero) offenders of the school policy or drug laws. This was seizure of 107 people without any proof of guilt against any of them.

""McCrackin, who has two children at the school, said the problem mostly stems from students who transferred into the school this year from out of state.""

If he knows this much then he could have started a legitimate investigation or at minimum assisted with one conducted by the police.

"How has this affected the rest of the sudents? My guess is that they want things to get back to normal -- to get back to the way it was before these tranferees arrived."

You mean get back to the way it was before the cops held their friends or acquaintences at gun point.

In post #55, I took the time to cite (I thought you were the one who loves proof of claims) the court ruling on the 4th amendment as it applies to public schools. I even underlined the pertinent part.

You chose to ignore this, and you continue to reference the language of the 4th without acknowledging the court's interpretation as it applies to public schools. Then, you give me a totally irrelevant example of some drug dealer on a residential street.

Schools. Public schools. That's what we're talking about.

I see no reason to provide you with references, cites, court cases, etc. in the future if you choose to ignore them to make your point (which is obviously false and without foundation. Ironic).

From #55 the case as you listed:

"Public Schools
In New Jersey v. T.L.O. [469 U.S. 325 (1985)], the Court set forth the principles governing searches by public school authorities. The Fourth Amendment applies to searches conducted by public school officials because ''school officials act as representatives of the State, not merely as surrogates for the parents.'' [469 U.S. 336 (1984)]. However, ''the school setting requires some easing of the restrictions to which searches by public authorities are ordinarily subject.'' [469 U.S. 340 (1985)]. Neither the warrant requirement nor the probable cause standard is appropriate, the Court ruled. Instead, a simple reasonableness standard governs all searches of students' persons and effects by school authorities (469 U.S. at 343)."

This case is relevent to searches only. No where does it talk about the violations of these students constitutional right to feel secure in their persons and their constitutional right to not be unlawfully siezed. I agree that this documentation provided by you does negate the 4th's protection to students regarding searches. I don't agree with the case, but it does provide a frame for the school administrations behavior regarding searches.

In post #56 I stated: "I am repeating it because the decision addresses searches but not the other elements. How about feeling secure in their persons? How about seizure?"

This to me is not ignoring your post presenting the case. In fact it acknowledges that the case addresses searches. If the case addresses the other two elements then I am not seeing it. If it does, I need you to point it out to me and explain it.

More from your post #55:

"School searches must also be reasonably related in scope to the circumstances justifying the interference, and ''not excessively intrusive in light of the age and sex of the student and the nature of the infraction.'' (469 U.S. at 342)."

I would say that this comment supports my claim that this specific action was not reasonably related in scope to the circumstances and that they did excessively intrude in light of the number of students involved vs. the number of students threatened, seized and searched.

If I am not understanding the case or your comments then by all means provide me the clarification. However, I did not ignore the case or your comments as you seem to think I have.

The court stated, "Instead, a simple reasonableness standard governs all searches of students' persons and effects by school authorities."

You say, "No where does it talk about the violations of these students constitutional right to feel secure in their persons and their constitutional right to not be unlawfully siezed."

First of all the students themselves weren't searched for drugs, even though they could have been. They were certainly "secure in their persons" with regard to the 4th amendment.

Second, the students were not "seized" -- they were detained during the search. If drugs were found, the drugs would have been seized per the 4th amendment.

Given the circumstances, I believe the school authorities did what they could to restrict the search (6:40am raid, only the main hallway, "20 administrators and teachers helped steer other students away"). They temporarily detained about 4% of the students. They didn't search the students or their lockers -- only their book bags. I really don't see the actions as a 4th amendment issue.

"First of all the students themselves weren't searched for drugs, even though they could have been. They were certainly "secure in their persons" with regard to the 4th amendment."

How secure do you feel looking down the barrel of a gun? Considering the fact that students are told regularly that guns kill, they would feel even more of a threat. In addition, a drug sniffing dog is searching the entire area for an odor. That odor detection is not able to eliminate the students themselves and stick to the backpack only.

"Second, the students were not "seized" -- they were detained during the search. If drugs were found, the drugs would have been seized per the 4th amendment."

A person is seized as soon as they submit to the assertion of the police authority. The students were not free to leave at any time they were seized. This is shown when the story talks about the "cuffing" of the students that did not cooperate, then the others were not free to leave and they submitted to the authority of the police. Look up California v. Hodari D., 499 U.S. 621. Therefore you end up with this group of police seizing 107 people while suspecting 10 people of committing a crime. This seizure failed to bear any fruit (evidence) that could prove that any crime occured. That alone should show that this action was not based on simple reasonableness.

"How secure do you feel looking down the barrel of a gun?"

You're calling this a fourth amendment violation? We were discussing search and seizure in a public school environment, were we not? Or are you changing the subject to something else? You're confusing me, here.

In California v. Hodari D., 499 U.S. 621., Hodari was convicted of possessing cocaine.

The State Court of Appeal reversed, holding that Hodari had been "seized" when he saw Pertoso running towards him; that this seizure was "unreasonable" under the Fourth Amendment, the State having conceded that Pertoso did not have the "reasonable suspicion" required to justify stopping Hodari; and therefore that the evidence of cocaine had to be suppressed as the fruit of the illegal seizure.

