Town Square

Post a New Topic

Drug dogs may be headed to Pleasanton high schools

Original post made on Dec 26, 2011

Teens, teachers and parents, leave your pot at home if you're headed to any of the city's three high schools after January. A measure is headed to the school board that would bring drug dogs to the schools on a regular basis.

Read the full story here Web Link posted Friday, December 23, 2011, 12:00 AM

Comments (80)

 +   Like this comment
Posted by Pete
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Dec 26, 2011 at 4:00 pm

Sharing the concerns of Pleasanton/community in a public manner is not being idiotic. It does qualify though... of how human we are, even in our own household. Public money has a right to set policy without politics. This is "not" a program that can "not" be changed. To rely on our children to become informants is unrealistic, not healthy and dangerous. I would be interested in listening to the argument for using and not using dogs, according to the way the above article, was written.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Pete
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Dec 26, 2011 at 4:03 pm

Matt, not totally disagreeing with what you said...


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Milo Thompson III
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Dec 26, 2011 at 4:38 pm

I wonder what Pleasanton parents were to say about dogs in school if it was East Oakland we were talking about. Oh! That would be different.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Cholo
a resident of Livermore
on Dec 26, 2011 at 6:30 pm

dogs are necessary because some kids break the rules...


 +   Like this comment
Posted by KC
a resident of Pleasanton Meadows
on Dec 27, 2011 at 9:30 am

Just make sure your kids take their drugs to class. The police are only searching lockers and cars? An adult really thought this through?
It's a great idea, but it does not sound well thought out.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Elizabeth
a resident of Mohr Park
on Dec 27, 2011 at 9:55 am

@ Matt and anyone else. I have known Jeff and Jamie Hintzke personally for over 15 years. Also, knowing how Pleasanton Weekly writes of other news stories, I can just about guarentee that Jeff's comments were taken "out of context". I lurk a lot on these boards, and know how many on here just love to rant, complain, and take pot shots at anyone and anything reported on. But I also know how intelligent the majority of the posters are, so use some of those critical thinking skills and take quotes from PW with a LARGE grain of salt.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Daniel Bradford
a resident of Foothill High School
on Dec 27, 2011 at 3:07 pm

The original discussion and comments, including three of mine, have all been removed. Does anybody from the Pleasanton Weekly have an explanation for this? Why were those original comments removed?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Pete
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Dec 27, 2011 at 3:18 pm

Really Daniel...? and to think you are a research librarian. :-)


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Really?
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Dec 27, 2011 at 6:37 pm

Daniel, this was a second thread that started apart from the one you speak of at Web Link


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Daniel Bradford
a resident of Foothill High School
on Dec 28, 2011 at 2:25 am

Pleasanton Weekly started two different threads with identical titles on the same topic.

Well, that's not confusing.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Birdland Mom
a resident of Birdland
on Dec 28, 2011 at 9:04 am

As a mom of 3 teens in Pleasanton schools and one who has dealt with a drug problem with one of my own kids, I welcome ANY support from police or school board. I say, bring on the dogs! After struggling to get my kid to see that pot was a terrible idea with lots of consequences and talking to other parents to see if we could get together and work on this problem together, I found we were alone in feeling like smoking pot was a big deal. All the other parents of my kids friends said, well, as long as my kid is doing ok, I don't care if he is smoking pot. Or, didn't you do it at his/her age... It was shocking and upsetting and I even heard from police, friends, ... well, at least it is only pot... Pot is a huge problem in our schools, totally accessible to any kid who wants to get it, and it is still ILLEGAL! no matter what we think of it, it is still illegal which means there are huge consequences if your kids get caught... Let's all step up and tell our kids, it is NOT ok to smoke pot! We are not their friends, we are their parents and should be acting like it. Regardless of what we did at their age (or some of us are still doing now), our job is to help them stay safe. Pot today is not what it was when we were in high school either. They are getting it from friends who are older and have medical marijuana cards from pot clubs where you can pay $75 and tell them you are depressed or your feet hurt and they will give you a card then have at it with some of the strongest pot around. Or better yet, supply all your underage friends with whatever they want! I believe medical marijuana if used for the right reasons is great, but these kids are getting it and supplying amador and dublin and foothill! Now, I don't know about the other parents, but I did not do that when I was their age. I am really worried about our kids and the messages they are getting from parents, teachers, police, etc... pot is no big deal... It is a big deal and can have huge consequences for the rest of their lives- jail time, lost jobs, lost friends, the list goes on. Wake up people and support this!


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Stacey
a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Dec 28, 2011 at 9:20 am

Stacey is a registered user.

"All the other parents of my kids friends said, well, as long as my kid is doing ok, I don't care if he is smoking pot. Or, didn't you do it at his/her age"

Drug sniffing dogs are not going to solve this problem unless they sniff the parents too.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Pleasantonmom
a resident of Amador Valley High School
on Dec 28, 2011 at 9:25 am

I hope everyone read the story. A boy at Amador was just arrested (the week before Christmas break). 50 LSD, bag of Esctacy, bag of Mushrooms and yes some pot. He had these drugs on him. The drug problem at Amador is huge. Parents you need to be awake when your kids come home at night. I think alot of you would be surprised. Bring on the dogs.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by artlover
a resident of Birdland
on Dec 28, 2011 at 9:44 am

How about taking the dogs to the Safeway parking lot where I hear a lot of drugs are being sold.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Resident
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Dec 28, 2011 at 10:36 am

Do whatever you want, PUSD, but know this: if you violate my childrens' rights, I will sue. If you violate another parent's child and I can help them with the legal aspect, I will. My neighbor already called someone from the ACLU, and trust me: you do not want to get a legal battle started.


