Supreme Court Finds Bounds of Reason. I am Shocked.

[Mark1031]

The story makes absolutely no sense.

That is the US Justice system in a nutshell.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Maybe I've missed something in the last 3 pages of posts. Adfil is a tradename for ibroprofen, a mild pain-killer available anywhere without prescription. Here its called Nurofen. Why would school officials care whether she had it not? Would they feel the same about aspirin, paracetamol or vitamin pills?
And if it was dangerous or illegal how would they even know she had some hidden about her person? Ordinary school officials can't strip-search anybody anyway. They would have to call the police to get that done. The story makes absolutely no sense.

There are also prescription versions which contain a greater amount of ibuprofin.

This is all about the 'zero-tolerance' policy which US public schools now operate under. Technically, you can't give any other student any sort of over-the-counter drug anymore, even vitamins.

http://www.abanet.org/crimjust/juvjus/zerotolreport.html

The nets are indeed broad. In a report issued in the spring of 2000 by the Justice Policy Institute in Washington and the Kentucky-based Children's Law Center:

A seventeen-year-old junior shot a paper clip with a rubber band at a classmate, missed, and broke the skin of a cafeteria worker. The student was expelled from school.

A nine-year-old on the way to school found a manicure kit with a 1-inch knife. The student was suspended for one day.
The report notes that many of these children are also referred to juvenile court:


In Ponchatoula Louisiana, a 12-year-old who had been diagnosed with a hyperactive disorder warned the kids in the lunch line not to eat all the potatoes, or "I'm going to get you." The student, turned in by the lunch monitor, was suspended for two days. He was then referred to police by the principal, and the police charged the boy with making "terroristic threats." He was incarcerated for two weeks while awaiting trial.

Two 10-year-old boys from Arlington, Virginia were suspended for three days for putting soapy water in a teacher's drink. At the teacher's urging, police charged the boys with a felony that carried a maximum sentence of 20 years. The children were formally processed through the juvenile justice system before the case was dismissed months later.

In Denton County, Texas, a 13-year-old was asked to write a "scary" Halloween story for a class assignment. When the child wrote a story that talked about shooting up a school, he both received a passing grade by his teacher and was referred to the school principal's office. The school officials called the police, and the child spent six days in jail before the courts confirmed that no crime had been committed.

In Palm Beach, Florida, a 14-year-old disabled student was referred to the principal's office for allegedly stealing $2 from another student. The principal referred the child to the police, where he was charged with strong-armed robbery, and held for six weeks in an adult jail for this, his first arrest. When the local media criticized the prosecutor's decision to file adult felony charges, he responded, "depicting this forcible felony, this strong-arm robbery, in terms as though it were no more than a $2 shoplifting fosters and promotes violence in our schools." Charges were dropped by the prosecution when a 60 Minutes II crew showed up at the boy's hearing.3
David Richart, Ph.D., Executive Director of the National Institute for Children, Youth and Families at Spalding University, has uncovered similar examples. Richart cites the suspension and arrest of an 11-year-old in South Carolina, who asked her teacher if she could use a smooth-edged steak knife which she had brought from home to cut a piece of chicken; an eight-year-old Louisiana girl who was suspended and transferred to an alternative school when she brought her grand-father's gold pocket watch, complete with chain and one-inch fingernail knife, to show and tell; the suspension, in Ohio, of a 14-year-old girl for 13 days because she gave a classmate a tablet of Midol; the suspension in Virginia of a high school senior for violating a school rule banning use of alcohol, after he took a swig of Listerine; and dozens of similar examples.4

 

[I'm Cleo!]

Hey, the U.S. Justice System gets 99% of cases right, with no fanfare.

I must admit, though: we are phenomenally good at producing the ridiculous ones (thanks, Florida!).

Maybe I've missed something in the last 3 pages of posts. Adfil is a tradename for ibroprofen, a mild pain-killer available anywhere without prescription. Here its called Nurofen. Why would school officials care whether she had it not? Would they feel the same about aspirin, paracetamol or vitamin pills?
And if it was dangerous or illegal how would they even know she had some hidden about her person? Ordinary school officials can't strip-search anybody anyway. They would have to call the police to get that done. The story makes absolutely no sense.

Even when I was in high school, over a decade ago, you couldn't have anything in school. IIRC, asthma inhalers had to be kept in the nurse's office. They'd regularly have drug-sniffing dogs sweeping the halls, and I lived in peaceful suburbia!

