Colorable suspicion of drugs == search?

[^Dash^]

Re: Colorable suspicion of drugs == search?

search by a full-time teacher or school official, acting on any colorable suspicion based on professional experience and judgment

Ahem... excuse me? What professional experience? I never heard of any teachers taking intensive drug detection courses; i think K9 would become obsolete, if they did.

So what would happen if you were to refuse being searched?

[theprez98]

Re: Colorable suspicion of drugs == search?

Ahem... excuse me? What professional experience? I never heard of any teachers taking intensive drug detection courses; i think K9 would become obsolete, if they did.

So what would happen if you were to refuse being searched?

If the teacher watched the latest episode of Law & Order or CSI, they will be considered professionally qualified.

[theprez98]

Re: Colorable suspicion of drugs == search?

Here is more recent information about drug testing of school students, which is an extension of the Vernonia case above:

The Earls case decided in 2002 found that:

The Student Activities Drug Testing Policy (Policy) adopted by the Tecumseh, Oklahoma, School District (School District) requires all middle and high school students to consent to urinalysis testing for drugs in order to participate in any extracurricular activity...Tecumseh's Policy is a reasonable means of furthering the School District's important interest in preventing and deterring drug use among its schoolchildren and does not violate the Fourth Amendment.

So basically we've gone from no students, to student athletes, to any students who participate in any extra-curricular activities. I think it most schools this would be a very large percentage of the students.

Will we continue down the slippery slope and soon require all students be required to submit to drug testing?

[_multithreading]

Re: Colorable suspicion of drugs == search?

Will we continue down the slippery slope and soon require all students be required to submit to drug testing?

If my school did that, I would probably end up getting expelled or suspended from refusing. I have a habbit of doing that.

[Thorn]

Re: Colorable suspicion of drugs == search?

In no way was I implying that even a large portion of police officers do not follow the law. I was stating that in many instances where the exclusionary rule is utilized by the courts that by utilizing a little bit more forethought, the issue of exclusion could have been avoided alltogether.

Understood. The trouble is that under extigent circumstances when no time to abtain a warrant is available, judges and lawyers tend to often assume that the police were taking short cuts. Most seasoned officers I know would rather obtain a warrant if time allows, just because the rules do change. A judicial review never hurts.

Indeed the standards of procedure are unclear to most members of the general public. The number of searches which are done with the consent of the suspect proves this beyond a shadow of a doubt.

Consent searches to determine that evidence is lacking, or to quickly clear a potential suspect are fine, but many times are more trouble when they are worth when evidence is actually obtained.

Even standards which are firmly ingrained into our culture and vernacular such as reasonable doubt are misunderstood and poorly applied, even by juries.

True. I would also suggest that a popular culture in the form of television "crime dramas" and mystery books are largely to blame for this. People walk into situations having preconceived notions about the law that are largely incorrect.

As for juries, I gave up wondering about how a jury would decide anything a long time ago. The old joke that a jury is comprised of twelve people too stupid to get out of jury duty is all too often true.

Ultimately, I don't believe that it is too much to ask that those individuals who have the power to deprive citizens of their right to liberty understand and apply the standards governing that power implicitly.

None of the police officers I worked with over the years would disagree with this statement. Most know exactly what the trust is that has been placed on them. The problem that most cops have with the courts is that when they do act in good faith under the law, often times judges will decide that other case law changes the interpertation of the rules after the fact. This ultimately breeds cynicism for the whole judicial process, at least on the part of the police.

[renderman]

Re: Colorable suspicion of drugs == search?

/me thinks that Jur1st and Thorn could hold one helluva breakout panel discussion

/me gets popcorn to watch the rest of this thread

[^Dash^]

Re: Colorable suspicion of drugs == search?

I just found out today that the Ministry of Education in my country issued a sort of law in wich a pupil is entitled to recommend and send a teacher for psychiatric evaluation.

Things are starting to balance themselves out. Never heard of this thing happen before though... is it common to have your teacher forced to seek help?

[theprez98]

Re: Colorable suspicion of drugs == search?