Do things by the book, get warrants, search individual students if you have probable cause, etc, but do not dare violate any student's 4th amendment rights.

Is there a drug problem? Yes

Are sniffing dogs a solution? NO

And remember: the 9th circuit court has already ruled that sniffing of students is considered a search (regardless of what another school may be doing and getting away with)

If you sniff the cars and the dogs alert to something, you have absolutely no right to force the student to open the car. And if you do and it is a false alert , get ready for some huge legal battle.

Find a better solution. Hintzke's comments may not have been the best, but he has a point. And the dog can smell something that was there before and is no longer there, or simply give a false alert. Sniffing dogs are not 100% reliable.

Find a different way.

And Daniel: I am not going to go to the meeting to give input as you suggest, because I know it will fall on deaf ears. Or the PW will find a way to take my comments out of context, as I believe happened with Hintzke's comments (I am not a friend or supporter of his wife, btw, I did not even vote for her, but I know that it is not fair to have taken his comment out of context; he was, imo, trying to make a point and instead got criticized for it)


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Resident
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Dec 28, 2011 at 10:40 am

CORRECTION:

My comment should have read:

Do whatever you want, PUSD, but know this: if you violate my childrens' rights, I will sue. If you violate ANOTHER PARENT'S CHILD'S RIGHTS and I can help them with the legal aspect, I will. My neighbor already called someone from the ACLU, and trust me: you do not want to get a legal battle started.

Do things by the book, get warrants, search individual students if you have probable cause, etc, but do not dare violate any student's 4th amendment rights.

Is there a drug problem? Yes

Are sniffing dogs a solution? NO

And remember: the 9th circuit court has already ruled that sniffing of students is considered a search (regardless of what another school may be doing and getting away with)

If you sniff the cars and the dogs alert to something, you have absolutely no right to force the student to open the car. And if you do and it is a false alert , get ready for some huge legal battle.

Find a better solution. Hintzke's comments may not have been the best, but he has a point. And the dog can smell something that was there before and is no longer there, or simply give a false alert. Sniffing dogs are not 100% reliable.

Find a different way.

And Daniel: I am not going to go to the meeting to give input as you suggest, because I know it will fall on deaf ears. Or the PW will find a way to take my comments out of context, as I believe happened with Hintzke's comments (I am not a friend or supporter of his wife, btw, I did not even vote for her, but I know that it is not fair to have taken his comment out of context; he was, imo, trying to make a point and instead got criticized for it)


 +   Like this comment
Posted by mom
a resident of Foothill High School
on Dec 28, 2011 at 12:11 pm

Resident...
I looked up the 9th circuit opinion. it states:

"The court of appeals affirmed a judgment of the district
court. The court held that public school officials violate stu-
dents' Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable
searches when, in the absence of any drug problem or articu-
lated suspicion, they allow a drug-detecting police dog to sniff
the students at close proximity."

I would guess that is why they are not sending dogs in to sniff the students but rather the cars and lockers. I've read that many districts have the students leave the classroom and then have the dogs sniff their backpacks, lockers, etc.
I skimmed through this case and I'm not a legal expert but I think the issue was that the dog sniffed the student. If the dogs do not sniff the students, I suppose it is legal. It also sounds like PUSD schools have a known drug issue, which was another of the elements in the case.

It sounds like it will be crucial that the proper training is provided to the handlers, police and school admininstation so that the searches are carried out in a way that does not violate constitutional rights.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Stacey
a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Dec 28, 2011 at 2:15 pm

Stacey is a registered user.

"It also sounds like PUSD schools have a known drug issue, which was another of the elements in the case. "

Here's the latest 2009/2010 CA Healthy Kids survey key findings for grades 7, 9, and 11: Web Link

And from Fall 2007: Web Link

And from Fall 2005: Web Link

As you can see from these documents, several things jump out:
1) Alcohol usage is a lot higher than marijuana.
2) The percentages don't really change much since 2005. (What level or change constitutes a "drug problem" in court?)
3) Percent of students smoking weed or being drunk on school property remains very low. In other words, the likelihood that drug dogs on campus will protect your child from drugs or have a big impact on the drug problem is very low.
4) Student perceptions of harm by alcohol, tobacco, and marijuana has been decreasing since 2005. That's a real problem that won't be addressed by treating the entire student population as criminals.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Cholo
a resident of Livermore
on Dec 28, 2011 at 2:51 pm

If dogs are going to be sniffing parents, please have emergency services available for the dogs...all you have to do is go to a movie and realize that most Plutonians don't like soap and water.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Daniel Bradford
a resident of Foothill High School
on Dec 28, 2011 at 3:01 pm

To reiterate:

The drug-sniffing dogs are not addressing the drug abuse problems with PUSD students.

The majority of drug abuse among PUSD students is alcohol abuse and abuse of prescription medication, not narcotics. PUSD's own discipline records at the high schools reflect this.

Catching a student or two with drugs in his/her car does not address the reasons of why students abuse drugs in the first place. In addition, using the dogs ignores the fact that most of the students at the high schools know who's dealing drugs, but they don't report them because they don't want their friends to go to jail (but they do want them to go to rehab). The most effective tool to prevent drug abuse of all sorts, including alcohol and prescription meds, is communication with the teens and building mutual trust. But that's hard work that it seems PUSD administrators and some parents don't want to do.

If drug-sniffing dogs are used in the parking lots at the high schools, it's highly unlikely that the students or teachers will keep drugs in their cars. If they know that these searches are going to be conducted, they'll just keep the narcotics with them, because the police have already announced that the dogs won't be allowed near the students or teachers.

