Borderline Illegal Public School Practices

[The Wizard Who Did It]

I thought it was fairly understood at this point that High School's violate normal public area laws for no other reason then that they're schools. Also because the main people they have to watch are a bunch of minors that they are actually entitled to take care of.

On that note, I don't think my High School actually tried to catch drug dealers or users at all. And it wouldn't surprise me, as our principle's method of dealing with the gangs was to collaborate with them (which hilariously enough, works insanely well).

So I mean, yeah. It's probably just how our school worked, but I don't have very vivid memories of any violations of public area law. Either that or I have a bad memory.

[Xellos]

I'm probably wrong here, but don't your parent's have to sign over many of your rights when they sign you up for a school?

I suppose limiting free speech and assembly rights could also be mentioned. I faced that a few times.

[Fifthfiend]

It's almost like the entire point of the drug war is to create an enormous pretext to accost the socially disenfranchised* at whim.

Funny, that.

*Teenagers, racial minorities, the poor, it's all the same really.

[synkr0nized]

I, too, will add that searching on and in school grounds is not borderline illegal.

The only illegal thing I can remember at the moment from HS was a teacher shoving a kid's head through the glass window in a door. Oh, he didn't get away with that, of course.

[bluestarultor]

Originally Posted by synkr0nized

I, too, will add that searching on and in school grounds is not borderline illegal.

The only illegal thing I can remember at the moment from HS was a teacher shoving a kid's head through the glass window in a door. Oh, he didn't get away with that, of course.

My former band teacher threw a 20-pound double-legged conductor's stand at his students my senior year after I dropped and he DID get away with it.

But only because Everest is good at sweeping things under the rug and one of the main reasons I left the class was that it was full of idiots who thought he was God. The students I talked to actually defended him for it. If I'd still been there, there would have been definite legal action.

[Kepor]

Originally Posted by bluestarultor

If I'd still been there, there would have been definite legal action.

Well, that depends largely upon which state you're in (or if you're in the states at all.) I believe most states have immunity protecting government institutions from lawsuits unless they give permission -- which is why schools seldom have lawsuits brought against them.

Of course, it is possible to bring a lawsuit against a teacher individually, but perhaps not if they were acting on behalf of the school.

[Tyrfing]

I thought that this was going to be about fagging.

Originally Posted by FloralVikings

From what I understand, at my high school, or any high school for that matter, I can be searched without a warrant or even cause. I can be detained by campus officers without cause. My car, if it's in the school parking lot, can be searched without warrant or cause. My locker, my backpack, anything. Doesn't matter.

What?

That's not borderline illegal that's completely illegal. Or at least it would be in Britain. I don't know how it works in the States though. Thank goodness for PACE. It's been a while since I've looked at the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (and PACE guidelines) so I might be forgetting something vital but I think this is more or less how it works over here:

Originally Posted by Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984

S(1)(1) A constable may exercise any power conferred by this section—
(a)in any place to which at the time when he proposes to exercise the power the public or any section of the public has access, on payment or otherwise, as of right or by virtue of express or implied permission; or
(b)in any other place to which people have ready access at the time when he proposes to exercise the power but which is not a dwelling.

. . .

(3) This section does not give a constable power to search a person or vehicle or anything in or on a vehicle unless he has reasonable grounds for suspecting that he will find stolen or prohibited articles

Originally Posted by PACE Code A

1.5 An officer must not search a person, even with his or her consent, where no power to search is applicable. Even where a person is prepared to submit to a search voluntarily, the person must not be searched unless the necessary legal power exists, and the search must be in accordance with the relevant power and the provisions of this Code.

2.2 Reasonable grounds for suspicion depend on the circumstances in each case. There must be an objective basis for that suspicion based on facts, information, and/or intelligence which are relevant to the likelihood of finding an article of a certain kind or, in the case of searches under section 43 of the Terrorism Act 2000, to the likelihood that the person is a terrorist.

2.3 Reasonable suspicion can sometimes exist without specific information or
intelligence and on the basis of some level of generalisation stemming from the
behaviour of a person. For example, if an officer encounters someone on the street at night who is obviously trying to hide something, the officer may (depending on the other surrounding circumstances) base such suspicion on the fact that this kind of behaviour is often linked to stolen or prohibited articles being carried. Similarly, for the purposes of section 43 of the Terrorism Act 2000, suspicion that a person is a terrorist may arise from the person’s behaviour at or near a location which has been identified as a potential target for terrorists.

2.4 However, reasonable suspicion should normally be linked to accurate and current intelligence or information, such as information describing an article being carried, a suspected offender, or a person who has been seen carrying a type of article known to have been stolen recently from premises in the area.

So an officer must have either a warrant or "reasonable grounds" to search someone, and under no circumstances can a person "sign away" or give up any rights relating to search and seizure (so a school couldn't say "you agreed to abide by the school's search policy by turning up so the law doesn't apply")

Originally Posted by Doc ock rokc

But a few years ago in my school district they removed the Self-defense clause. (it used to be IF your back was in a wall or you where hit 3 times you are able to fight back with no legal action brought upon your self unless you hurt him to near fatal levels)

So you'd have to let yourself be hit three times before you can defend yourself? I'd prefer to stop them sometime between the first punch being thrown and the first punch landing...

Originally Posted by bluestarultor

My former band teacher threw a 20-pound double-legged conductor's stand at his students my senior year after I dropped and he DID get away with it.

Throw it back. Then when they ask you why tell them how you got it.

^ Probably not a good idea.

[TheSparrow]

The term for this is in loco parentis and it basically means that schools act as parents in the time they have the kids. The supreme court has said "rights of students in the public schools are not automatically coextensive with the rights of adults in other settings, and must be applied in light of the special characteristics of the school environment" As for the searching of backpacks and vehicles, there must be a reasonable suspicion for the search, but lockers are fair game. And you do not have the right to free speech that in any way disrupts the classroom, causes any sort of disorder or the invasion of the rights of others or otherwise "inconsistent with the school's basic educational mission".

Private Schools and Universities have even more leniency under these rules as the supreme court has said "college or university may prescribe requirements for admission and rules for the conduct of its students, and one who enters as a student implicitly agrees to conform to such rules of government" but publicly funded colleges and universities don't have the same abilities. These are how colleges and universities are able to uphold draconian "speech codes", most of which are severely ironic.

[Damaged]

Unanimously unpopular students like myself didn't have any rights at all, and no laws protected them because all witnesses are liars until they die. Really, why stick your neck out for that freak who turned every popular girl down? Even worse, the poor victim is naive and doesn't know much about gathering evidence at the time. So no one believes anything when closure is needed most. Its easier for therapists to believe the victim had some neurological problems as a child which made negative memories more intense than reality.

[Particleman]

Originally Posted by FloralVikings

(Clipped for space)

If you're under 18, you have no rights.

At all.