Taleban Spreading In Pakistan  |   Home  |   Obama Challenges Rule of Law

Appeals Court Rules That Search of Student’s Vehicle Was Legal

I agree with this. 

In an opinion it has recommended for publication, the court said the search of Schloegel’s vehicle was reasonable and constitutional. As a published opinion, the ruling serves as precedent in future cases.

Schloegel, in his appeal, had argued that the search of his car violated his constitutional right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure.

But the appeals court noted that Schloegel had received a student handbook at the beginning of the school year that included a parking form containing a consent-to-search clause.

In order for students to park in the school parking lot, students are required to allow school administrators to search a vehicle when they have “reasonable suspicion to believe the search will produce evidence of a violation of a particular law, a school rule, or a condition that endangers the safety or health of the student driver or others,” according to court records.

On the one hand, I am sensitive to the student’s constitutional protections against unreasonable searches.  At the same time, there is a contract and notification in place that the student agreed to.  Then again, he was a minor when he agreed to it and not legally able to sign a contract.  I’m borderline, but I think the court got this one right.

Posted by Owen at 1210 hrs
Law + Politics + Politics - Wisconsin

1. First, what a fantastic use of our resources…  The relentless prosecution of victimless crimes which we will never prevent.

   Second, considering you are required to go to school, it seems to me that you have a right to transport yourself there and a right to be free from searches of your private property.

   Signing a contract means nothing if the contract is unconsionable.  A court enforcing a contract (signed by a minor) which pre-emptively waives their constitutional rights?  Not in my book.

   Sorry. I don’t think constitutional rights end when you walk on public school grounds when you are required to attend. 

   If we insist on this crazy little money sucking game called “war on drugs” that we’ll never win, then school officials can call police when there is an issue and the police can get a warrant like the constitution intended.  If they don’t like that the school can call the parents and ask permission to deprive their child of constitutional rights.

   JMHO

   Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 13, 2009 at 1458 hrs
   
   
   

2. I agree with everything xxpilot said.  The more interesting question is to what degree do we (and should) we extend constitutional rights to minors.  And does it matter who is infringing them?  Parents, school, police etc.  Thoughts?

   Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 13, 2009 at 1554 hrs
   
   
   

3. Very good point.  As I said, I’m borderline.  I approached from the point of view of a private enterprise.  If I made people marking in my driveway sign a statement saying that I could search their cars, then that would be my right.  But I hadn’t thought of it from the perspectiveof the fact that school attendance is mandated by law.  But then again, driving to school is not mandated.  Busses are provided regardless of whether or not the student can drive or there’s always walking. 

   Hmmmm…. 

   Posted by Owen on May 13, 2009 at 1603 hrs
   
   
   

4. I don’t think the fourth amendment needs to come to a halt the second a student sets foot on school property.  Let the school search lockers.  Lockers are the property of the school, cars are not.  If a car needs to be searched, it should be a police matter and they should have to demonstrate cause.  Should the schools have the right to “strip search” a student if they put it in the handbook?

   I also think the drug testing for students and adults goes too far.  For adults it started with those operating machinery.  You could see the justification for that.  Now companies can conduct random tests of any employee.  For students it started with the athletic code for a particular sport.  Then it was for all extracurricular activities.  What’s next?

   By the way, bussing is not an option for all students in all school districts depending on exactly where they live.

   Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 13, 2009 at 1851 hrs
   
   
   

5. Columbine

   Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 13, 2009 at 2008 hrs
   
   
   

6. What the hell does Columbine have to do with some stoner bringing pot on to school grounds in his car?

   Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 14, 2009 at 0838 hrs
   
   
   

7. Did the school offer alternative parking where you don’t have to give up a constitutional right?

   Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 14, 2009 at 1009 hrs
   
   
   

8. What the hell does Columbine have to do with some stoner bringing pot on to school grounds in his car?

   Bob is probably trying to say that pre Columbine the school, or any school, likely didn’t have this clause in their student policy, and post Columbine, they added it.  That’s my guess anyway.

   Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 14, 2009 at 1103 hrs
   
   
   

9. But I hadn’t thought of it from the perspectiveof the fact that school attendance is mandated by law.  But then again, driving to school is not mandated.  Busses are provided regardless of whether or not the student can drive or there’s always walking.

   Too ‘controlling big brother-ish’ for me.  IE if you want to maintain your constitutional rights you have to take the school bus.  I think you should be able to enjoy constitutional rights using the normal conveyances of the day.  (ie a car)

   I don’t think the standard should be “did you have ANY other way to not expose yourself to violation of illegal searchs and siezures.

   The more interesting question is to what degree do we (and should) we extend constitutional rights to minors.  And does it matter who is infringing them?  Parents, school, police etc.  Thoughts?

   Not being a constitutional law “expert” I don’t know the ins and outs of what rights “minors” have vs. adults, but in principle, considering rights exist to us a human beings, endowed to us by our creator (God, the big bang, whatever our creator was), i’m NOT sure why when we turn 18 then we suddenly have RIGHTS?  That can’t be?

   I DO accept that if you are a minor, your PARENTS exercise your rights on your behalf.  Therefore if your PARENTS say its OK to violate their kids constitutional rights HAVE AT IT!

   If I had kids in school and they got sent home a “vehicle parking contract” that says the school has a right to search their vehicle (which is likely my vehicle) anytime they want?  Fuck that.  And if I don’t agree my kid has to take the bus or have me drop them off?  Hell no.  Buses don’t run after after-school activities like sports etc.  Buses don’t afford the flexibility a car does. 

   Now if the school wants to send home a little note ASKING pre-emptively for the parents permission to search the childs car/locker/bookbag without just cause and the parents and choose to allow or not allow it, fine.  But they shouldn’t be able to force the issue under the duress on a parent that if you don’t agree to pre-emptively waive YOUR and YOUR CHILDS constitutional rights, you can’t park on our property nah na nah nah na naaaaa. 

   I just don’t like the duress of “give up your constitutional rights or getting to and from school becomes a HUGE pain in the ass inconvenience on your life”

   Not to mention that public schools and liberal school teachers already condition students enough not to understand freedom and individual rights.  Lets not demonstrate to them in addition that they have no rights.  Lest we normalize them to being a “good serf” and get use to “consenting” to government encroach on every part of your life.

   Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 14, 2009 at 1113 hrs
   
   
   

10. Pre-Columbine = more student rights protecting them from reasonable search and seizure.
    Post -Columbine = fewer student rights protecting them from reasonable search and seizure.

    The schools and police are being watch more closely to ensure they are doing everything possible to protect the safety of students, and illicit drug use and beer/booze naturally falls under the umbrella. 

    How many of you would call a lawyer if you believed there was one shred of evidence the school or police did not do enough to search a suspect student’s vehicle with weapons, illicit drugs or beer/booze on or near the school grounds if your child was the victim of that suspect student’s illicit activity?  How many of you would be screaming if there was a cap on the monetary award?

    The courts are leaning towards the idea that lockers and cars on or near school property are all subject to search.  If a student wants to conduct illicit activity without police and school interference, they now simply have to conduct it away from schools.  And I doubt law enforcement is going to wait for a parent’s permission to search a car if they believe evidence potentially in the car maybe be tampered with, especially if that evidence was planned to be used for a nasty, violent crime on innocent victims in a public or private school.  It not Big Brother, it’s simply 2009.  Wally and the Beaver potentially have Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold as peers.

    Fortunately, if the staff and police have good relationships with the students and parents, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold would get help before they get pissed, or a least a peer would have the balls, and freedom of speech and witness protection, to turn them in.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 14, 2009 at 2239 hrs
    
    
    

Commenting is not available in this channel entry.