I don't care if the use of drug-sniffing dogs is likely to be ruled "not a search" and therefore legal; it will still result in a lawsuit and maybe more than one lawsuit. A parent at Foothill has already contacted the ACLU about the possibility of mounting a challenge and even if the ACLU loses the suit, defending it will cost tens of thousands of dollars. An allegedly broke school district spending $50,000, $100,000, or more, on avoidable legal bills seems an unwise policy to me. The ACLU considers PUSD a good "test case" district because of the good reputation of the schools and the general affluence of the community; if the ALCU can win in Pleasanton, other California districts will take notice. The ACLU is not likely to win, but there is such a thing as a Pyrrhic victory.

So: the use of drug-sniffing dogs will only further alienate the teens, won't put a dent in the real drug problem among Pleasanton's youth, could also anger and alienate parents, and has the potential to involve the district in yet another costly and protracted lawsuit.

Other than that, I don't see any problems with the proposal.




 +   Like this comment
Posted by Mom
a resident of Foothill High School
on Dec 28, 2011 at 4:34 pm

FYI... my high school daughter is sitting right here next to me and thinks this is a joke. She doesn't care of they bring in dogs. She said she doesn't have anything to hide. She also just stated that if they brought in dogs she would not feel like a criminal or alienated or anything like that. I would guess most students would welcome a little distraction and excitement in the otherwise boring school day.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Resident
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Dec 28, 2011 at 5:38 pm

mom:

Yes, the sniffing of students is considered a search.

The sniffing of cars is not something the courts have dealt with yet. I do not think the sniffing of cars will be a violation of the students's rights if the cars are in the school's parking lot.

What will be a challenge is if a dog smells something, the student is forced to open the car (he/she can always decline and call a lawyer btw), but then no drugs are found.....by then the student has been singled out for NO reason, without probable cause other than an unreliable dog's smelling something.

That is the problem: what to do if/when a dog smells something.

No student will be dumb enough to leave drugs in the car if he/she knows the dogs are sniffing the cars. Most likely, they will keep the drugs with them.

A search of a backpack would require probable cause. Sure, the dogs can go in and sniff the lockers where backpacks may be kept, but the dogs cannot come near a student to sniff the backpack and probable cause would be needed in order for the principal to order a student to give him the backback.

Remember that only freshmen and sophomores are required to take PE, and those are the only backpacks that could be sniffed while in the locker room.

Mom:

this is not about what your daughter cares about. It is about what is right, what is legal. Your daughter may have such a boring life that she may welcome the dogs, but other students are so busy with their AP classes and activities that they have no time, like your daughter seems to, to be bothered with this nonsense of sniffing dogs.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by mom
a resident of Foothill High School
on Dec 28, 2011 at 5:56 pm

Resident...

FYI... my daughter is in AP classes and Honors classes and 3 sports. So her life is NOT boring. Honestly... she doesn't have time to breathe much less smoke pot. Thanks for the generalization though.

In my opinion...it is too bad the the PARENTS are the ones that are all up in arms and threatening legal action. They do this all over the country but our precious little babies in Pleasanton are too precious to get their feelings stepped on? Cry me a river....

Personally, I'm not threatened by this. But then again, I have nothing to hide.

Now what I find annoying is that I have to practically strip down to get on an airplane. I find that WAY more humi;iating than a random dog sniffing my kid's car.

I've had two kids that went to a high school where they did this and really it was such a NON ISSUE. But those weren't PLEASANTON parents who think their kids are so special.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Resident
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Dec 28, 2011 at 6:34 pm

"The ACLU is not likely to win, but there is such a thing as a Pyrrhic victory."

You never know. The ACLU may win, it depends on how the student's rights were violated, how the district went about doing things. Remember in the 90's when the ACLU got involved against the Galt Unified School District. The district cancelled the dog sniffing. I do not know how much money was spent by the district.

Mom:

Again, this is not about you or your daughter, it is about something much bigger. Once you start violating civil liberties, it can lead to very ugly things. There is a reason we have protections and rights. Sniffing dogs will not solve the drug problem, but it will result in legal challenges and expenses for a school district that continues to ask for money from the parents because of "budget cuts."


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Mom
a resident of Foothill High School
on Dec 28, 2011 at 6:55 pm

Resident
I did not make this about me or my daughter but YOU did.
It was suggested on this board that drug sniffing dogs would make students feel like criminals. I only offered that I personally know two students who are not offended by this at all.

Why does that make it anymore about me than anyone else who is offering their opinion? Maybe I am offended that YOU are going to cost the taxpayers of Pleasanton money when the school system has to defend against frivolous law suits. If you don't want the school district to go to expense of defending it... then you and your little ACLU friends shouldn't sue.

If the drug sniffing dogs are used correctly, they will be upheld by the courts. IF that happens, I hope the people and organizations that sue and cause expense to the district are willing to reimburse the district the money spent on legal defense.

Wishing you a happy and peaceful New Year.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Be Informed
a resident of Canyon Oaks
on Dec 28, 2011 at 7:02 pm

There are a LOT of posts that simply lack merit, mostly by those uneducated as far as the constitution, law, and variences when PUBLIC SCHOOLS are the issue.

Basics:

1.) A canine sniff of property is not a search under the Fourth Amendment.

2.) There does not need to be prior reasonable suspicion prior to the canine sniff.

3.) A positive alert from a trained Narcotics Detector Dog gives reasonable suspicion to the presence of narcotics. This reaction gives the handler probable cause for a warrant.

4.) School officials need reasonable suspicion to search a student or their property. A canine alert is that reasonable suspicion.

5.) School officials do not need a warrant to conduct the search.