So far I have just provided some factual information and additional intepretation of that data.

As for my own opinions:

Drug testing of athletes is no problem. I think the large majority of people would say that a simple urinalysis is unobtrusive giving these tests to athletes in schools is very reasonable.

When you move on to all student activities (which is at the moment constitutional) it becomes a lot more difficult to justify. Is it really reasonable to ensure the safety of the chess club that its members be randomly tested? I'm pretty sure neither Bobby Fischer nor Gary Kasparov were never tested for performance enhancing drugs! The Court was divided on this issue too, which shows how controversial it was.

Random testing of all students is I think too far. The Court does seem to have drawn the line at 'extracurricular activities'.

Keep in mind this comes from someone who has been subject to the random urinalysis for all of the last 7+ years (I lost track of the number of times I've been tested) and has had the unfortunate displeasure of running the program on two different occasions (collection, not testing, thus the unfortunate nature of the job). It is about as unobtrusive as you can get. I know Deviant mentioned the limitations of a urinalysis, but it does actually test for a lot more drugs than you would expect. Currently the Navy tests for (at least) Cocaine, Marijuana, Heroin, Amphetamines, Ecstacy and other similar drugs, LSD, PCP, Oxycodone/Oxymorphone and Codeine/Morphine. Yes, some of these drugs leave the system pretty quickly, but I've seen people busted for most of them.

[jur1st]

Re: Colorable suspicion of drugs == search?

Consent searches to determine that evidence is lacking, or to quickly clear a potential suspect are fine, but many times are more trouble when they are worth when evidence is actually obtained.

This is true on both sides of the fence. There is nothing worse than trying to draft a motion to suppress evidence which was obtained after consent was given. The circumstances in which people consent never fail to amaze me. Forty pounds of reefer in the trunk? Did you think they weren't going to find it?

I would also suggest that a popular culture in the form of television "crime dramas" and mystery books are largely to blame for this.

Ah yes, Hollywood's greatest gift to defense lawyers was CSI. Also, you seem to assume that people in America still read books...something I've come to question recently.

As for juries, I gave up wondering about how a jury would decide anything a long time ago. The old joke that a jury is comprised of twelve people too stupid to get out of jury duty is all too often true.

I'll be putting this to the test very soon since I've been chosen as one of the lucky individuals to participate in Federal jury duty during the month of October. The whole process should be a real hoot.

Dash: I love your signature, though you should know that it's impossible to disclaim the implied warranty of merchantability.

Render: I have yet to disagree with anything you've said in this thread.

[Voltage Spike]

Re: Colorable suspicion of drugs == search?

Drug testing of athletes is no problem. I think the large majority of people would say that a simple urinalysis is unobtrusive giving these tests to athletes in schools is very reasonable.

Sure, they are just opinions, but I'd still like to hear your thoughts.

Let's assume it is acceptable to test athletes for drugs. Why are you testing them? Is it for their safety? The safety of others? To discourage the use of performance-enhancing drugs?

So my next question is, what drugs can you acceptably test for? What should the consequences be? Who should be informed?

These are obviously "trap" questions so I'd like to be clear that I'm not being antagonistic. I'm just curious how other people feel ... especially since children are often placed into a separate class of their own.

Oh, and since I firmly believe perspectives are malleable and the world isn't as black-and-white as people like to believe: Sugar is a drug!

[theprez98]

Re: Colorable suspicion of drugs == search?

Let's assume it is acceptable to test athletes for drugs. Why are you testing them? Is it for their safety? The safety of others? To discourage the use of performance-enhancing drugs?

I think all of these are valid reasons to test student athletes. The "state" (read government, school, etc) has a vested interest in protecting student athletes from the harmful effects of drugs. The courts have decided that this interest outweighs the minimal invasion of privacy that occurs with a test like a urinalysis.

So my next question is, what drugs can you acceptably test for? What should the consequences be? Who should be informed?

