Currently the issue making the papers in the D.C. area these days is the curfew. Drinking isn't the issue particularly but it is claimed that it's the only way to deal with troublemakers. Of course that's only the sound bite gist of things. There's more to the issue than meets the eye.
Breathalyzer test required for Homecoming Dance
- Thread starter Hitthespot
- Start date
Hitthespot
New member
Thanks everyone for your input, I've aready given you my thoughts on this, but it was nice reading everyone else's thoughts on the matter too.
I guess we didn't solve anything. lol. As with everything, we can all sure have completely different views on things.
Thanks again.
I guess we didn't solve anything. lol. As with everything, we can all sure have completely different views on things.
Thanks again.
Edward429451
Moderator
You're right, it looks more like...a standing army in our midst. Police are more Military than civilian now and that my friend is downright illegal.
For those of you that applaud the school measure, is it because you are able to defer your children's well being to others? Don't tell me about low wages and the mommy works too, just a yes or no will do.
Interesting that there's a lot of discussion with re: to intrusive "unwarranted" searches, and so forth--- but not a whole lot of discussion about intoxicated students (most likely at past school functions) who prompted administrators to take the action in the first place.
Some of the parents who are first to criticize the school, would likely be the first to sue if a student left the event in a less than sober condition and wrapped his car around a tree.
And no, I don't like the idea either but the sad part isn't just about the rights violations. It's also about student behavior that, I suspect, triggered the action.
My thoughts exactly.
I won't respond to a lot of time responding to hyperbole and grossly exagerated examples (like chastity belts for the girls) other than to say there is a legal basis for one and not the other. When students are at school or at a school function, the school functions in loco parentis, meaning in the place of the parent to some extent.
In my father's day and age, and to a lesser extent in mine, it never would have occurred to anyone to think a school couldn't open a locker or check to see if a student were intoxicated. Nor would it have occurred to anyone to question the right of a teacher or principal to apply appropriate corporal punishment. Today, you're looking at a possible lawsuit if you do that.
The problem is not with lessened freedoms in school. The problem is with trying to apply adult rights to juveniles.
Pbearperry
New member
Kids that show up for school dances are not only dangerous behind the wheel,they are also the ones that assault others at the dance.I would rather see schools watching for alcohol use at dances,than hearing that one of my Grandkids have been hurt or worse.
Posted by Nnobby 45:
Very good point.
Did anyone bother to inquire with the superintendant/principal as to the reasoning behind the tests?
Maybe an accident or three involving alcohol and high school students leaving after school functions....
...or was this just something thought up out of the clear blue so some authoritative figure could flex their muscle's.
I'd almost bet there was a few incidents/accidents involving alcohol.
Also Hitthespot,
Did you inquire as to whether prior notification of the test was sent home with the kids?
We had four children and their mother and I well know, we sometimes didn't receive every announcement sent home by the school. It happens.
Very good point.
Did anyone bother to inquire with the superintendant/principal as to the reasoning behind the tests?
Maybe an accident or three involving alcohol and high school students leaving after school functions....
...or was this just something thought up out of the clear blue so some authoritative figure could flex their muscle's.
I'd almost bet there was a few incidents/accidents involving alcohol.
Also Hitthespot,
Did you inquire as to whether prior notification of the test was sent home with the kids?
We had four children and their mother and I well know, we sometimes didn't receive every announcement sent home by the school. It happens.
Kreyzhorse
New member
Actually, in some states they are illegal and have been deemed so under the state Consitution or by other statues. Obviously Ohio conducts them however and while I'm not sure if it is legally required, they post the OVI road block location a week in advance as part of their policy.
As far as breathalyzer at school, it seems an infringment on basic rights however, if I were a parent, and I knew about it before hand, I'd likely object less but it would still stick in my crawl.
Overall, like the OVI checkpoints, this type of behavior just chips away at our individual rights.
Hitthespot
New member
I did not, and don't care to. It wouldn't have made it any more legitimate to me. I just make sure my son has his papers with him now at all times, you know, in case someone says, papers please.