Courts are divided about the reasonableness of canine student searches, however two out of three state that a canine sniff of a person is a search. A canine sniff of a student requires reasonable suspicion. Only a "passive alert" dog should be used. (Note: The majority of law enforcement agencies do not use K9's to sniff/search people for narcotic detection in any circumstance.)






A) New Jersey v T.L.O. (469 U.S. 325 (1985) U. S. Supreme Court.


Even though this is not a canine case, the United States Supreme Court held that: 1. School searches fall under the Fourth Amendment's reasonableness standard. 2. School officials do not need a warrant to search a student or their property. 3. School officials do not need probable cause to search; the legality of a search of a student should depend simply on the reasonableness, under all the circumstances of the search (reasonable suspicion).


B) United States v Place (462 U.S. 696 (1983) U. S. Supreme Court.


Exposing a person's property, which is located in a public place, to the sniff of a trained narcotics detecting dog is not a search under the Fourth Amendment.






C) United States v Sokolow (490 U.S. 1 (1988) U. S. Supreme Court.

A sniff from a Narcotic Detector Dog and a positive alert provides probable cause to obtain a search warrant for property.


D) United States v Solis (536 F. 2d 880 (1976) Ninth Circuit.

1. Evidence acquired by odor so detected may furnish evidence of probable cause. 2. Drug Agent's use of a Narcotic Detector Dog to detect narcotics odor and then obtain search warrant, was not a search under the Fourth Amendment.

E) United States v Maldonado-Espinosa (968 F. 2d 101 (1992) First Circuit.

A drug-sniffing dog's positive alert to a person's property provided probable cause for the issuance of a search warrant.

F) Doe v Renfrow (631 F. 2d 91 (1980) Seventh Circuit.


1. Detention of student for 1-1/2 hours was not an unreasonable seizure. 2. Entry by school officials and uniformed police officers into each classroom with the intent to locate drugs was not a search. 3. Walking up aisles and sniffing by a narcotics detector dog did not violate students' right. 4. Upon a canine alert, there was no violation of student's rights by ordering her to empty pockets onto her desk. 5. Nude search of student based solely upon a canine alert after she emptied her pockets was unreasonable.

G) Zamora v Pomeroy (639 F. 2d 662 (1981) Tenth Circuit.


1. A warrantless search of school lockers conducted by trained police dogs was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment, even when no reasonable suspicion existed. 2. Where school had assumed joint control of student's locker and where school authorities conducted warrantless search of lockers after trained police dogs indicated the presence of drugs, there was no search under the Fourth Amendment.

H) Horton v Goose Creek Independent School District (690 F. 2d 470 (1982) Fifth Circuit.

1. Police dogs' sniffing of student lockers in public hallways and automobiles parked on public parking lots did not constitute a search. 2. Dogs' sniffing of students' persons could not be justified without reasonable cause. 3. Canine searches of students' persons could not be justified without reasonable cause. 4. The standard of reasonable cause for school officials is less stringent than that applicable to law enforcement, but requires more than good faith. 5. If, as a result of canine sniff searches of students' cars and lockers, school had reasonable cause to suspect presence of contraband, no warrant is required to search. 6. Minimal harassment arising from the mere presence of dogs on campus was not unreasonable.


I) Hearn v Board of Public Education (191 F. 3d 1329 (1999) Eleventh Circuit.

A search of a teacher's automobile resulting from a random parking lot sweep by officers, where a narcotics dog alerted to the teacher's automobile gave probable cause to enter and search the interior.

This alert also gave reasonable suspicion of possible drug use by teacher, so that termination of teacher for refusing to take a drug test after discovery of marijuana in her vehicle was reasonable.

J) John F. Dengg v State of Ohio (Case No. 97-P-0113) (132 Ohio App. 3d 360; 724 N.E.2d 1255; 1999 Ohio App. LEXIS 851).


Police K9's were requested by Streetsboro, Ohio, school officials to conduct a search for illicit contraband at Streetsboro High School, a public high school, and were deployed to the high school parking lots as part of that exercise.

The police had probable cause to search the automobile driven by the appellee to school because a police K9 alerted it handler to the presence of drug odor when it sniffed the exterior of the appellee's vehicle.

Under the rule of law pronounced in the cases of Place, Waldroup, Palicki, French and Riley, the use of a drug sniffing dog to detect the presence of the odor of contraband by sniffing the exterior of an object is not a "search" within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment.

Once the K9 alerted to the odor of drugs, the police had probable cause to conduct a search of appellee's automobile. Finally, pursuant to the holding in Ross, once the police officers had acquired the requisite of probable cause, they could conduct a warrantless search of appellee's vehicle under the "automobile exception".

J) B.C. v Plumas Unified School District (192 F. 3d 1260 (1999) Ninth Circuit.

1. The close proximity sniffing of the person is offensive whether the sniffer be canine or human. Because the dog sniff infringed on a person's reasonable expectation of privacy, we hold that it constitutes a search. 2. A random and suspicionless dog sniff search of a person is unreasonable.

Flow Chart:

1.) School official requests random K-9 sniff of property.

2.) Law enforcement conducts K-9 sniff.

3.) Positive alert from K-9.

4.) Established probable cause for the officer and reasonable suspicion for the school official.

5.) School official conducts a warrantless search.

6.) The student suspect is dealt with administratively (also dependant upon what and how much contraband is found) by the school official and/or the school official requests criminal prosecution through law enforcement.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Be Informed
a resident of Canyon Oaks
on Dec 28, 2011 at 7:20 pm

Courts are divided about the reasonableness of canine student searches, however two out of three state that a canine sniff of a person is a search.

A PERSON... PUSD is NOT going to be having the dogs sniff PERSONS!

SCHOOL officials CAN conduct warrentless searches of students, based upon a positive alert from a Police K9 sniffing PROPERTY, Lockers, Cars.

