Colorable suspicion of drugs == search?

[theprez98]

Re: Colorable suspicion of drugs == search?

Yes, but the general discussion has been fine. I saw a red flag with the use of "should" in several post (by direct call or an inference) and wanted to bring it up.

Sorry to post that message and then take off to work. I could have been more clear.

If the thread was too political, I (or someone else) would have /dev/null-ed and/or closed it. Mention of the warning about, "should," was meant to suggest what could be done to aboid thread closure.

Each thread that tries to walk the line of "too political" gives me more examples from which to build an objective-based list so everyone can benefit.

My apologies then as well, I think I jumped the gun a little bit to in response to your comment.

<brown-nosing on>
As always, you're doing a great job moderating the forums.
</brown-nosing off>

[TheCotMan]

Re: Colorable suspicion of drugs == search?

And I already knew this would happen.

Yes, but the general discussion has been fine. I saw a red flag with the use of "should" in several post (by direct call or an inference) and wanted to bring it up.

"Should," where laws are concerned, moves into political activism. That is too political.
Here are some observed,objective-based criteria for "too political"
(There are more, but I'm trying to build non-subjective "rules" so it is easy to tell what is too political.)
1) Praise or condemnation of a political figure or party or leader.
2) Use of "should" with respect to parties, leaders, or laws.

There are issues with #2, of course.

"You should be forced to watch The Three Stooges," can be a joke.
"There should be a laws to euthenize stupid people," might also pass for a joke.

Sorry to post that message and then take off to work. I could have been more clear.

If the thread was too political, I (or someone else) would have /dev/null-ed and/or closed it. Mention of the warning about, "should," was meant to suggest what could be done to avoid thread closure.

Each thread that tries to walk the line of "too political" gives me more examples from which to build an objective-based list so everyone can benefit.

[Voltage Spike]

Re: Colorable suspicion of drugs == search?

I see testing a single sample for any illegal drugs as no further invasion of a student's privacy.

Ah, I see now. Thanks.

This is not meant to be a cop out answer, but I believe governing is best when it is done closest to the people.

Hey, I'm not going to disagree there, but I was more curious what you thought. (Based on some of your other responses, though, I think I have a pretty good idea.) I wasn't asking you to generate policies.

Your point is well taken, but "merely a temporal fiction" does not excuse us, the students, or anyone else from following said laws.

Believe me, I understand. The fact that they are a fiction does not mean everyone gets to write their own individual set of rules.

Either way, we are a nation of laws, and as "temporal" or "fictional" as they may be, its our basis for justice and the best guide we have to follow.

I'm not sure about that. My best guide is my own personal opinion ... which takes into account that I have to accept the consequences, all the consequences, for my actions.

As for this being political, of course it is ... from post one! We survived this long only because we are being civil. I think TheCotMan stepped in merely because this has the potential to become an argument, but I don't think either of us wants that so there is nothing to worry about. Plus, we're pretty much done here. Thanks everyone.

[theprez98]

Re: Colorable suspicion of drugs == search?

When we get to what laws should or should not exist, and who should or should not be tested, we get into politics.

Risks of testing? This can work.
How testing can be abused? This can also work.

Selective testing (who should and should not be tested)? Too politicial.
Laws that should or should not exist? Too political.

The keyword "should" when applied to laws, or legislation on what people should or should not be allowed to do is a good indicator of when things tend to get too political.

Thanks!

And I already knew this would happen.

[TheCotMan]

Re: Colorable suspicion of drugs == search?

When we get to what laws should or should not exist, and who should or should not be tested, we get into politics.

Risks of testing? This can work.
How testing can be abused? This can also work.

Selective testing (who should and should not be tested)? Too politicial.
Laws that should or should not exist? Too political.

The keyword "should" when applied to laws, or legislation on what people should or should not be allowed to do is a good indicator of when things tend to get too political.

Thanks!

[theprez98]

Re: Colorable suspicion of drugs == search?

Okay, but what is the justification? You can't test all students because it is an invasion of privacy, but you have to test some students for the already-stated reasons. You then make the leap to testing for other drugs that don't fall within the stated reasons, and I'm not sure I follow your logic.