Maybe if we didn't treat our children like prisoners, we wouldn't suspect them of smuggling things around in their underwear.

Cleo

 

[Formaldehyde]

Maybe if we didn't treat our children like prisoners, we wouldn't suspect them of smuggling things around in their underwear.

Putting armed and uniformed police in every school was the start of the inevitable downfall.

 

[choxorn]

@Cleo: Unfortunately, the US justice system seems to like retribution so much. It also seems to like disproportionate retribution and no tolerance of things that really don't matter much.

 

[Mark1031]

The key words here are reasonable and unreasonable. I actually thought the court would uphold this as nothing seems unreasonable when it comes to kids and/or drugs and schools (see Bong Hits case). Look at the liberal Souter. You can see that he really was worried about overruling the school. It is just that the case was so patently absurd and over the top that they couldn’t let it stand; ex Thomas who I’m sure would allow full on cavity searches ala maximum security prison on the uncorroborated statement of an 8th grader about possession of gummy bears.

The problem is the attempt to remove discretion and reason from authorities. Be it mandatory sentencing to zero tolerance. It always errs on the side of the Draconian and it is good to see that there is a limit even for the Alitos and Scalias of the world even in the school setting.

 

[Flying Pig]

Putting armed and uniformed police in every school was the start of the inevitable downfall.

Seriously? I suppose the school I work at has a battalion of people in military uniform around it on a Friday night, but...

 

[Formaldehyde]

Yes. In the US, they typically operate under the moniker "school resource officer".

http://www.schoolsecurity.org/resources/school-resource-officers.html

If we believe (appropriately so) that violence in schools reflects violence from our broader communities, what better of a link can we have between crime prevention in the community and crime prevention in the schools than by having a SRO program and positive, meaningful school-law enforcement partnership???

Firearms are a standard tool of the trade for a law enforcement officer. Suggesting that trained, commissioned peace officers work without firearms simply because they are in schools is ridiculous. To do so would lower the standard of equipment for a police officer and lower the officer's capacity to protect the lives of students, staff, and himself/herself. Doing so could also increase the liability potential for a school district and law enforcement agency. For more information on the issue of armed SROs, see the "To Arm or Not To Arm?" sidebar article in the March 2000 issue of the American School Board Journal's article entitled, "Buyer Beware: What to Look for When You Hire a School Security Consultant." (Adobe Acrobat Reader required)

They even have their own convention:

http://www.nasro.org/intro.htm

When I went to public school, and even college, having armed police on campus was always discouraged as much as possible. In the case of the latter, the colleges always provided their own unarmed security force to minimize their intervention as much as possible. Any direct contact with students was typically arranged through the school administrators who would call the person to their office. They would then act as surrogate parents to assure the person knew his rights. And in some cases, if the police wanted to search your dorm room for marijuana for instance, they would even call you to inform you the police were on their way to give you the opportunity to hide whatever you might have in someone else's dorm room before they arrived.

Columbine changed all that as 9/11 severly eroded our collective freedom and liberty.

 

[GinandTonic]

the suspension in Virginia of a high school senior for violating a school rule banning use of alcohol, after he took a swig of Listerine

That is the most idiotic thing I've heard in months.

 

[amadeus]

That is the most idiotic thing I've heard in months.

There may be some legitimacy to the school's action, and I'll explain why.

First, Listerine does contain alcohol in a significant amount, 26.9% in the original formula. It's clearly possible to get drunk off Listerine, and there are cases reported of death from ingestion of mouthwash for the purposes of intoxication.

Second, mouthwashes contain "denatured" alcohol, meaning that it's been rendered undrinkable. Check the label on the bottle, it will clearly state that if ingested, you should contact poison control.

So if this kid was drinking it and not using it for its intended purpose, the school was totally in the right to suspend him. While there are a lot of overzealous school officials, I think there are some legitimate cases here...

 

[Flying Pig]

Good call, I suppose

 

[Aegis]

I'm pretty sure drinking Listerine would do a lot more harm to your internal organs than its alcohol content.

 

[GinandTonic]

There may be some legitimacy to the school's action, and I'll explain why.

First, Listerine does contain alcohol in a significant amount, 26.9% in the original formula. It's clearly possible to get drunk off Listerine, and there are cases reported of death from ingestion of mouthwash for the purposes of intoxication.

Second, mouthwashes contain "denatured" alcohol, meaning that it's been rendered undrinkable. Check the label on the bottle, it will clearly state that if ingested, you should contact poison control.