CASE CLOSED!


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Stacey
a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Dec 28, 2011 at 7:31 pm

Stacey is a registered user.

It's a joke alright. A big fat joke on taxpayers and the parents who think pouring tens of thousands of dollars into on-campus canine sniffs will keep kids safe from drugs. How much did the anonymous tip that lead to the arrest of the three students allegedly in possession of drugs to sell on campus cost? How did this canine sniff proposal even come up? Did a canine sniff company solicit the district?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Stacey
a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Dec 28, 2011 at 7:37 pm

Stacey is a registered user.

Parents,

Consider spending $200 per hour for a canine sniff of your own home. You don't even need to worry about funny legal protections like probable cause and unreasonable searches. Web Link


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Patriot
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Dec 28, 2011 at 9:44 pm

"Personally, I'm not threatened by this. But then again, I have nothing to hide."

But entirely innocent students with nothing to hide could get caught up in this. Students carpool to school and use cars that are used by other family members outside of school. Combine this with zero tolerance policies where any amount of marijuana found in a car leads to disciplinary action and the innocent do have something to fear.

If PUSD goes ahead with this, they can count on legal action, and it could get very expensive.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Lugnut
a resident of Pleasanton Valley
on Dec 29, 2011 at 8:37 am

Who the heck wants to be on the School Board? Every time they try to do something to protect the kids who want an education they are stmied. I really do hope that a few of you parents who quote the ACLU and threaten lawsuits have the wonderful experince of having a drug addicted student. It is a ride that is worse than awful.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Lugnut
a resident of Pleasanton Valley
on Dec 29, 2011 at 8:38 am

Maybe a discussion on Charter Schools is needed?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Be Informed
a resident of Canyon Oaks
on Dec 29, 2011 at 9:14 am

STACEY:

Normally you posts make some sense. You are way out of it as far as this topic. PUSD does NOT put out funds for PPD school officers or any extra duties! These cops sit around most of the day, theres not a whole lot going on the Pleasanton. Schools have resource officers assigned already.

Threats of ACLU and law suits from thhe "constitutional" crowd are insane. Won't back any parcel tax,snibble over ANY and ALL school spending, but threaten a costly lawsuit!

STUDENTS at PUBLIC schools are subject to the dog sniffing and what comes after, like it or not. School ADMIN needs NO warrent to search a students belongings, cars, lockers or their person. Under 15 years old, guardians must be present for personal search. Over 15, no guardian needed.

Small ammounts of weed found and the schools will deal with the students. Larger amounts of meth, OXY, weed, LSD, other drugs for intent of sales and guess what... It's a big deal and the students will be prosecuted as they should bbe.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Steve
a resident of Birdland
on Dec 29, 2011 at 10:37 am

Stacey- You can't take the Healthy kids report as actual in regards to what is really going on. I have worked with the students and they say that they make fun of the report. Saying thing like they use heroin, lsd multiple times per day, smoke pot and are pimps. Those reports filled out by students are NOT accurate!

Mom- just because you over fill your daughters life with activities does not mean she is above using drugs. In fact, she may need them more than others just to cope with everything you put on her plate! Just so you know my son is also in AP classes and plays sports and he has friends that drink and do drugs. It does not matter what kind of student or sports player you are. They are all high school students and your daughter is no better than the rest! But you just keep thinking "not my daughter"!


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Resident
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Dec 29, 2011 at 12:19 pm

Be informed:

You are not 100% correct. Yes, cars in school parking lots and lockers at school can be sniffed, but personal backpacks and the students themselves canNOT.

I am not sure where you get your information, but read the ACLU 1997 case in CA as well as the more recent 9th circuit ruling.

In the state of Washington (also in the 9th circuit, like CA) , the case went all the way to that state's supreme court, and the students prevailed. The school districts stopped the dog sniffing.

It is people like you who encourage PUSD to do dumb things like attempting a parcel tax twice (it failed, didn't it? despite predictions that it would pass, blah blah blah).

It is a violation of the students' fourth amendment rights to sniff/search them or their personal backpacks without reasonable suspicion.

The district can search lockers (but again, only 9th and 10th graders are required to take PE so those are the backpacks you will be able to sniff during their PE instruction) and sniff cars.

But the courts have still not encountered a case where student A's car was sniffed, something was smelled, student A was singled out and forced to open the car, no drugs were found. Sounds like a good case to me.

And the sniffing dogs cost money in different ways: the direct expense plus the lack of parental donations after that (I voted yes on the parcel tax even though it failed, and gave generous donations to PPIE, PTAs, but will stop even that if the district is spending thousands of dollars on legal bills and dogs)

The ACLU is active in other states with this drug sniffing. California has not been tested yet, since the last time the ACLU filed a lawsuit against a school district, the district ended its practiced (in the 90s). PUSD may be the district that is dumb enough to spend money on lawyers and take this issue all the way to the supreme court. We will see


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Resident
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Dec 29, 2011 at 12:28 pm

"School ADMIN needs NO warrent to search a students belongings, cars, lockers or their person."

I hope you are not that teacher that told AVHS students that they had no rights once in school - NONSENSE!. I challenge you to search my child without a warrant, and I guarantee you the biggest lawsuit you have ever seen. No person (minor or not) can be searched wihtout INDIVIDUAL PROBABLE SUSPICION.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Mom
a resident of Foothill High School
on Dec 29, 2011 at 2:16 pm

Steve

Thanks for the judgement on my relationship with my daughter and myself. Believe me I don't have a 'Not my kid attitude'. However since that makes me a minority in this town, I can see why you are confused. For your information, She and I discuss this frequently. We have a good relationship. I am fully aware that there are honors students, athletes and all kinds of kids that are not angels. I am confident that she does not now nor plan to use alcohol or other drugs. She doesn't want it to affect her sports performance. Will that last all the way through high school? I hope so but I can'n say she will neve drink or try pot. Believe me, I"m not naive.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Mom
a resident of Foothill High School
on Dec 29, 2011 at 2:16 pm

Steve

Thanks for the judgement on my relationship with my daughter and myself. Believe me I don't have a 'Not my kid attitude'. However since that makes me a minority in this town, I can see why you are confused. For your information, She and I discuss this frequently. We have a good relationship. I am fully aware that there are honors students, athletes and all kinds of kids that are not angels. I am confident that she does not now nor plan to use alcohol or other drugs. She doesn't want it to affect her sports performance. Will that last all the way through high school? I hope so but I can'n say she will neve drink or try pot. Believe me, I"m not naive.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Patriot
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Dec 29, 2011 at 4:28 pm

"Maybe a discussion on Charter Schools is needed?"

Charter schools have drug problems as do private schools. I went to both private and public schools 30 years ago and both had issues with drugs.

Stacey has a good point. If you're worried that your child has a drug problem, it is far more effective to have your child tested and have a drug dog sniff your child's possessions at your home.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Patriot
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Dec 29, 2011 at 4:32 pm

"The ACLU is active in other states with this drug sniffing. California has not been tested yet, since the last time the ACLU filed a lawsuit against a school district, the district ended its practiced (in the 90s). PUSD may be the district that is dumb enough to spend money on lawyers and take this issue all the way to the supreme court. We will see"

Count me in. I'm with you 100% on this one and will add my support bringing the lawsuit.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by solid parenting in P-town
a resident of Foothill High School
on Dec 29, 2011 at 7:05 pm

Is the issue that you folks have here that your kids may be caught with drugs or that a dog was used to find the drugs? In either case, seems like you're worried about the wrong things. No wonder the students in this district feel entitled and "untouchable." Anytime they're caught doing something wrong mommy and daddy hire a lawyer.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Cholo
a resident of Livermore
on Dec 29, 2011 at 8:06 pm

everybody person must be afray....sniffy sniffy, sniffy sniffy...


 +   Like this comment
Posted by putyourmoneywhereyourmothis
a resident of Castlewood
on Dec 29, 2011 at 8:13 pm

Hey Patriot-
Why don't you put your money where your mouth is. If this happens, I want you to pledge here on this blog that you will 100% FUND a case against the PUSD. That means you hire your own lawyer and you fully fund the lawsuit, cause I mean you say without a doubt this is a constitutional violation right? Hmmm...step up to the plate buddy~! Oh..and just curious, do you have a child that attends a school in the PUSD? Or do you just like to be a blow hard and cause the district to spend money on unnecessary lawsuits. Maybe you are just an incognito Occupy Protester bored with your life cause your tent was torn down in Oakland.?? Not sure...


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Patriot
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Dec 30, 2011 at 9:03 am

To the above poster who doesn't have the decency or manners to stick to a single name on these forums:

I will use my own money, and I will get whatever group I can involved in the lawsuit. I will not "100% FUND a case against the PUSD". Why should I? Scroll up and you'll see people who agree with me and will join in the cause.

"...without a doubt this is a constitutional violation right"

No, I don't say that.

"Maybe you are just an incognito Occupy Protester bored with your life cause your tent was torn down in Oakland."

If you pay any attention to these forums, you'll see that I always post as "Patriot" from "Another Pleasanton neighborhood". You'll also see my opinion regarding Occupy protests and Tea Party rallies, and the proper role and size of government at all levels.

While you're making assumptions about me, can I assume you're one of these people who will support a parcel tax, regardless of the amount, conditions, or purpose of the tax? Just curious.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Really
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Dec 30, 2011 at 10:38 am

Whats interesting to me is what you are actually attempting to protect Patriot. You want to protect the freedom of bringing drugs to school. There are dogs at airports, do you plan to sue them as well? This is quite a change in your many views you post here. Hmmm drugs in our schools, next Im sure you will be saying its the teachers fault.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Be Informed
a resident of Canyon Oaks
on Dec 30, 2011 at 11:07 am

"Posted by Resident, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, 22 hours ago

Posted by Be Informed: FACT

School ADMIN needs NO warrent to search a students belongings, cars, lockers or their person.

Resident responds:

"I hope you are not that teacher that told AVHS students that they had no rights once in school - NONSENSE!. I challenge you to search my child without a warrant, and I guarantee you the biggest lawsuit you have ever seen. No person (minor or not) can be searched wihtout INDIVIDUAL PROBABLE SUSPICION."

I guess that you have 75K to STRART and up to a MILLION to burn on a Law Suit? YOUR MONEY should be saved for REHAB for YOUR child...


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Patriot
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Dec 30, 2011 at 11:11 am

"You want to protect the freedom of bringing drugs to school"

Totally putting words into my mouth. Totally. What I want to protect is freedom from unreasonable search and seizure.

"There are dogs at airports, do you plan to sue them as well?"

As long as we are on the subject of airports, I think the approach there is wrong also. We should be more focused on profiling and less focused on searching. I think we could learn of few things from the way the Israelis deal with airport security.

Web Link


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Pro-Law
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Dec 30, 2011 at 11:49 am

I don't see how it would be illegal for a police officer to walk a dog between parked cars as some have said. The only "search" done there is the smelling of the air. The initial search/smell is of the air, and the air has no expectation of privacy. Outside of a parked vehicle the police aren't detaining anyone or actually searching anyone at that time. If a verified trained police dog with trained handler does indicate hitting on an illegal drug then a search of the interior of the vehicle is allowed. These dogs and their handlers follow strict training guidelines in order to be recognized by the courts. On the same token, dogs will hit on vehicles even when there are no drugs in the vehicle. This often happens when drugs have previously been in the vehicle, but moved. I'm not sure on the timeline of how long a moved drug will cause a hit though, but the search is still okay.

Also, on school campuses, police have a much lower threshold to conduct searches. Reasonable suspicion is the operative word on school campuses, not probable cause, which is the much higher standard. Nonetheless, a drug dog indicating a hit on something is probable cause right there, so more then enough on a school campus.

With all that said, I don't know if it is morally right or wrong to have the drug canines there, but legally speaking, what the district and PPD are proposing is well within current case law.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Colin
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Dec 30, 2011 at 12:20 pm

In review of the bulk of the comments posted, I'm going to quickly express disappointment that so many individuals are ready to sacrifice the civil liberties of other people. While it seems notionally predicated on the idea of "safety for all", a flimsy pro-regulatory position if there ever was one, the tacit basis seems to be that festooning the halls with police dogs will abdicate each of you from being halfway responsible parents.

As with most developmental issues, the onus falls to each of you to provide moral and ethical principles to your children, unfettered by the blatant hypocrisy so rife among you "do as I say, and not as I do" folk. Why not put down the Pinot, set aside your Xanax and Ambien, and actually try engaging your kids.

Separately, for those of you who think weed is a serious issue, it's time to pop that upper middle class suburbian cocoon to which you're so desperately clinging. The real impact of the drug is decidedly de minimis, a fact you'd realize if you spent less time on the DARE website and more time educating yourself about the substance. That your kids might be going to dangerous lengths to acquire it might more reasonably reflect your unmitigated and disgustingly draconian desire to sick the hounds on them between third and fourth period.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Patriot
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Dec 30, 2011 at 1:17 pm

"With all that said, I don't know if it is morally right or wrong to have the drug canines there, but legally speaking, what the district and PPD are proposing is well within current case law."

They will get a chance to prove that in the court of law if PUSD goes ahead with this.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Be infomed
a resident of Canyon Oaks
on Dec 30, 2011 at 1:43 pm

Patriot,

I assume that YOU have school age children in high school, a vested interest?

SAVE your HARD EARNED MONEY, for BAIL, LAWYERS FEE'S, Fines, DRUG SCHOOL, and Rehab for YOUR lil angels!

Meth, XTC, LSD are FELONY charges in most cases. Say Bye Bye to that Ivy Leauge School.

The AIM is to get the DRUG DEALERS OFF CAMPUS!

Not ONE SINGLE parent of a child addicted to DRUGS, who's life has been ruined, expected that. No amount of "good parenting", MONEY, staus or CLASS, EVER protected a child from addiction.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Colin
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Dec 30, 2011 at 2:03 pm

Be Informed,

As persuasive discussion goes, adding lots of capital letters and exclamation points to your post does nothing to add substantive value. Settle down and form a cogent argument.

To that end, I'd also note your absurdly hyperbolic statements fall well short of compelling. The substantial bulk of Americans have used drugs in some capacity, which would statistically include a major portion of the people posting to this issue. By your logic, these people are likely to be drug-addled criminals, a notion that rings so false, it goes beyond the pale.

At best, your post reads like any other screed from a sheltered, closed-minded individual, convinced his or her environs are in perpetual decline as a result of largely imagined enemies.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Colin
a resident of Canyon Oaks
on Dec 30, 2011 at 2:12 pm

Colin...

Thanks for the suggestions and input.

"At best, your post reads like any other screed from a sheltered, closed-minded individua"

Having toured the world for over 25 years in the music industry, with the likes of Jeff beck, Carlos Santana, Journey....

I have seen what drugs do to good and talented people.

Sheltered you say, funny.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Be Informed
a resident of Canyon Oaks
on Dec 30, 2011 at 2:15 pm

Correction:

Above post by Be Informed, directed to Colin


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Colin
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Dec 30, 2011 at 2:23 pm

I just want to be clear here, then. The basis for your position on allowing dogs to hunt for drugs in an affluent California suburb is predicated on your purported experience touring with some bands?

If we're going to use that poor subset as a basis for legislation, why don't we prevent kids from getting haircuts without police supervision based on Britney Spears publicly shaving her head. A sort of "US Weekly"-meets-the-Pleasanton-police-department framework for establishing what is in the best interests of children in the community.

Let me know how that goes.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Stacey
a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Dec 30, 2011 at 4:01 pm

Stacey is a registered user.

Be Informed,

I've been trying to understand your response to me regarding PUSD putting out funds. From the article, it sounds like since this is a measure headed to the school board, PUSD will in fact put out funds to hire drug sniffing dogs.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Stacey
a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Dec 30, 2011 at 4:05 pm

Stacey is a registered user.

Then there's the more fundamental point: what is the effectiveness of drug sniffing dogs at preventing drug abuse?

Mom and her daughter sound like they have an open and trusting relationship. Such a relationship is rather crucial to keep teens away from drugs, according to drug abuse experts. Would Mom hire drug sniffing dogs to sniff her daughter's room? Why not?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Be Informed
a resident of Canyon Oaks
on Dec 30, 2011 at 4:10 pm

The high schools have resource officers from PPD. Bringing in the "dog" from time to time will NOT cost PUSD funds.

Noor does PUSD PAY for the PPD resource officers from PPD.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Patriot
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Dec 30, 2011 at 4:14 pm

"I assume that YOU have school age children in high school, a vested interest?"

You know what happens when you assume, right?

" No amount of "good parenting", MONEY, staus or CLASS, EVER protected a child from addiction."

