DrTodd
Michigan Moderator
B. C. v Plumas Unified School District (9th Cir. 9/20/99), holding that suspicionless dog sniffing of high school students violates the Fourth Amendment.
-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
Off Topic: 4th Admendment Search Car at School
- Thread starter coderdude
- Start date
B. C. v Plumas Unified School District (9th Cir. 9/20/99), holding that suspicionless dog sniffing of high school students violates the Fourth Amendment.
DrTodd
Michigan Moderator
Found this from the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals:
http://ftp.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F3/87/87.F3d.979.95-2276.html
The societal costs of applying the rule in school disciplinary proceedings are very high. For example, the exclusionary rule might bar a high school from expelling a student who confessed to killing a classmate on campus if his confession was not preceded by Miranda warnings. We doubt that any parent would compromise school safety in this fashion. To the extent the exclusionary rule prevents the disciplining of students who disrupt education or endanger other students, it frustrates the critical governmental function of educating and protecting children.
Moreover, "maintaining security and order in the schools requires a certain degree of flexibility in school disciplinary procedures." New Jersey v. T.L.O., 469 U.S. 325, 340, 105 S.Ct. 733, 742, 83 L.Ed.2d 720 (1985). Application of the exclusionary rule would require suppression hearing-like inquiries inconsistent with the demands of school discipline, demands that led the Court to impose very limited due process requirements in Goss v. Lopez, 419 U.S. 565, 583-84, 95 S.Ct. 729, 740-41, 42 L.Ed.2d 725 (1975).
Last edited:
Citizen
Founder's Club Member
Thanks for reminding me of the earlier distinction between cops and school employees.
Thanks for cite and quote. I kinda figured. The lie is exposed of course by the fact that a school employee can swear out a warrant just as fast as a cop.
I've not read the case entirely, so I'm just winging it here; but, it seems to me that if a student is open to legal process, for example upon discovery of drugs in a school locker, then the student deserves legal protections, too.
BUT! The biggest thing I notice is the sentence, "We doubt any parent would compromise school safety in this fashion." Whoa! Whoa, whoa, WHOA!! Parental opinion smacks of democracy. Protecting the rights of the minority against the majority is a direct purpose of the Bill of Rights. As Ayn Rand said, (paraphrase) there is no smaller minority than an a single individual.
WTF is a court doing invoking the opinions of parents in order to justify removing protections from an individual?
TheQ
Regular Member
When I got towed in East Lansing it was closer to $250
$150ish for the tow
$50ish to dolly it in prep for the tow
$50ish fee to the state
Michigander
Regular Member
Speaking of minorities, the gun community tends to be in the adult minority that believes people younger than 18 or 21 are capable of being responsible, honest, safe and trustworthy individuals. The reason nonsense like this stands is because so few people object. Strange really, considering that all adults were once children.
Citizen
Founder's Club Member
That and the fact too few people, myself included, grasped the folly of letting the government decide which rights it would respect and how it would respect them.
Bailenforcer
Regular Member
Wait $50 to the state? Now the State is an interested biased party in the towing of vehicles? Am I the only one who see's the gross conflict of interest here?
This is like the M.J.T.F. you see on some tickets if they are actually itemized. M.J.T.F. Michigan Judicial Tenure Fund. Yes the Judge who decides whether the cop was right or wrong issuing you the ticket has a vested interest in you paying into his retirement. I saw that on a ticket a buddy got in Sterling Heights and I asked what it was and was told in no uncertain terms it is a retirement fund.
We have lost control of this Government, and like a ravaging parasite it is killing the host which is us.
This is like the M.J.T.F. you see on some tickets if they are actually itemized. M.J.T.F. Michigan Judicial Tenure Fund. Yes the Judge who decides whether the cop was right or wrong issuing you the ticket has a vested interest in you paying into his retirement. I saw that on a ticket a buddy got in Sterling Heights and I asked what it was and was told in no uncertain terms it is a retirement fund.
We have lost control of this Government, and like a ravaging parasite it is killing the host which is us.
stainless1911
Banned
It should be illegal for anyone of any age, anywhere, for any reason, to sign off on any right. People greater than you died for those rights.
