Here's the deal. My brother's high school had recently started a new policy without informing the student population until the implementation of it that:

1. Some days drug dogs will come and sniff
2. The dogs may also sniff around the parking lot
3. People will be pulled from class at random to completely empty their locker, including every pocket of every bag and flipping thorugh notebooks in a drug check.

Now I have no problem from 1&2, the thing that pisses me off is #3. 1 and 2 are not searching any one person without any probable cause or reasonable suspciion-#3 is.

This are the reasonable justifications of the policy (from the gov website http://www.ed.gov/offices/OSDFS/actguid/searches.html) :

~~ The Supreme Court has held that students have a legitimate expectation of privacy in their persons and accompanying possessions. However, the Court also has held that schools have a substantial interest in maintaining security and order in the classroom and on school grounds.

~~School officials need only have "reasonable suspicion" that a particular search will reveal evidence that the student has violated or is violating either the law or the rules of the school.

~~Under certain limited circumstances, school officials also may be able to conduct random, suspicionless weapon and/or drug searches of student vehicles parked on school grounds.

~~Or, such students simply may be required to agree to provide school officials with access to their vehicles on demand.

~~Suspicionless vehicle searches must be done uniformly or by systematically random selection, such as every third car

However:

==In interpreting and applying the "reasonable suspicion" standard set forth by the Supreme Court, lower courts generally have required more than general suspicion, curiosity, rumor, or a hunch to justify searches of students and their possessions.

==The Supreme Court has not decided whether, and to what extent, students have legitimate expectations of privacy in school property such as lockers, desks, or other areas provided for the storage of school supplies and/or personal belongings

==Indeed, at least one court has described the school locker as a student's "home away from home.

==First, at the start of each academic year, school administrators can provide students with a written statement that details the school's policy of conducting random, unannounced searches throughout the year of student lockers, desks, and any other targeted areas within the school. The statement should inform students that they are to consider all such areas to be "public," not "private."

==Moreover, the nonprivate nature of areas such as lockers and desks should be made obvious to the students.

==To justify such a policy, a school will have to demonstrate that it has a very serious weapon and/or drug problem and that conducting these searches is a reasonably effective means of combatting that problem. For example, the school may have to show either that (1) students have access to their vehicles during the school day and thus are able to bring weapons and/or drugs from their vehicles into the schools or (2) weapons and/or drugs are used or exchanged within the immediate area of the parking lot.

==In addition, the school must adequately inform all students who use the lot that their vehicles are subject to search. This notice should inform the students of the grounds for the search, the extent of the search, and the frequency or regularity of the searches. This notice must be consistent with the school's actual vehicle search practice.


More relevant information from my old school. Last year on a chorus trip 2 students were foudn to have marijuana in their hotel room. Earlier this year students were kicked off the football team for posession of alcohol and underage drinking. Also note that there has not been any drugs found or violence in the school. There is no general knowledge of drugs in the school, only rumors. The school did NOT notify about the random locker searches. This new policy has jsut been adopted and is not in any school handbook. All previous new policies were put off till the following year so the entire student body and parents know all of the policies (in fact they make us get a signed statement that students and parents know what is in the handbook).

One possible point is that they are forcing the student to be removed from class. This prevents the student from learning whatever is being taught that day. Sure it can be argued the student can get a summary-but that's never as good as the real lecture. There are tons of parts in lectures that can matter on a test when a summary would not suffice. Look at the difference between reading a book and looking it up on sparknotes-major difference in amount of relevant information.

Also-students are forced to go to school until 16years old. However, if by being at school removes the right to privacy, then is the government effectively saying that they are forcing you to relinquish your rights?

Does anybody know of any court cases (on either side of the argument about random locker searches) that would provide valuable information.

NOTE: I don't care about the dogs. They are more or less accepted by every court-the random locker searches is not.

While I agree that proposition #3 is unnecessary, there is no question that drugs are becoming more and more prominent in our society. And not just the stereotypical stuff--all you have to do is take a look at the situation with MLB and the controversy surrounding their policy on performance-enhancing substances. Those drugs are just as illegal. And the sad fact of the matter is...Kids are easily influenced by it. Yeah, random testing/searching sucks. But to ignore the situation completely can only worsen it. A line has to be drawn somewhere.

I knwo that here in the UK there have been several reported cases of violence involving knives in school lately. There is a strong desire to stop children being able to bring knives in, but it is looking very difficult to come up with some way to search them etc. which will appease people. If the school is given too much power complaints about human rights emerge, and people worry that schools will become like prisons. If the searches are not thorough enough, it seems likely to be ineffective and the cost can't be justified. A difficult situation all round.

Dodger, we are doing a debate over random drug searches in our school and I was just wondering where you got your information. If you could tell me it would help a lot. We agree on the same things.

Well the students if they are over or at the age of 18 does not have to do this i am pretty sure. I am not 100percent on it but I am sure that is the case for that age group.

I dont really have a problem with these but like yourself point 3, the random locker chacks one is a bit weak, but I'm sure the school has good reason, maybe there just being cauctious any way (now dont missunderstand/missquote this or anything) but Im sure if your brother has nothing to hide ( not that I'm suggesting he does) he should be fine and I'm sure these measures will vastly improve the school, because I know how bad ( and I'm sure the rest of you do too ) it is to have one or two individuals in a class ruining the chances of the rest of the students in the class by being (now I have to phrase this carefully, dont want tooffend anyone) little B*******.

Yea, I agree, point 3 is not very good for 2 reasons.

1. Students that get searched will feel embarrassed. You don't want everyone to think that you are involved in drugs.

2. You also don't want people to see what you keep in your bag when everyone else is looking at you. I know, because I don't like people to know what I have in my bag and what I have for lunch:p

They should search everyone in the class. That will automatically take care of reason 1, and if everyone gets searched at the same time, no one's gonna pay attention to what you have in your bags. Instead they will be busy looking at their own stuff.

ya, i also don't think point #3 is nessesary. but it don't matter cause they'll do it whether we like it or not.

"Now I have no problem from 1&2, the thing that pisses me off is #3. 1 and 2 are not searching any one person without any probable cause or reasonable suspciion"

I agree.

Of coursee there is an utilitarian argument ie argument on policy ground
that if each of us sacrifices little of our satisfaction or privacy to reach the maximum happiness, it would be best. In other words, we each should sacrifice for the best of the society ie more drug abusers may be arrested.

But I agree that students are entitled to expect certain level of privacy. And random serch without reasonable ground should not be allowed.