[Moshineko]

REGISTER TO REMOVE THIS AD

Heard a story that relates to this topic recently: a young man in possesion of stolen exams is challenging his arrest, on the grounds that there was a violation of the Fourth Amendment. The school, in addition to letting police search lockers, gave out class lists and students' grades. The school, of course, argues that this isn't a violation, as the information is technically public, and he argues that they didn't follow proper procedure.

Anyway, back to the main topic. Privacy in school, should we have it? The topic from the IDEA discusses lockers, but I'm keen to take it a bit farther.

This is a debate about privacy, and the extent to which the state can invade the private life of its citizens. Although it may seem unimportant, the school locker is usually the only private space available to a student in the communal environment of the school, and so it focuses many of the issues involved in privacy debates. This is usually thought of as an American issue, but it could apply in any country and the arguments could also be transferred from school lockers to desks and lockers in the adult workplace.

The rights to privacy claimed in this debate find expression in two key documents:
Article 12 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights: "No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks."

4th Amendment to the US Constitution: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

In the USA this became an issue at the highest level with the 1980 Supreme Court case, New Jersey v T.L.O. The law differs from state to state as to whether reasonable suspicion is required before an individual student’s locker can be searched, or whether blanket/random searches can be carried out.

I would also ask: purses, backpacks, are those subject to the fourth amendment?

Schools could halt considerable trouble by searching those objects, and as long as a student has no contraband, they have nothing to fear.

In addition, students, in the main, are below the age of majority, and thus aren't actually entitled to many of the rights they take for granted.

As portable technology becomes cheaper, even cell phones are a oft-used tool for chicanery of all sorts, from minor cheating in classes to setting up underage drinking events and drug sales.

Yet, to deny our students any privacy is to tell them they are never trustworthy, destroying the foundation of the society we are trying to induct them into. One of the major tenets, albeit implicity, of democracies are that the citizens are trustworthy. Even basic laws are held in place through trust. We trust that our neighbors will follow the laws, and we, in turn, follow them.

So, your positions? Is it legal? Is it even a good idea?

One- and two-sentence posts will earn you a visit from the dreaded Darth Badger, Sith lord of the squat mammal scene, as will flaming and ad hominems, other than that have fun and keep this damn forum alive, plox!

[destrus]

omg something i have something to say about D:?
(that's one sentence xD)

hmm, in my high school the rule was that they could search your locker at any time. it is the school's property and it's understandable since at times it could be a matter of security or (which was more common in my highschool than somethng actually dangerous) they could be trying to find stolen books. i do remember one kid got expelled because they found a lot of stolen math books in his locker (total idiot). of course i guess it could be different because it was a private school, not sure how laws differ between public and private.

however as far as searching back packs and purses i think doing that without probable cause may be going a bit too far. if safety is so much a concern that you have to start doing random bag checks or something of the sort it may be time to install metal detectors. sure it cna make it feel like a prison but if it's needed then you should have it.

it also seemed like you might have been saying that checking cellphones is a possibility. in my honest opinion that would be truley outrageous. my cellphone is one of few things i don't let other people look through without my total supervision or before erasing certain things not everyone should see such as text messages and ims (i tell some people things that i definately could not tell others).

i need to be getting ready for class now so i don't have time to think of anything else to say. if i think of something else to say i'll post when i come back. cya :3

[Impera]

ok well, im not american but i did at my school have a locker of sorts and would have been appauled if someone had tried to search it without my permission.
It's not the fact of whether or not the student has anything to hide, it's more the fact that we should be entitled to have some sort of privacy or security and by forcibly searching this 'safe area' all of the child's privacy would be taken away and basically its saying just because you are young, you are unimportant.

If i carry it over to my school where i no longer have a locker (it was technically my friend's and i just shared it so if he lost his key i had a spare) I always carry a backpack. At my school, mobile phones and mp3 players are forbidden.
A teacher once thought she saw my ipod in my bag (quite possible) and asked if i would empty out my bag to prove that i didnt have it (note: she didnt touch my bag or any of my stuff) whilst i was doing that i slipped my ipod underneath the base lining of my bag meaning that it wouldnt fall out and tipped my bag upside down after emptying it.
Basically what im trying to say there is that I, as well as the teachers at my school believe that we should have the right to our own privacy of sorts. IDK what she would have done if i refused.... probs given me a detention for having my ipod.

