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.