I'm just playing with ya Shortwave.
What ya mean by that. Haven't you seen how we handle things in Canton.
Agreed. That's why it sticks in my crawl too. Regardless of how you justify it.
Last edited:
Agreed with Hitthespot and Kreyzhorse and MLeake (an aside to the last, I haven't met teachers that I know to have the spine of your mom, but I've met some who I don't doubt do! God bless her.)
And I've no truck with drunk driving, but checkpoints are positively repugnant and offensive to free people, no matter how effective. Beware the utilitarian argument (if it saves one life) for any infringement on our rights. They've used that to come after our firearms for decades.
I follow in the papers the local checkpoints, duly reported in the local rag, where they may pop one, perhaps two, drunks. That's out of scores of cars stopped. Which means they had a dozen officers, six cars, countless Auxiliary Police, the drunk wagon, and all the accoutrements, all to bag one or two drunks. Of course, they write all kinds of citations for extraneous cow manure that has nothing whatever to do with the stated objective, like no seat belts. They may even pop a guy for failure to appear.
Of course, by having these same units patrolling the streets, these same units would have hauled in a dozen drunks, just by direct observation of violations.
No. These are really either (a) kabuki theatre, (b) laziness on the part of law enforcement senior management (see (a)), or (c) conditioning for "papers, please." No, I'm not suggesting we're in a police state. But these things offend me. Just as I won't go through a backscatter scanner at an airport, not because I care, but because I wouldn't allow my mother, grandmother, daughter, aunt, niece to go through one, so I won't willingly cooperate with any OVI (or any state's equivalent) checkpoint.
But I'm goofy that way.
And I've no truck with drunk driving, but checkpoints are positively repugnant and offensive to free people, no matter how effective. Beware the utilitarian argument (if it saves one life) for any infringement on our rights. They've used that to come after our firearms for decades.
I follow in the papers the local checkpoints, duly reported in the local rag, where they may pop one, perhaps two, drunks. That's out of scores of cars stopped. Which means they had a dozen officers, six cars, countless Auxiliary Police, the drunk wagon, and all the accoutrements, all to bag one or two drunks. Of course, they write all kinds of citations for extraneous cow manure that has nothing whatever to do with the stated objective, like no seat belts. They may even pop a guy for failure to appear.
Of course, by having these same units patrolling the streets, these same units would have hauled in a dozen drunks, just by direct observation of violations.
No. These are really either (a) kabuki theatre, (b) laziness on the part of law enforcement senior management (see (a)), or (c) conditioning for "papers, please." No, I'm not suggesting we're in a police state. But these things offend me. Just as I won't go through a backscatter scanner at an airport, not because I care, but because I wouldn't allow my mother, grandmother, daughter, aunt, niece to go through one, so I won't willingly cooperate with any OVI (or any state's equivalent) checkpoint.
But I'm goofy that way.
...yea, just like federally mandated drug testing of CDL truck drivers. Which this practice has been adopted by seemingly every employer in the US. Whether its a juvenile applying for a job or an adult...if the employer is McDonalds or Wall Street. Talk about chipping away at our individual rights.
What I find disgusting is that we will through a fit about any kind of drug/alcohol testing for our kids going to school functions, whether it be random or scheduled but its become socially acceptable to have forced testing for employment not only for our teenage children but for grown adults that are supposed to be more responsible.
Why do we accept the pre-employment drug screening our teenge child has to go through when they go to McDonalds,Krogers or Walmart to get a part-time job while still in school?
Isn't this the same good child that is supposed to be presumed innocent going to the school function on Friday night? That is if he/she can get off work at the job he/she had to drug test to get....and we as parents let our child go to work at this job subjecting them to drug/alcohol screening without saying a word. Again, confused.
Some say, "well if you don't like the the drug testing policy where you work, quit". I'm sure some have heard this said or maybe even said/thought it themselves.
