Teacher in Trouble for Reminding Students of 5th Amend.

http://reason.com/blog/2013/05/27/high-school-teacher-faces-discipline-for


A teacher is given a survey to give to his students. The surveys have the students' names at the top. The surveys ask about illegal drug use.

The teacher is concerned. The teacher reminds the students about the right against self-incrimination.

Now he's facing possible disciplinary action.


So, let me get this straight. A teacher actually applies the curriculum to life...no. Lets take that in another direction. The stategov functionaries think they have standing to discipline this teacher because he refuses to violate his student's rights by using his altitude with them to get them to incriminate themselves? A real, live, compassionate teacher refuses to be part of that local government's conspiracy and he faces discipline?

That is a teacher who deserves the presidential medal of freedom!


By the way, that scene plays right into the history of the right against self-incrimination. In Tudor England, the High Commission would question people on very little suspicion, asking them fishing expedition questions designed to ensnare for heresy and religious non-conformity. This was all before any accusation was made. Of course it was. There was no accusation made because there were little or no facts or evidence, the whole point of the questioning being to get facts and evidence.

Thus, today, we have an interlocking relationship between several rights. The right against self-incrimination, the right to be presented with the indictment, and the right to confront witnesses against you. The right to be presented with the indictment insures you only have to answer/respond to the charges made, not defend against a fishing expedition. Same for the right to confront witnesses against you. You have to deal with only the witnesses against you and their testimony, not some nebulous accusation. This also helps ensure the government has evidence against you beyond its own accusations. And, these interlock with the right against self-incrimination by requiring the government to actually obtain evidence on its own, rather than just torture or threaten you into not only confessing what they suspected, but confessing to things they didn't know about, and implicating friends, family, and allies of conscience.

Note: the preceding paragraph wasn't meant to be comprehensive. Just snapshot dashed off quickly.

Hey if they IRS can take the 5th I sould be able too also.

Citizen said:

SNIP By the way, that scene plays right into the history of the right against self-incrimination. In Tudor England, the High Commission would question people on very little suspicion, asking them fishing expedition questions designed to ensnare for heresy and religious non-conformity. This was all before any accusation was made. Of course it was. There was no accusation made because there were little or no facts or evidence, the whole point of the questioning being to get facts and evidence.

Click to expand...

Compare that to Terry Stop questioning today.

Courts allow questioning of suspects during Terry Stops. YET! no cop is required to explain the basis of his suspicions to the detainee. Straight out of Archbishop William Laud's playbook! Literally. No joke. I'm not exaggerating. The High Commissioner who examined his suspect was under no obligation to give the basis of his suspicions. Cops today are under no obligation to give the basis of their suspicions to the detainee.

Yes, there is an important difference--the suspected non-conformist could be punished for refusing to answer; the cop's suspect cannot.

But, I'm not looking at the difference. I'm inviting attention to the striking similarity--questioning before knowing the basis of the suspicion.

Also, the Commissioner's questions were not judicial--the trial came later. The Commissioner's questions were to find material to prosecute. Same for today's cop during a Terry Stop.

Thank the courts for watering down the 5th by allowing into evidence statements to police during a Terry Stop. Is it really any wonder there is a case pending before the supreme court about whether silence can be used as a sign of guilt?

DocWalker said:

Hey if they IRS can take the 5th I sould be able too also.

Click to expand...

Hi Doc

I have often pondered why a citizen would not invoke the 5th in regard to filing and signing a tax return (1040) etc. By filing and signing a return the citizen gives information which could and will be used against the citizen in tax court.
I look forward to the great legal minds responding to my take on taking the 5th approach in regard to tax returns.

Best regards.

CCJ

public school = kid jail

Nightmare said:

...School district officials declined to provide a copy of the survey to the Daily Herald, saying the district bought the survey from a private company, Multi-Health Systems Inc., and the contents are proprietary business information."...

Click to expand...

They can't have it both ways. They can't claim it as proprietary business information unless it is legal (and compensated to the students) to USE the students for furthering the practices of a business.

This is more than a teacher possibly being punished for taking advantage of a teachable moment.

This teacher looked out for the rights of his students when the government, in the form of the school, was about to step on those rights without warning. This teacher did what the administration should have instructed him to do. The school, by putting names on this "survey" and then soliciting admissions of crimes was violating the rights of people to young to be expected to know all of them!

This is why parents must be present during criminal interrogations of minors. Minors cannot be expected to have the knowledge to stand up for themselves. In this case the teacher with the knowledge stood up for them.

Good on him. I'd agree that he deserves the Medal of Freedom. The only downside is that it would ironically be awarded by a tyrant.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

MAC702 said:

They can't have it both ways. They can't claim it as proprietary business information unless it is legal (and compensated to the students) to USE the students for furthering the practices of a business.

Click to expand...

Yes they can have it both ways. You are making a LOT of assumptions about the survey, the school, the business, and the relationship between those three things. A LOT of assumptions. The article doesn't give 1/10th the information you would need to make your statement.

Basically the teacher was reprimanded for informing his students of their RIGHT under FEDERAL law to not take these surveys. also parents were not informed.

look at CFR 34 part 98

§ 98.3Access to instructional material used in a research or experimentation program.
(a) All instructional material—including teachers' manuals, films, tapes, or other supplementary instructional material—which will be used in connection with any research or experimentation program or project shall be available for inspection by the parents or guardians of the children engaged in such program or project.
(b) For the purpose of this part research or experimentation program or project means any program or project in any program under § 98.1 (a) or (b) that is designed to explore or develop new or unproven teaching methods or techniques.
(c) For the purpose of the section children means persons not above age 21 who are enrolled in a program under § 98.1 (a) or (b) not above the elementary or secondary education level, as determined under State law.
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1221e-3(a)(1), 1232h(a))
§ 98.4Protection of students' privacy in examination, testing, or treatment.
(a) No student shall be required, as part of any program specified in § 98.1 (a) or (b), to submit without prior consent to psychiatric examination, testing, or treatment, or psychological examination, testing, or treatment, in which the primary purpose is to reveal information concerning one or more of the following:
(1) Political affiliations;
(2) Mental and psychological problems potentially embarrassing to the student or his or her family;
(3) Sex behavior and attitudes;
(4) Illegal, anti-social, self-incriminating and demeaning behavior;
(5) Critical appraisals of other individuals with whom the student has close family relationships;
(6) Legally recognized privileged and analogous relationships, such as those of lawyers, physicians, and ministers; or
(7) Income, other than that required by law to determine eligibility for participation in a program or for receiving financial assistance under a program.
(b) As used in paragraph (a) of this section, prior consent means:
(1) Prior consent of the student, if the student is an adult or emancipated minor; or
(2) Prior written consent of the parent or guardian, if the student is an unemancipated minor.
(c) As used in paragraph (a) of this section:
(1) Psychiatric or psychological examination or test means a method of obtaining information, including a group activity, that is not directly related to academic instruction and that is designed to elicit information about attitudes, habits, traits, opinions, beliefs or feelings; and
(2) Psychiatric or psychological treatment means an activity involving the planned, systematic use of methods or techniques that are not directly related to academic instruction and that is designed to affect behavioral, emotional, or attitudinal characteristics of an individual or group.
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1232h(b))

Click to expand...

Also if you have a child in school and this comes out there is also a specified means to complain about it.

also in CFR 34, part 98.6

§ 98.7Filing a complaint.
(a) Only a student or a parent or guardian of a student directly affected by a violation under Section 439 of the Act may file a complaint under this part. The complaint must be submitted in writing to the Office.
(b) The complaint filed under paragraph (a) of this section must—
(1) Contain specific allegations of fact giving reasonable cause to believe that a violation of either § 98.3 or § 98.4 exists; and
(2) Include evidence of attempted resolution of the complaint at the local level (and at the State level if a State complaint resolution process exists), including the names of local and State officials contacted and significant dates in the attempted resolution process.
(c) The Office investigates each complaint which the Office receives that meets the requirements of this section to determine whether the recipient or contractor failed to comply with the provisions of section 439 of the Act.
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 1880-0507)
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1221e-3(a)(1), 1232h)

Click to expand...

EMNofSeattle said:

SNIP also in CFR 34, part 98.6

§ 98.7Filing a complaint.
(a) Only a student or a parent or guardian of a student directly affected by a violation under Section 439 of the Act may file a complaint under this part. The complaint must be submitted in writing to the Office.
(b) The complaint filed under paragraph (a) of this section must—
(1) Contain specific allegations of fact giving reasonable cause to believe that a violation of either § 98.3 or § 98.4 exists; and
(2) Include evidence of attempted resolution of the complaint at the local level (and at the State level if a State complaint resolution process exists), including the names of local and State officials contacted and significant dates in the attempted resolution process.
(c) The Office investigates each complaint which the Office receives that meets the requirements of this section to determine whether the recipient or contractor failed to comply with the provisions of section 439 of the Act.
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 1880-0507)
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1221e-3(a)(1), 1232h)

Click to expand...

Whoa!! That right there looks like a blatant violation of the First Amendment right to petition for redress of grievances.*

Only certain people are permitted to complain? Ho, ho, ho. There is no such restriction on the right.

The complaint must include...? Ho, ho, ho. There is no such restriction on the right.

Somebody needs to grab this an run with it. Lots of complaints to that office. Each and everyone titled Petition for Redress of Grievance/Complaint. The first sentence of every one should say, "This is a petition for redress of grievance as protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States." (Add the state constitution provision if there is one.)

Jeezussssss!!!


*About a year ago I stumbled across a source that reported there are only two SCOTUS cases on the right to petition for redress of grievances. Both from the first half of the nineteenth century if I recall. I don't recall the details. The thing that sticks in my mind was that the government doesn't have to respond or act on the petition. (I think the case involved numerous people petitioning on the same thing.) Funny enough, neither can the government nullify the right by not reading the petition. So, it got watered down a bit by SCOTUS, but as far as I know, there is no authority for a government agency to restrict the right by laying out all the requirements given in the statute above. I never dreamed I'd need the information, so I didn't bother to pay attention to the cites. So, sorry, I can't cite.