And this shameful idea of "implied consent" has got to go.
And this shameful idea of "implied consent" has got to go.
DrTodd
Michigan Moderator
In cases where other options are provided, I disagree. Any contract, in theory, is a "signing off of rights". If I sign a contract to be the exclusive sales rep for a company, I am limiting their right to get others to sell the product in the area and in turn I am probably agreeing to abide by some specifications that limit my "freedom". If I sign an employment contract, I also "sign away" certain rights and agree to follow their rules. However, I do think it is important to actually READ any contract and make certain that I play a few "worst case scenarios" before I sign anything. Most people apparently don't do that.
DrTodd
Michigan Moderator
Fees instead of higher taxes... "fees" are what government officials have found to be much more palatable, as have most companies that deal directly with the public. Instead of charging everyone, they charge those who actually utilize a service or incur costs. I've left a major bank who advertised free checking, free this, free that, because the fees for any little request will eat up any cost saving. Our legislators know that with the masses clamoring for "no new taxes", the wise course of action is to just add such things as "driver responsibility fees", "mandatory insurance fees", etc. The idea of a fee charged to the people who are actually costing the state or local government sits a lot better with voters than saying they had to raise taxes.
Last edited:
stainless1911
Banned
I really don't like the idea of requiring a person to sign their rights away as a condition of, for instance, employment, or use of a school parking spot. Leaving your gun at home, or forfeiting your right to privacy, or expression should never be conditional.
TheQ
Regular Member
Don't like the terms your employer offers?
Find a different job. Easier said than done, I know.
I'm against using Government force to interfere with private negotiations.
KBCraig
Regular Member
Back to the OP: An agreement to allow a car search as a condition to receive a parking pass is instantly revokable by either party. It's an issue of rules and policy, not law.
A search based on such a policy is not a 4th Amendment search, because it is done by consent. If you do not consent, get in the car and leave -- even if you're a student and they are threatening to stop you. Let them try -- they have no more Constitutional authority to seize the driver than they do to conduct a non-consensual search.
Of course, if the driver is an employee or student, they have to be ready to suffer the consequences. For anyone else, there's nothing they can do except ban you from the property.
A search based on such a policy is not a 4th Amendment search, because it is done by consent. If you do not consent, get in the car and leave -- even if you're a student and they are threatening to stop you. Let them try -- they have no more Constitutional authority to seize the driver than they do to conduct a non-consensual search.
Of course, if the driver is an employee or student, they have to be ready to suffer the consequences. For anyone else, there's nothing they can do except ban you from the property.
stainless1911
Banned
A school is government, so they are subject to the 4th. They arent following it though, because they lack probable cause. "No warrants shall issue but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation etc,... Using a parking spot at a school, or taking a job as a postal worker for instance, does not indicate to anyone that you probably were involved in or are about to be involved in a crime.
Except perhaps being a party to treason by going along with the heard, subverting your rights, and the country in so doing.
Except perhaps being a party to treason by going along with the heard, subverting your rights, and the country in so doing.
Sefner
Regular Member
No. A school is neither the government nor subject to the fourth. The fourth normally applies to police forces/government investigations and your k-12 schools are generally under State control. See statements about contracts and voluntarily entering into agreements in this thread.
This is a good post. This type of contract is immediately revokable by either party. The school would make this argument to the student, too, so train your kids. If the school says they are able to search the car because the student parks there, the student can simply not park there anymore. This is done by leaving.
I also liked the post about "looks like" policies at school. I remember in middle school a Boy Scout (who later became an Eagle Scout) was suspended for a year, ruining his hopes of going to a good college, because he was going on a week long band trip right after a scouting trip and forgot his pocket knife was in his luggage. School admins want to be able to say they are cleaning up their schools. Anything that remotely looks like something they can cite as something they "cleaned up" will be jumped on. After all, that's how they get promoted to Superintendent.
Point is, they are looking for reasons.
Last edited:
stainless1911
Banned
If the school is run by the government, then it is government. The schools belong to the state, the education in them is governed by the state, they are established by the state, maintained by the state, paid for by the state, and so on, they are subject to the laws and constitution of the state.