Lockers and school and drugs and drugs and drugs

[Lenin McCarthy]

Hooray, rule of law! Presumption of innocence!

EDIT: Somehow, the bill failed. More yay!

http://www.aftenposten.no/nyheter/iriks/Fritt-frem-for-narkosjekk-pa-skolene-6825191.html (Norwegian)
No restrictions on drug searches at schools


On Thursday, the Norwegian parliament will pass a law allowing the police to use dogs in searches at schools. The School Student Association (high school student rights organization) is infuriated.

More and more places throughout Norway, the police show up at schools with drug dogs.

In Oslo the police caught 29 students in similar controls last year.

Now, Høyre (the Conservatives) has convinced a clear majority of Parliament to confirm the right of the police to perform such searches.

[Misery's Fried Dough]

We have that here in the States already, and the schools will tell you it is within their rights because it is school property, which is true.  However, there are limitations.  So they can use drug dogs to check out lockers and anything within the school.  However, they can't do anything about students' cars in the parking lot.  Not without just cause.  So, it ends up being ineffective because the kids who do bring drugs to school are just going to keep them in their cars. 

[Doktor Howl]

We have that here in the States already, and the schools will tell you it is within their rights because it is school property, which is true.  However, there are limitations.  So they can use drug dogs to check out lockers and anything within the school.  However, they can't do anything about students' cars in the parking lot.  Not without just cause.  So, it ends up being ineffective because the kids who do bring drugs to school are just going to keep them in their cars.

I'm going to argue that the very idea of a locker implies an expectation of privacy.

[Junkenstein]

You seem to be implying that privacy wasn't invented to be violated. It's an interesting notion as a method of power control. You have this space. It IS yours, to do with as you see fit. Please remember though, it is really OUR space and we can and will check it anytime we please.

The results applied to the person are essentially the UK "stop and search" laws, which has certainly had an impact.

Somewhat privacy related is this.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18043161

Ex-Prime Minister Gordon Brown and his wife Sarah say claims they gave permission for the Sun to publish a story about their son's medical condition are "untrue".

The newspaper ran a story in 2006 about Mr Brown's son Fraser being diagnosed with cystic fibrosis.

Rebekah Brooks, told the Leveson Inquiry she had the express permission of the Browns to run it.

But the Browns have said that "at no stage" was their permission sought.

Is it in the public interest to disclose an illness held by a child of a government figure? Yet another situation where someone is obviously lying and you'd expect a criminal/civil suit of some sort. Here it's also a little Marx Brothers as either could be lying, it just looks worse for one given forthcoming court problems.


For those who haven't been following, the Leveson hearings are starting to get quite interesting. Mainly in the questions not being raised as it gives indications to the exact nature of the criminal charges against the delightful ex-editor of the Sun. I'm hoping people a bit more informed than me (Looking at you Cain, I'd really appreciate your take) will shed some light on that area. To me it looked largely like preparation for forthcoming court dates. Shift through a variety of moods for a period to see which "the public"(Jury?) will best relate her to. May be over thinking that.

[Misery's Fried Dough]

We have that here in the States already, and the schools will tell you it is within their rights because it is school property, which is true.  However, there are limitations.  So they can use drug dogs to check out lockers and anything within the school.  However, they can't do anything about students' cars in the parking lot.  Not without just cause.  So, it ends up being ineffective because the kids who do bring drugs to school are just going to keep them in their cars.

I'm going to argue that the very idea of a locker implies an expectation of privacy.

Ultimately, it is still school property, and doesn't belong to the student.  And if a student were storing, say, a weapon, and that weapon was used to commit a crime onschool property, that school would be exposed to some liability, not to mention the school's duty to ensure a proper learning environment.  As such, I think they have just cause, and good reason, to police contents.


Now, I think they should strive for an ethic of having probable cause to search a locker, and unless ther is a rampant issue of drugs on school property, restraint should be used as far as when andhow searches a conducted.

[:regret:]

We have that here in the States already, and the schools will tell you it is within their rights because it is school property, which is true.  However, there are limitations.  So they can use drug dogs to check out lockers and anything within the school.  However, they can't do anything about students' cars in the parking lot.  Not without just cause.  So, it ends up being ineffective because the kids who do bring drugs to school are just going to keep them in their cars.

I'm going to argue that the very idea of a locker implies an expectation of privacy.

Ultimately, it is still school property, and doesn't belong to the student.  And if a student were storing, say, a weapon, and that weapon was used to commit a crime onschool property, that school would be exposed to some liability, not to mention the school's duty to ensure a proper learning environment.  As such, I think they have just cause, and good reason, to police contents.