The USSC took this case AND REVERSED the State Court of Appeal decision. Nice reference.

Look, you're doing it again. You are citing fourth amendment cases (poorly, I might add) that have nothing to with public schools. The "litmus test" for reasonable is different for public schools, no warrant is required and there need not be probable cause.

All is not lost. I did learn that detaining an individual during a search is "seizing" the person. In the case of these students, however, it was a "reasonable" seizure, and any drugs found would be admissable, IMO.

If it makes you feel better, I will concede that if this activity took place outside of a public school, I highly doubt the authorities would have this kind of lattitude without much more proof.

"You're calling this a fourth amendment violation? We were discussing search and seizure in a public school environment, were we not? Or are you changing the subject to something else? You're confusing me, here."

The fourth ammendment starts by establishing the right of the people to be secure in their persons. That is removed when a person is staring down the barrell of a gun.

"In California v. Hodari D., 499 U.S. 621., Hodari was convicted of possessing cocaine.

The State Court of Appeal reversed, holding that Hodari had been "seized" when he saw Pertoso running towards him; that this seizure was "unreasonable" under the Fourth Amendment, the State having conceded that Pertoso did not have the "reasonable suspicion" required to justify stopping Hodari; and therefore that the evidence of cocaine had to be suppressed as the fruit of the illegal seizure.

The USSC took this case AND REVERSED the State Court of Appeal decision. Nice reference."

Yes, this case is not directly tied to seizure of a person in a school. However, it defined seizure and at what point seizure is established to justify a search. According to this definition, all 107 students are under seizure of the authority (police) taking the action. The case you sighted in #55 allows for search, but it does not address seizure. It also calls for search to be reasonable at its inception. The point of inception by the case I reference is at seizure.

The result of this action by the school and the police is that they seized and searched 107 students because of suspicions regarding 10 students. The other 97 students were threatened by force and gun (security taken from them), seized (without reasonable grounds) and searched (deemed constitutional in the case you site in #55).

"Look, you're doing it again. You are citing fourth amendment cases (poorly, I might add) that have nothing to with public schools. The "litmus test" for reasonable is different for public schools, no warrant is required and there need not be probable cause."

I admit that I am not a lawyer and you may have the expertise on that. However, I do know that a case from 1991 is more applicable than any case before it. The most recent application of any law is the law of the land. You may try to distract from the case because it the individual was convicted of cocain posession and the reversal of the states action. However, it does define seizure and it clarifies that issue. As soon as these students submitted to the authority, they were seized. What I contend is that the seizure of 97 students by the authority with no reasonable expectation to find any drugs is a violation of these 97 Student's 4th ammendment rights. Both of our cases are applicable, yours addressed the school search aspect of the 4th and mine defines the point of siezure.

I don't think I ever made 1 point of view clear. The case you presented as reference did convince me that given that a reasonable expectation to find drugs on 10 students, then these 10 students did not have their 4th ammendment rights violated. Just the other 97, the authority had no reasonable expectation to find evidence of drugs on these.

I would be able to better support their actions as constitutional if they would have only addressed the suspected students. Instead, they took 97 people into custody for searches that they had no reasonable expectation of finding evidence of drugs. That alone tells us they violated the constitution by your own citing in #55.

Of course, I would like to see this in the USSC and find out how they intrepret these actions.......

The informed and moderate partaking of herbs is not a medical problem. An air of absolutism and elitist fascism is running rampant in the health care profession today. The puritanical dictates of this profession are a threat to the liberty and security of our nation. These issues are far more important than the possible health risks of an herb. They pander to parental fears in an attempt to adopt us all as children of a nanny state. All hail the oligarchy of the doctors, we want to be enslaved by paying top dollar for scripts for the elderly while paying debt service on the money we have to borrow to buy these drugs, even though we know there will not be a dime left for us when we get old. Meantime, the oligarchy will dictate what one may ingest, regardless of what one’s religious faith or the Constitution has to say on the matter.

"It was only about scoring dope."

Your problem was in mode of thought.
You were seeking a substance for ______?
You would have had no need for worry
had you sought the peace of the Lord.
And, the Lord would provide for you.
Remember, not all will think as you.

Lu 11:10 For every one that asketh, receiveth; and he that seeketh, findeth; and to him that knocketh, it shall be opened.
Lu 11:11 And which of you, if he ask his father bread, will he give him a stone? or a fish, will he for a fish give him a serpent?
Lu 11:12 Or if he shall ask an egg, will he reach him a scorpion?
Lu 11:13 If you then, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father from heaven give the good Spirit to them that ask him?

The informed and moderate partaking of herbs is not a medical problem.

Not for you.

Yet.

But for me, it is a death sentence. Herb -> Cocaine -> Death, Insanity or Jail (for me). I cannot and will not indulge in any drug, lest I die.

An air of absolutism and elitist fascism is running rampant in the health care profession today. The puritanical dictates of this profession are a threat to the liberty and security of our nation. These issues are far more important than the possible health risks of an herb. They pander to parental fears in an attempt to adopt us all as children of a nanny state. All hail the oligarchy of the doctors

I have a hunch: You are so darned smart, like me, that you get stupid, like me.

You aren't in trouble.

Yet.

I have a hunch someday you will me. I hope I'm wrong.

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.