Just as easy to say, "if you don't want testing done to your children, don't send them to the school function". Thats also been said....but both these comments aren't really an answer to the problem. The problem being, my child or I have never been convicted of DUI or any drug related charges but yet you test me as if I have. Aren't we supposed to be innocent until proven guilty? But its become acceptable.
I'm sure if these schools were/are questioned about why the testing is done, the response would be the same one would get if he/she questioned an employer...."its for the safety of everyone".
Again, its just confusing to me how drug/alcohol testing has been let to become so socialbly(sp) acceptable as a way of life in many areas but we take great offense to it in others....and alot of the testing is mandated by the fed. government.
Last edited:
Every now and then my appreciation of the contributors here goes up a notch or two from some of the comments. Saying something is kubuki theatre is one of them.
I am no fan of random searches, having to show your papers and things like that either (what do you have to hide?) but many of the comments on this forum strike me as showing that it is no mystery where this sort of thing originates. Generally speaking, people everywhere will take rigid government over lawlessness any day but at some point you run into the problem of where to draw the line. One forgets how many grudges people can have against one another, either as individuals or as members of some group and such things are a way of carrying out a kind of revenge or demonstrating power. All of these things are in response to something in particular, be it someone with explosives in his shoe or someone who thinks killing a democratically elected office holder is justifiable. After all, in a democracy you can vote to have someone put to death but you just can't go out and shoot them.
I am no fan of random searches, having to show your papers and things like that either (what do you have to hide?) but many of the comments on this forum strike me as showing that it is no mystery where this sort of thing originates. Generally speaking, people everywhere will take rigid government over lawlessness any day but at some point you run into the problem of where to draw the line. One forgets how many grudges people can have against one another, either as individuals or as members of some group and such things are a way of carrying out a kind of revenge or demonstrating power. All of these things are in response to something in particular, be it someone with explosives in his shoe or someone who thinks killing a democratically elected office holder is justifiable. After all, in a democracy you can vote to have someone put to death but you just can't go out and shoot them.
It's funny how gun owners excoriate the Press for defending 1st Amendment rights while tossing the 2nd Amendment under the bus... and yet we think In Loco Parentis should let schools completely end-run the 4th Amendment.
Well, "we" don't. Some of you, do.
If an arbitrary breathalyzer for all, based on nothing other than attendance, no cause whatever - let alone Probable Cause - doesn't qualify as an unreasonable search, I'm not sure what does. Saying the schools are in loco parentis does not negate the fact that they are agents of the government, in that capacity.
As far as the "safety" benefits go, and the utilitarian argument, I wonder what Ben Franklin would have had to say.... Oh, wait, I know exactly what he said:
They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
Well, "we" don't. Some of you, do.
If an arbitrary breathalyzer for all, based on nothing other than attendance, no cause whatever - let alone Probable Cause - doesn't qualify as an unreasonable search, I'm not sure what does. Saying the schools are in loco parentis does not negate the fact that they are agents of the government, in that capacity.
As far as the "safety" benefits go, and the utilitarian argument, I wonder what Ben Franklin would have had to say.... Oh, wait, I know exactly what he said:
They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
IMHO, they can wear the in loco parentis hat, or they can wear their agent of the state hat, but not both, and not switch back and forth. ILP should be to protect the kids' right, not an end run around their 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, etc Amendment rights. The breathalyzer thing could go either way, depending on what they do with it.
Do the people that object to the breathalyzer also object to:
1) a faculty member greeting each student as they arrive and not allowing kids that smell like alcohol or pot in.
2)a faculty member greeting each student as they arrive and verifying that they are an actual student at the school
3)security/chaperones waliking through the parking lot to prevent drug use, fighting, and kids screwing on school property.
What's the difference?
1) a faculty member greeting each student as they arrive and not allowing kids that smell like alcohol or pot in.
2)a faculty member greeting each student as they arrive and verifying that they are an actual student at the school
3)security/chaperones waliking through the parking lot to prevent drug use, fighting, and kids screwing on school property.
What's the difference?