Now, I think they should strive for an ethic of having probable cause to search a locker, and unless ther is a rampant issue of drugs on school property, restraint should be used as far as when andhow searches a conducted.

That changes nothing about the fact that locker implies privacy. All they need to do to avoid confusion is say "The lock is only to keep other students from taking your stuff, we can do whatever we want with your stuff"
You know, basic honesty. I guess that is too much to expect.

[Misery's Fried Dough]

And what tells you that isn't happening?  I know where I went to school it was made perfectly clear that the locker was school property and it was a privilege, not a right, and exactly as you said, the lock was to keep other students out.  In fact, I think it is more likely than not this is the case in most schools. 

[six to the quixotic]

My highschool never said anything like that. However we had to supply our own locks, and I do believe they felt they could search unsecured cars in the student parking lot for whatever reason.

[:regret:]

And what tells you that isn't happening?  I know where I went to school it was made perfectly clear that the locker was school property and it was a privilege, not a right, and exactly as you said, the lock was to keep other students out.  In fact, I think it is more likely than not this is the case in most schools.

Personal experience.
And if they do it like that in dutchspagistan they sure as hell do it like that in a fourth world dystopian hellhole like the USA.
I could be wrong though, my evidence is anecdotal and thus highly suspect.

Come to think of it i didn't get a locker until my second or third year in highschool, once more reinforcing the thought that new kids are lesser beings and must be fucked with as much as possible. (Why do those things still piss me off? you'd think i'd get over my highschool traumas at a certain point.)

[Triple Zero]

you had a locker??! I always thought only American highschool kids had lockers, like in Saved By The Bell We never had lockers in high school, you lucky bastard!

[Cain]

We had lockers.  I stopped using mine after about 6 months.

And FYI, I think an institution paid for by taxpayer money and that you are required by law to attend being referred to as "private property" is stretching the already notoriously abused meanings of that phrase to breaking point.

[M. Nigel Salt]

We had lockers.  I stopped using mine after about 6 months.

And FYI, I think an institution paid for by taxpayer money and that you are required by law to attend being referred to as "private property" is stretching the already notoriously abused meanings of that phrase to breaking point.

The personal possessions kept within the locker by a civilian US citizen are private property, and by any reasonable reading of the US Constitution should be exempt from unreasonable search and seizure.

Of course, THAT concept went out the window what, 30 years ago?

[stelz]

We had lockers.  I stopped using mine after about 6 months.

And FYI, I think an institution paid for by taxpayer money and that you are required by law to attend being referred to as "private property" is stretching the already notoriously abused meanings of that phrase to breaking point.

The personal possessions kept within the locker by a civilian US citizen are private property, and by any reasonable reading of the US Constitution should be exempt from unreasonable search and seizure.

Of course, THAT concept went out the window what, 30 years ago?

It's worth quoting Cain to them anyway.

Them: "Blah blah school property."

You: So you're saying school property is private property?

Them: Yes.

You: I think an institution paid for by taxpayer money and that you are required by law to attend being referred to as "private property" is stretching the already notoriously abused meanings of that phrase to breaking point.

Them: 

 

[Cain]

We had lockers.  I stopped using mine after about 6 months.

And FYI, I think an institution paid for by taxpayer money and that you are required by law to attend being referred to as "private property" is stretching the already notoriously abused meanings of that phrase to breaking point.

The personal possessions kept within the locker by a civilian US citizen are private property, and by any reasonable reading of the US Constitution should be exempt from unreasonable search and seizure.

Of course, THAT concept went out the window what, 30 years ago?

At the very least

"We hear about constitutional rights, free speech and the free press. Every time I hear those words I say to myself, That man is a Red, that man is a Communist. You never heard a real American talk in that manner."

- Frank Hague

Frank Hague (January 17, 1876 – January 1, 1956) was an American Democratic Party politician who served as the mayor of Jersey City, New Jersey from 1917 to 1947, Democratic National Committeeman from New Jersey from 1922 until 1949, and Vice-Chairman of the Democratic National Committee from 1924 until 1949.

[Misery's Fried Dough]

If shit goes down in a school, parents aren't going to sue taxpayers.  They are going to sue Superintendents and building administrators. 

And sure, the items a person stores inside of a locker are private property, but the locker itself is not, the school building is not.  There are "codes of conduct" for all kinds of locations, and one of those codes certainly is "what you can and cannot" bring into the building, and for good reason, like say, public safety.

As a parent, I want the administrators of my school to have the ability to head shit off at the pass before it ends up posing harm to my kids.  Now, I also would want them to use restraint and reason and not go out of their way to cause trouble for any particular kids.  Especially given that often the "good kids" can be involved in shit just as much as the "bad kids."