Not to be off topic....but one time I was filming at a DUI checkpoint and the police pulled a couple out of their car and were taking them over to secondary screening area. When they walked past me I said to the couple "you still have 4th and 5th amendment rights".

5 minutes later the police commander came over to me and said that I was breaking the law by talking to the people and when I asked how he told me that informing them of their rights interferes with the official investigation and if I did it again I would be arrested.

Lots of people in America don't like the subjects to know or have rights.

Ca Patriot said:

Not to be off topic....but one time I was filming at a DUI checkpoint and the police pulled a couple out of their car and were taking them over to secondary screening area. When they walked past me I said to the couple "you still have 4th and 5th amendment rights".

5 minutes later the police commander came over to me and said that I was breaking the law by talking to the people and when I asked how he told me that informing them of their rights interferes with the official investigation and if I did it again I would be arrested.

Lots of people in America don't like the subjects to know or have rights.

Click to expand...

Oh, man. I'd publish that far and wide if I could. Complete with any recording. Sounds like coersion to waive the right to freedom of speech to me.

Ca Patriot said:

Not to be off topic....but one time I was filming at a DUI checkpoint and the police pulled a couple out of their car and were taking them over to secondary screening area. When they walked past me I said to the couple "you still have 4th and 5th amendment rights".

5 minutes later the police commander came over to me and said that I was breaking the law by talking to the people and when I asked how he told me that informing them of their rights interferes with the official investigation and if I did it again I would be arrested.

Lots of people in America don't like the subjects to know or have rights.

Click to expand...

Your actions were NO MORE illegal that holding a sign PRIOR to a speed trap that the speed trap was ahead! Opinion Enforcement Officer's may not like it but THAT IS THEIR PROBLEM!

Along with the petition to have the teacher reinstated the parents and township officials should sign a petition to have the idiot school administrators fired.

CCJ

JoeSparky said:

Your actions were NO MORE illegal that holding a sign PRIOR to a speed trap that the speed trap was ahead! Opinion Enforcement Officer's may not like it but THAT IS THEIR PROBLEM!

Click to expand...

I have been told many times by police at DUI checkpoints that's its illegal for me to talk to ANYONE there. They say its illegal to talk to police officers and illegal to talk to motorists and anyone who has been pulled over.

The say its "interfering".

I have a lot of videos from the last 2-3 months where I show up and the police are real nice. They come over and to me and tell me "feel free to film anywhere, you are more than welcome to film, we have no problem with you filming". I never say anything back to them but I WANT to say "hey buddy, i wasn't asking for your permission to film. i don't need your permission to film"

arentol said:

Yes they can have it both ways. You are making a LOT of assumptions about the survey, the school, the business, and the relationship between those three things. A LOT of assumptions. The article doesn't give 1/10th the information you would need to make your statement.

Click to expand...

How so?

My statement is independent of this situation, much less the article.

A PUBLIC school should not be able to sell its children's opinions on a survey to a private business. If they can, the information must be PUBLIC unless the guardians have specifically granted the permission to use their children in such a way.

Since I have made so many assumptions, please tell me one or two, so I may understand your point of view.

countryclubjoe said:

Hi Doc

I have often pondered why a citizen would not invoke the 5th in regard to filing and signing a tax return (1040) etc. By filing and signing a return the citizen gives information which could and will be used against the citizen in tax court.
I look forward to the great legal minds responding to my take on taking the 5th approach in regard to tax returns.

Best regards.

CCJ

Click to expand...

http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/s...ion-here-is-a-good-view&highlight=freedom1man

I linked to some videos there, educate yourself on the subject. The courts have ruled that IF you are REQUIRED to file then you must, 5th Amendment be damned.

MAC702 said:

How so?

My statement is independent of this situation, much less the article.

A PUBLIC school should not be able to sell its children's opinions on a survey to a private business. If they can, the information must be PUBLIC unless the guardians have specifically granted the permission to use their children in such a way.

Since I have made so many assumptions, please tell me one or two, so I may understand your point of view.

Click to expand...

Which information is PUBLIC? The individual answers or the aggregates? You may have a point about the aggregates, but I'd be willing to bet that the State in question has laws regarding the protection of specific information collected about minors!

eye95 said:

Which information is PUBLIC? The individual answers or the aggregates? You may have a point about the aggregates, but I'd be willing to bet that the State in question has laws regarding the protection of specific information collected about minors!

Click to expand...

Didn't you just make a comment against strawman arguments in another thread?

Citizen said:

Didn't you just make a comment against strawman arguments in another thread?

Click to expand...

That is the STUPIDEST comment I have seen on this board in years.

In no way, shape, or form am I attributing any argument to anyone else. I am making my own statement that I believe it to be illegal in all fifty States to reveal specific information collected by the government on a minor. If my belief is wrong, I am all ears. If it isn't, I will move on unless you have something useful to add beside a statement that either reveals your unnecessarily antagonistic bent or your ignorance on what a strawman is.