I think it might be illuminating for people who object to the breath test for minors entering a school function to set forth a specific analysis
How are a student's 4th Am. rights violated by a breath test?
The 4th prohibits unreasonable searches. What is reasonable is largely defined by the expectations of the parties. Does a 16 year old have a reasonable expectation that he can attend a school function without have his breath tested?
Given his other diminished expectations of privacy, is a breath test of a minor really unreasonable?
I know my distinction between what publicly funded entities are actually government and which aren't didn't catch on in this thread, but the assertion that an employee of a publicly funded school is an agent of government isn't obviously true.
My village has tree trimmers who roam around cutting branches on treelawns. That looks more like a service one could get from any treetrimmer, not a governmental function. If part of the educational service involves alcohol free dances for minors, monitoring isn't an obvious constitutional violation.
I think it's tough to argue persuasively that the right to attend a dance as a drunk teen is an essential liberty.
Emphasis added.
Which the faculty member must test to have. The pivotal part of chack's question is underlined, the greeting at which intoxication or use is detected. You responded to the action taken after testing occurs.
MLeake said:
How are a student's 4th Am. rights violated by a breath test?
The 4th prohibits unreasonable searches. What is reasonable is largely defined by the expectations of the parties. Does a 16 year old have a reasonable expectation that he can attend a school function without have his breath tested?
Given his other diminished expectations of privacy, is a breath test of a minor really unreasonable?
MLeake said:
I know my distinction between what publicly funded entities are actually government and which aren't didn't catch on in this thread, but the assertion that an employee of a publicly funded school is an agent of government isn't obviously true.
My village has tree trimmers who roam around cutting branches on treelawns. That looks more like a service one could get from any treetrimmer, not a governmental function. If part of the educational service involves alcohol free dances for minors, monitoring isn't an obvious constitutional violation.
MLeake said:
I think it's tough to argue persuasively that the right to attend a dance as a drunk teen is an essential liberty.
chack said:
MLeake said:
Emphasis added.
Which the faculty member must test to have. The pivotal part of chack's question is underlined, the greeting at which intoxication or use is detected. You responded to the action taken after testing occurs.
MLeake,
I see what your saying about the schools and the In Loco Parentis, also the fact that some gun owners excoriating the Press for defending the 1st Amend. rts. while tossing the 2nd. under the bus....what I fail to see is the difference between what the school is doing, the drug/testing, under the guise of In Loco Parentis and a place of employment stomping on the same rights of the same child when he/she goes to get a part-time job and has to test. And this seems to be more accepted in our society. Why?
We are supposed to have basic individual rights. Does it matter what format is used to trample them if we've not first given a reason for our rights to be taken away ?
As far as what Ben Franklin would have said, I'm sure he's been looking down on us for a long time.....Speechless!
I see what your saying about the schools and the In Loco Parentis, also the fact that some gun owners excoriating the Press for defending the 1st Amend. rts. while tossing the 2nd. under the bus....what I fail to see is the difference between what the school is doing, the drug/testing, under the guise of In Loco Parentis and a place of employment stomping on the same rights of the same child when he/she goes to get a part-time job and has to test. And this seems to be more accepted in our society. Why?
We are supposed to have basic individual rights. Does it matter what format is used to trample them if we've not first given a reason for our rights to be taken away ?
As far as what Ben Franklin would have said, I'm sure he's been looking down on us for a long time.....Speechless!
Last edited:
overkill0084
New member
Those tree trimmers aren't in a position of authority over your child. Neither is the sewage guy or the trash collector.
Without probable cause of some sort it's too much, IMHO. Elevate it a notch, should full body searches be permitted to simply attend? Perhaps medical exams to ensure that none of the attendees have a communicable disease? After all, "It's for the children."
overkilloo84 said:
Of all the restrictions the law puts on police, is probable cause the only one you would also impose upon teachers, or would you impose all the others as well?
Should a teacher mirandise a child before inquiring about misbehavior? (That is very much tongue in cheek)
Last edited: