Canton School Official Defends Surprise Search

This seems to be a unconstitutional invasion of privicy. I hope someone will file suit with the town on this. At least bring out into the open the issues of just cause, when and if these Gestapo tactics can be used constitutionally.

One word: Columbine

I don't see where as a search in the school is invasion of privacy or infringement on anyones rights. School building, lockers are school property and can be opened at any time by the school. As for the cars....well they are privately owned and anything in those could not be legally subject to search including walking a dog around the cars and "not searching". This is a search of cars it is the same way police search cars on the borders with a dog walking around "not searchnig" the outside of your car. Before someone says the cars are on school property so... well yeah they are but if you park your car at wal-mart does that mean while your there it is wal-marts property...no it can't be searched without probable cause and if it is then they need to know what they are looking for. Police want to know why young people in America don't repect them it is because of things like this..who cares some kid had some pot who didn't smoke a bit as a young adult or know people that did its not a big deal and somethign we should be wasting tax money to stop and bring out the dogs because maybe, possibly, there are drugs. Also if the teachers cars were not searched I would only asume it is because they are adults and are beign given special treatment because of their age which would be discrimination.

When I went to high school, back in the day. Searches were a normal course of events. Drugs were rampant. I was never afraid, as I was not a user. The ones that did use were paranoid of being caught. I say cudo's to the school system for excercizing the rights of search. Keep that crap out of our schools!

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.

PatrickCT wrote:

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.

Here is how it works. 1. School is public grounds, not private. The kids don't own anything in the school and have no rights to ownership of anything (lockers, etc.) in the school. 2. They weren't searched, the area around them was sniffed by a dog, if the dog hits (smells drugs) on that area around them then that is probable cause for a search. No rights violated.

Below is a letter to the editor I submitted after the "dog search" at Enfield High School. Certainly, our public schools should do all they can to protect our kids from something as dangerous as the illegal drugs swirling around the campuses. And I am concerned about the lawyer/mother who defended her child for being so emotionally scarred from this experience, I question how she expects her to face up to the real world, when she has an untidy situation to deal with. Please read my feelings below and feel free to comment. Thank you.

Schools and drugs

The "drug dog" found one pot pipe in the car of one student in the Enfield High School student parking lot. In a school population this size, I would be embarrassed to report that as an accomplishment on the effort made to keep drugs out of our schools.

When the adult staff have the freedom to speak openly and honestly about this problem; when they do not fear threatened with lawsuits by irate parents whose children would never be involved with drugs; when the school nurses can be as conscientious about this health hazard as head lice, pink eye, and scoliosis; when the Board of Education can place this problem of chemical abuse with at least the same priority it did with the contaminated soil on the football fields, then perhaps a school community can come together and recognize that typically kids are immature, vulnerable, curious young people who are easily swayed by peer pressure.

If I had spent years earning degrees and truly wished to be an educator, the first thing I would demand in my classes would be students with clear and sober minds. It is only natural that we love our children ultimately, but we should not love them exclusively, especially if we are going to choose our careers in dealing with them on a daily basis.

As for the professionals and other adults who have no problem with marijuana, does it not bother you that the same people from whom you are buying your pot are dealing it to our young kids? And, if they are dealing pot, don't you believe that they would not expand their market and deal the whole illegal kit and caboodle - i.e. heroin, cocaine, etc. Does that not bother you at all? The dealer is the real businessman. I would love to know where the kids are getting this stuff. It does not grow on trees.

I would rather my tax dollars go to defend a school system employee for intervening when a student is suspected of becoming involved with such a dangerous activity than to defend a parent who is too "proud and shallow" to admit or acknowledge that his or her young child could be at risk. We must recognize that safety trumps privacy and pride, and the risks involved are real.

Hope Rice

Enfield

Were there not 3 recently published "feel-good" articles in the Courant about either Canton schools or their administrators? Now we read the superintendent wasn't 100% "sure the schools are a safe, healthy and drug-free..." At least Mr. Case is sure beyond a shadow of a doubt that all the elementary institutions are safe and healthy.

Let's just have a show of force and have dogs walk through halls. Probable cause becomes a secondary factor. Sounds like this was a training exercise for law enforcement that justifies these kinds of task forces. They should have walked through the town hall and the Bd of Ed offices, too.

You would think if the superintendent wanted to "focus on learning," the walk-throughs would have occurred in September rather than June.

Whats the big deal? You would rather have drugs in the schools? Cry babies

Gregory L Banks wrote:

This seems to be a unconstitutional invasion of privicy. I hope someone will file suit with the town on this. At least bring out into the open the issues of just cause, when and if these Gestapo tactics can be used constitutionally.

"But critics say the sweeps at Canton Middle and High schools were unnecessary shows of force that needlessly put students in jeopardy and violated school board policy because they were not done in response to a specific threat."

Please explain how police are putting students in jeopardy. Oh right,they're not. So what if there was no threat. What's wrong with some preventive measures to get rid of drug users and/or sellers?

Oh...by the by... how exactly to you get to become superintendent of a school or a judge without a fourth grade level understanding of the Constitution?

Konnecticut_Better_Yet wrote:

Oh...by the by... how exactly to you get to become superintendent of a school or a judge without a fourth grade level understanding of the Constitution?

It's a public school, they don't teach the Constitution there... and since when have government employees ever needed to be qualified for their jobs?

PatrickCT wrote:

<quoted text>
It's a public school, they don't teach the Constitution there... and since when have government employees ever needed to be qualified for their jobs?

Touche!

So whats the big deal? Working people are subject to random drug testing in some type jobs such as school bus drivers.A kid was terirfied? Give me a break. Kids in danger because the cops were there...PLEASE !.As for the lawyer can't you find anything better to harp about? Drug use is a scurge that starts in the teenage years and has an effect on every person alive one way or another. To bad these creeps in office and running for office don't want to address this nation wide scurge.

Hope Rice Post #19
"As for the professionals and other adults who have no problem with marijuana, does it not bother you that the same people from whom you are buying your pot are dealing it to our young kids?"

Matter of fact no. It is no my problem that parents are not involved in their children's lives enough to control what they do and how they spend the money they have. I am responsible for my actions and no one elses.

Wow...forget the government taking your rights. Just read these posts. People are eager to give them away!

Yeah, keep trusting your government. Sorry, what they did was lower than any kid selling baggies on any school ground.

Weed:Class c misdemeanor, and completely harmless.

Illegal search and seizure: Constitution violation and capitol felony subversion.

Now tell me which is more dangerous?

PatrickCT wrote:

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.

... doesn't say anything about school lockers ???

Sheepdog wrote:

One word: Columbine

Two more accurate words:

MANUFACTURED HYSTERIA!

Along with a couple of acronyms that are entirely appropriate:

A.P. and S.E.

Are they really that concerned about kids smoking some pot?? what a waste of police resources..

Actually,there is a spray that dealers put in there car to throw off the scent of the dog.A substitute teacher in Canton was recently arrested on his way to school with drugs.I say search the teachers anf faculty!!!