Thoguh i know that not all of my teachers think like that.
Most flaunt the rules and dont care about whether you have ipods/phones.

Another situation a friend of mine came into was when someone thought she had shoplifted and the security-person asked her(again with the asking... i dont know what the legal stance on this is) to empty her handbag to prove that she hadnt (she hadn't btw) so she obliged.

I dont particularly think that forcibly searching bags is a good thing though. But if you deny to show the contents it is basically admitting you have something that you shouldnt.

[destrus]

i don't know how it is where you live but here security can legally hold you for half an hour if you're suspected of shop lifting. you cna refuse the search and stuff but they'll call the police anyways and you'll end up banned from the store so there's not much point in refusing unless you think it'll take over half an hour for the police ot get there.

[Kamui4356]

Originally Posted by Impera

I dont particularly think that forcibly searching bags is a good thing though. But if you deny to show the contents it is basically admitting you have something that you shouldnt.

No you're not admitting anything of the sort. This kind of thinking is just wrong. If you deny permission to search your bag you're admitting that you don't want someone to look through your stuff randomly, that's it. I've heard this arguement used far too often to justify invasions of privacy. If people have a right against unjust searches, exercising that right is not an admission of guilt.

More on topic, I don't think schools should be able to do stuff like random locker searches. Students may be minors, but I don't remember seeing fine print saying the constitution only applies once you're an adult. If the school has probably cause, like say someone saw little jimmy selling drugs out of his locker, sure search away. Searching little jimmy's locker to see if he had any drugs just because he's a "bad apple" or something like that, no.

[Fipherion]

Lockers are school property. They are owned by the school and the school allows students to use them. If students believe that their locker is their own little personal private space, they are simply mistaken. Schools have every right to search a student's locker and students should act accordingly.

Personal property like backpacks and purses are a different story. I'm no expert on the subject or anything but I would think that, like police officers and security guards, teachers and administrators have the right to search IF they are given probable cause to do so. However, they are not allowed to do so randomly.

[Moshineko]

Originally Posted by Kamui4356

No you're not admitting anything of the sort. This kind of thinking is just wrong. If you deny permission to search your bag you're admitting that you don't want someone to look through your stuff randomly, that's it. I've heard this arguement used far too often to justify invasions of privacy. If people have a right against unjust searches, exercising that right is not an admission of guilt.

More on topic, I don't think schools should be able to do stuff like random locker searches. Students may be minors, but I don't remember seeing fine print saying the constitution only applies once you're an adult. If the school has probably cause, like say someone saw little jimmy selling drugs out of his locker, sure search away. Searching little jimmy's locker to see if he had any drugs just because he's a "bad apple" or something like that, no.

Originally Posted by U.S. Constitution

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings

More people need to read the whole thing. You are referring, of course, to the Fourth Amendment:

Amendment 4 - Search and Seizure. Ratified 12/15/1791.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Which does not, specifically, determine what "effects" are covered. That's the problem with the Constitution; the writers left it all in the hands of the Congress. They are responsible for making laws based on what they think the Constitution says, and the Supreme Court is supposed to judge cases on what they think the Constitution meant, but no one really has any specific idea what the founders meant when they wrote it.

Also keep in mind if we're going to play the "We the people" card, minors were not, then, considered people, neither were non-whites, nor women.

Also:

Amendment 10 - Powers of the States and People. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Basically carte blanche to the States in this matter, as there is no specific mention of public storage facilities in the Constitution, save that Congress has the right to make laws about them.

Whether yea or nay on this issue, do keep in mind: it is, as determined thus far, completely legal to search school lockers.

[Kamui4356]

Originally Posted by Moshineko

More people need to read the whole thing. You are referring, of course, to the Fourth Amendment:



Which does not, specifically, determine what "effects" are covered. That's the problem with the Constitution; the writers left it all in the hands of the Congress. They are responsible for making laws based on what they think the Constitution says, and the Supreme Court is supposed to judge cases on what they think the Constitution meant, but no one really has any specific idea what the founders meant when they wrote it.

Also keep in mind if we're going to play the "We the people" card, minors were not, then, considered people, neither were non-whites, nor women.

