Replies

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).