So if this kid was drinking it and not using it for its intended purpose, the school was totally in the right to suspend him. While there are a lot of overzealous school officials, I think there are some legitimate cases here...

Listerine US and Listerine UK are clearly very different. Plax in the bathroom ATM so I cant check but I remember checking after we got a heads-up the police would be doing the road to work for their christmass anti drink driving morning-after clampdown and it was a non-issue.

 

[Formaldehyde]

There may be some legitimacy to the school's action, and I'll explain why.

Only that is not what happened, and I'll explain why:

http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1P2-822118.html

A Loudoun County judge ruled last night that the county school system's alcohol policy is too vague and ordered the reinstatement of a Park View High School student who was suspended for taking mouthwash in class.

Loudoun Circuit Court Judge Thomas D. Horne also ordered the County School Board to clarify its policy that no students bring "alcohol products" to the school.

Carter Loar, 17, a senior at Park View, was suspended for 10 days and ordered to attend a three-day substance abuse program after school officials found him with a small ...

BTW, he is an honor student who had never been in trouble in his life...

http://www.drugtreatments.com/what-is-binge-drinking/

Zero tolerance policies for alcohol and drug use are common in the United States. Federal laws administer zero tolerance against drinking under the age of 21 and using illegal drugs. However, more local rules and regulations are causing bigger problems. Zero tolerance policies are a recent trend in the nation’s school systems, and they are often ridiculously illogical and unfair. Over-zealous administrators and teachers hand out harsh consequences for actions that they claim fall under their extremely loose definitions of drug and alcohol abuse.

Examples of the ineffectiveness and unreasonable nature of zero tolerance policies are rampant. Students are frequently suspended from school for drug abuse when they are caught taking a Tylenol that their parents sent with them for a headache. Carter Loar was suspended from his Virginia high school for ten days because he used mouthwash at school, which usually contains a small amount of alcohol. One middle school student was suspended for giving his French teacher a gift of French wine. The idea that these things could be seen as a form of alcohol abuse is ridiculous.

Evidence shows that, like the scare tactics used in drug education programs such as D.A.R.E., zero tolerance policies are not effective. They do nothing to reduce the rates of alcohol and drug abuse among young people in the United States. Yet, responsible teenagers continue to be punished unfairly for actions that will never lead to addiction or cause the serious consequences which are associated with true alcohol and drug abuse. Honor students are kicked out of school and banned from taking advanced classes.

Many of these students are required to attend addiction treatment and education programs for their “offenses”. However, addiction treatment programs could be much better used for people who actually need them. Accusing innocent youth of crimes sends the wrong message and can foster mistrust of adults and authority figures. Punishment and rehabilitation for drug and alcohol addiction should be reserved for individuals who truly have a problem.

 

[JollyRoger]

Did they even bother to strip search the listerine kid? He was probably hiding something much more sinister in his boxers.

 

[I'm Cleo!]

Heck, what if the kid took a swig of bourbon -- is throwing him out of school really the answer? Is that the kid that we want sitting at home, probably alone, for ten days?

The whole approach to school discipline exemplified in that case is widespread, and stupid.

Cleo

 

[GoodGame]

It's not out of context. He's just contradicting himself is all.

There's no contradiction there---only Justice Thomas voted against the crowd. Justice Souter is implying that if the grounds of the search had been something that he considered lethal, he'd be all for it, nudity or not. If you read the whole NYTimes article, he states that he wouldn't agree with a search on the grounds that the specific case gave. He belittled it saying something to the effect that 2 aspirins wasn't dangerous or what not.

I'd take that as him saying the general law of reasonable suspicion being >>> probably cause is sound, but is also enforcing that law's caveat that unreasonable searches aren't tolerable---and his opinion is clearly that 2 aspirins is the scale of an unsound reason for a search (though it was 2 prescription Advils or whatnot). He's obviously not sticking his neck out trying to draw the line between reasonable and unreasonable (in that he implies OTC aspirins ~ 1000mg Advils), but he's obviously suggesting that a little embarrasment is better than a body count.

 

[amadeus]

Only that is not what happened, and I'll explain why:

http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1P2-822118.html

Oh, I couldn't find the story.

 

[Masada]

When the police start treating everyone like a suspect. You have an occupying army.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Oh, I couldn't find the story.

Yeah. I know. They make you pay for the entire article, so we will have to settle for the teaser I posted unless you want to spring for it.

When the police start treating everyone like a suspect. You have an occupying army.

I can't imagine the Shah making that comment. Nice new tar and title!