That's not exactly true though. In regards to certain rights like the right to vote it was originally restricted to white male landowners. However, rights granted in the bill of rights, IE the first 10 amendments, have traditionally not had that limitation. Unless a right is specified to only apply to a certain group of people, such as the right to vote, it's applied to everyone.

Basically carte blanche to the States in this matter, as there is no specific mention of public storage facilities in the Constitution, save that Congress has the right to make laws about them.

Whether yea or nay on this issue, do keep in mind: it is, as determined thus far, completely legal to search school lockers.

True enough, but that doesn't make it a just ruling. In addition to being property of the school or some such nonsense, it's also been ruled that educational institutions can limit stuents rights to fulfill their mission of education or something like that. That was in a free speech case lats summer I think? Don't remember exactly. However, that doesn't mean I agree with those rulings or that they're correct.

[Moshineko]

Well, not to go too far off-topic, but, actually, it's been quite the opposite. Rights not specifically covered in the Constitution were regularly held to apply only to white, landowning males. Hence the prevelance of "colored only" fountains, and "no Irish need apply" signs.

As well as the current controversy over gay marriage, which, a right covered by basic constitutional language, is not considered a right for everyone. "Freedom", as we in the States traditionally see it, isn't nearly as free as we'd like to think.


Anyway. So, if the ruling isn't just, why not? Does that mean that we should throw out similar inspections for airline flights and entrance into public places? Small decisions often have large consequences.

[Blackie]

our constitutional rights shouldnt be taken away, no matter what the cost

[Moshineko]

Damn you Blackie.

Why not? Should the right to keep and bear arms be upheld even for psychotics and violent felons?

The right to vote be extended to the easily influenced mentally disabled?

The right to drive given to the blind?

At a certain point, a society with unlimited rights becomes no society at all.

[Blademan5]

While I beleive that they should not be able to search lockers, bookbags, even people themselves due to our constitutional amendments, they are leagely allowed to search all of the above. This has been established before from supreme court cases. As long as we are in school they can pretty much do whatever they want, Tell us what we can and cannot wear, how we may talk, etc.

[Kamui4356]

Originally Posted by Moshineko

Well, not to go too far off-topic, but, actually, it's been quite the opposite. Rights not specifically covered in the Constitution were regularly held to apply only to white, landowning males. Hence the prevelance of "colored only" fountains, and "no Irish need apply" signs.

That's not relevent to the issue. Rights not covered under the constitutuion are not rights at all, they're privilages. The constitution doesn't give you a right to use water fountains or the right to a job. However, even when those things were the norm, blacks, Irish, and other groups facing widespread discrimination still in theory had the rights granted under the constitution. Of course actually having them applied would be a bit more difficult.

As well as the current controversy over gay marriage, which, a right covered by basic constitutional language, is not considered a right for everyone. "Freedom", as we in the States traditionally see it, isn't nearly as free as we'd like to think.

Marriage isn't a right, it's a privilage. I don't believe the constitution says anything on it at all. That's one of the reasons a gay marriage amendment will never be passed. No true conservative would vote for it because that's an issue historicily left to the states. No true liberal will vote for it because it would make them look anti-gay. As a result the only politicians who support it are neo-cons who want to use it as a campaign issue.

Anyway. So, if the ruling isn't just, why not? Does that mean that we should throw out similar inspections for airline flights and entrance into public places? Small decisions often have large consequences.

The ruling isn't just because it denies rights guaranteed under the constitution to a group of people for a matter of convienience. Students should not be forced to surrender constitutional rights to recieve an education, especially since they're required by law to attend anyway. It would be one thing in a private school, but it shouldn't be the case for public schools.

As for simliar inspections for airline flights and public places, yes and no. Airline flights are private companies. When you buy a ticket you are entering into a legal contract. As such you agree to certain terms and conditions in exchange for them bringing you to your destination. If you dont' like it, you don't have to buy the ticket.

For public buildings though, I'm against such searches. I understand the reasoning for it, but I don't think it's worth trading free access to public buildings for a little bit of added security. For private buildings though, a similiar case to the airline ticket thing could be made.

Really though those have little to do with the issue as there are added security concerns there which complicate things.