First of all, let me clarify. I'm talking about testing just student athletes, not all students in general. Second, regardless of whether or not we think some drugs are "harmful", the fact that the government has made them illegal is enough for the state to justify testing for all illegal drugs. In this case, I don't think the government has to prove the harmful effects of each individual drug in order to test for it (which seems to be where you're leading me). But really, this is all besides the point, because we're not administering one test for each drug, the one test is good for multiple drugs. Do you really believe we can administer one urinalysis test for cocaine, but not also screen that sample for marijuana, because it may or may not be as "harmful" as cocaine? I see testing a single sample for any illegal drugs as no further invasion of a student's privacy. Conversely, explain me to how testing one sample of urine for 40 (I'm making these numbers up for the sake of the argument) illegal drugs is anymore an invasion of their privacy then to test for say, 4. The collection of the test itself is the only invasion of privacy. Once the collection is done, I see no further invasion of privacy no matter how many illegal drugs are tested for.

Sorry, I should have been more clear. By consequences, I meant the consequences to the student for a failed test. If someone at the school knows a student is on, say, heroine, should that student still be allowed to attend school or are they merely banned from sports? Maybe a forced recovery program? What about the 4.0 student in Academic Decathlon that fails the test for marijuana?

The consequences for a failed test need to be determined by individual school boards and school districts, not the courts. If a student believes his punishment is too harsh, he can certainly go to the courts to have them review it. This is not meant to be a cop out answer, but I believe governing is best when it is done closest to the people.

By informed, I also meant informed about a failure. Are you allowed to tell the parents? The coach? All teachers (or just the teachers that the student has)?

I think in most cases you'd be neglient to not tell the parents. The coach has a right to know. Perhaps not the specifics, but that the student tested positive. The details honestly dont matter though to the coach, because any coach worth his salt won't have anything to do with a student who tests positive for drugs. He'd be kicked off the team by the coach before the school could administer any punishment.

The police?

Whether or not the police get involved is again a matter for the community. Some schools have differing relationships with the local police. I don't think I could sit here and pretend to say this or that should be done in any particular circumstance.

Colleges?

If the student is being treated as a minor, they the court records and or proceedings should be held in that manor. In that case, a potential college may or may not have access to that info. Again, depending on how the matter is treated within the community, it may be different.

The students?

The tested student of course has a right to know. In most cases this specific information would probably be held from other students, but you know as well as I do that rumors will fly and everyone will know. I don't know that there is anyway around this.

Oh, and of course you make the program public. Secret programs are just begging for selective enforcement.

Exactly. Set the program up with parental and student and community involvement. Make the process as open as possible. Let everyone know the consequences.

Of course, but some people think alcohol should be illegal while others think ecstasy is mostly harmless. The laws are merely a temporal fiction that we choose to believe in.

Your point is well taken, but "merely a temporal fiction" does not excuse us, the students, or anyone else from following said laws. One can argue with the police or the judge about the mostly harmless affects of any particular drug, but if the drug is illegal, too bad. You broke the law.

Finally, I think we all realize that different drugs affect people differently. There are documented cases of people dying from ecstacy the first time they ever tried it. For others, it may never have that same impact. Either way, we are a nation of laws, and as "temporal" or "fictional" as they may be, its our basis for justice and the best guide we have to follow.

[Voltage Spike]

Re: Colorable suspicion of drugs == search?

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).

Okay, but what is the justification? You can't test all students because it is an invasion of privacy, but you have to test some students for the already-stated reasons. You then make the leap to testing for other drugs that don't fall within the stated reasons, and I'm not sure I follow your logic.

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).

Sorry, I should have been more clear. By consequences, I meant the consequences to the student for a failed test. If someone at the school knows a student is on, say, heroine, should that student still be allowed to attend school or are they merely banned from sports? Maybe a forced recovery program? What about the 4.0 student in Academic Decathlon that fails the test for marijuana?

By informed, I also meant informed about a failure. Are you allowed to tell the parents? The coach? All teachers (or just the teachers that the student has)? The police? The students? Colleges?

Oh, and of course you make the program public. Secret programs are just begging for selective enforcement.

Illegal drugs, of course.

Of course, but some people think alcohol should be illegal while others think ecstasy is mostly harmless. The laws are merely a temporal fiction that we choose to believe in.

[BonzoESC]

Re: Colorable suspicion of drugs == search?

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.

I was talking to a cop a couple days ago, and he told me crime rays do totally exist, and all they have to do is shoot lasers at walls and stuff and the the device automatically sequences and cross-references any DNA it finds and spits out a printout of names.

[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.

[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?

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.

[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?

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.

[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!

[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.