As I stated above, quite a few drugs can be tested for in a simple urinalysis. But the real answer to your question is: anything that is illegal could be tested for (one might say, marijuana is illegal, but its harmful effects, if any, are not clear). To inform everyone, you can make available publicly the information about the program, what you'e testing for, and what the consequences will be. I think any school will be different, but most schools would probably treat a positive result as a "ban" for that particular sports season or even for a full school year or more (suspensions, expulsions).

These are obviously "trap" questions so I'd like to be clear that I'm not being antagonistic. I'm just curious how other people feel ... especially since children are often placed into a separate class of their own.

No doubt I probably walked into one or more of your traps but I think these are 'reasonable' answers.

Oh, and since I firmly believe perspectives are malleable and the world isn't as black-and-white as people like to believe: Sugar is a drug!

Illegal drugs, of course.

[Thorn]

Re: Colorable suspicion of drugs == search?

This is true on both sides of the fence. There is nothing worse than trying to draft a motion to suppress evidence which was obtained after consent was given. The circumstances in which people consent never fail to amaze me. Forty pounds of reefer in the trunk? Did you think they weren't going to find it?

Sometimes that's exactly what they think. The problem from my (former) side, is then trying to prove to the court that the circumstances weren't coerced in some manner. I oft wanted to testify, "Your Honor, the defendant wasn't coerced, he's just a friggin' moron."

Ah yes, Hollywood's greatest gift to defense lawyers was CSI.

No argument here. I worked in a forensic lab for 5 years and worked my share of mojor crime scenes. The writers and producers of the CSI shows wrap horrid science in bad TV. Much of what they show is pure fabrication. The technical advisors should be flogged for the damage they've done to the reputation of the forensic sciences.

Also, you seem to assume that people in America still read books...something I've come to question recently.

Well, there are a few other people in the bookstores when I'm there. They must be there for some reason.

I'll be putting this to the test very soon since I've been chosen as one of the lucky individuals to participate in Federal jury duty during the month of October. The whole process should be a real hoot.

Good luck with that. It's surprising though that you weren't struck in voir dire.

[theprez98]

Re: Colorable suspicion of drugs == search?

Good luck with that. It's surprising though that you weren't struck in voir dire.

He might have been selected to the pool but not been subject to voir dire yet (just a guess). It's also possible that one side wanted him on for one reason or another and the other side was out of challenges or didn't object. Of course, all pure speculation on my part.

Edit: I just came across this, not sure if its accurate or not, but apparently in the UK the entire voir dire process is a single question to each prospective juror: "Can you give a fair hearing to both the Crown and the defence?" Interesting.

[theprez98]

Re: Colorable suspicion of drugs == search?

This is true on both sides of the fence. There is nothing worse than trying to draft a motion to suppress evidence which was obtained after consent was given. The circumstances in which people consent never fail to amaze me. Forty pounds of reefer in the trunk? Did you think they weren't going to find it?

Id be curious to know how many such motions actually get approved. After all, consent makes an otherwise illegal search legal, so unless there was a way to prove that consent was fraudulently obtained (through coercion for example), I don't know how you could suppress evidence of a consent search.

[theprez98]

Re: Colorable suspicion of drugs == search?

No argument here. I worked in a forensic lab for 5 years and worked my share of mojor crime scenes. The writers and producers of the CSI shows wrap horrid science in bad TV. Much of what they show is pure fabrication. The technical advisors should be flogged for the damage they've done to the reputation of the forensic sciences.

On one hand, Law & Order, CSI, et al., are purely entertainment for the lay masses. If they get one or two things right, so much the better as far as they're concerned. They are certainly not meant to be forensic science documentaries for police officers, lawyers or judges. And I think anyone who has watched a show like Law & Order which has been on forever, would agree that it is indeed entertaining. Bottom line: ratings don't care about accurate forensic science.

On the other hand, as you have mentioned, there is now what has been called the "CSI effect" on juries which basically means that juries have come to expect perfect forensic science, that somehow forensic science will inevitably solve every crime, and if the puzzles don't match up perfectly like they do every week on TV, then someone isn't guilty.