"Good parenting" never protected a child from addiction? Is that what you meant to say? Drug sniffing dogs at school parking lots are more effective than good parenting?

Also, can you please stop changing what you put into the "Name:" field when you post?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Pro-Civil Liberty
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Dec 30, 2011 at 9:21 pm

Personally, I see drug sniffing dogs making all the students feel like none of the administration trust them. What does everyone think happens when teenagers don't feel respected or that anyone trusts them? The current program at the schools is getting students to call in on a tip line on who the drug users and sellers are...no questions asked. I think it would go further if administration spent their efforts on encouraging the students to step up and take responsiblity for making their schools drug free.

And yes, I have a big issue with how civil liberties have been eroded everywhere in this country for "the good of all". My family has not flown since the scanners went into the airports because of it.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Parent to Parent
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Dec 31, 2011 at 10:07 am

Be careful what you wish for when giving away your child's civil liberties.

It does not help that a student at a PUSD high school was found to be innocent of a false allegation. The false allegation gave school administration the excuse they wanted to search the student's vehicle. A multi-use-tool that is primarily a screwdriver and pliers but has a small fold out army knife blade was in the glove box. This innocent tool that I put in all family members Xmas stockings (surprise, a felony on a school campus even when locked in a car glovebox) began a nightmare that has not ended. The draconian abuse of power is truly frightening.
To all parents who think their child innocent with nothing to fear.... think again.
I too would like all drugs off school campuses, but I could never support this action having lived our nightmare.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Resident
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Jan 1, 2012 at 5:08 pm

It looks like this is being used (the dogs) and challenged in many places. Here is a school district in California, 2009:

"According to the La Canada Valley Sun, La Canada Unified School District (LCUSD) is revising its policies after the constitutionality of the school district's search and seizure practices were questioned by a parent who is a career federal public defender. "

Full article:

Web Link

""We were made aware those practices weren't legal," said Wendy Sinnette, LCUSD's assistant superintendent of human resources. "This is one of the reasons we're making these revisions.""

Source:

Web Link


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Mom
a resident of Foothill Knolls
on Jan 2, 2012 at 9:06 am

Students should demand an assembly with a speaker on students rights as suggested in the above article. It would be a better use of time than a gift wrap assembly.

My student always complained that his civics teacher was nervous and discouraged discussion about students rights. The aministration does not want students or parents knowing that they have rights.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Lucy
a resident of Laguna Oaks
on Jan 3, 2012 at 9:08 am

We need to get a grip on the DRUG problem in this town. It is starting in the Middle Schools and then High School etc... Please wake up PLEASANTON...........


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Mom
a resident of Foothill Knolls
on Jan 3, 2012 at 10:01 am

Drugs and alcohol are and have been a concern for generations. Most of us parents grew up during the "sex, drugs and rock and roll" era. Risk taking has always been one of the greatest challenges for parents. This is not new and is not limited to Pleasanton.
I do not need to wake up to this information. I do not abdicate my parental responsibilities or my child's civil rights.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Really?
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Jan 3, 2012 at 1:59 pm

Then tell me why you think its the school job to hold an assembly to inform the students of their rights. Wouldnt that be the parents job? How do you think the real issue of drugs on campus should be dealt with? Are you ok with your child attending school with others who are using, dealing, and bringing drugs on campus? How would you fix this.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Mom
a resident of Foothill Knolls
on Jan 3, 2012 at 3:20 pm

Really???
Informing, otherwise called teaching, is the schools job. They should teach honest and balanced civics and government classes. If they are going to use questionable tactics, like searches without cause, the students should have an opportunity to be informed and have discussion about it.
I went to a "good" local High School thirty years ago. I did not go to the bathroom during school because that is where the kids were openly smoking and doing drugs. The problem is not as bad today as it was then.
Of course my kids live in a world where drugs exist and I do my best to guide them through that world. Educators know that rebellion and risk taking is a part of the adolescent journey and it will always be a challenge. Parents should know that it is the hardest part of parenting teenagers as well. It is not always easy or fun but good and bad I am fully committed to my parental responsibility and I love it. I believe most parents in this community are very involved with their kids.
Growing up is a journey that is hard on the parents but often harder on the kids.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Resident
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Jan 3, 2012 at 3:53 pm

"Then tell me why you think its the school job to hold an assembly to inform the students of their rights"

For one, HS students must take Civics as a requirement for graduation. Part of that class should be about rights and other constitutional issues.

And also, there are teachers who could benefit from the information. There is a teacher at AVHS who told the students that they lose their rights at school. That teacher and all the other misinformed teachers, staff and administration need to be present when the students are informed of their rights, so they (teachers, staff...) can also become aware of those rights and avoid doing something that will result in lawsuits.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Stacey
a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Jan 3, 2012 at 4:06 pm

Stacey is a registered user.

Rebellion and risk-taking is also a part of early childhood and adulthood.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Phil
a resident of Canyon Creek
on Jan 3, 2012 at 4:34 pm

I think there should be dogs posted at every school entrance in the state. And water cannons.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Really?
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Jan 3, 2012 at 5:27 pm

I'm just really surprised that you are now seeing this as the schools responsibility- to just inform them of their rights, but to not do anything to keep the drugs off the campus. Would you hold this same attitude towards the adults there? Or is that a whole different standard for you.

As I see it, it is your job to educate your child about their rights. I educate my children, just wondering why you put the responsibility on the schools, so you can blame them when the kids don't follow the rules. It is our job, and I agree not always an easy one.

It is also our job to punish people who are breaking the law. Anyone bringing drugs onto school grounds is against the law. Why is it suddenly different now when it comes to how to stop those breaking the law?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Resident
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Jan 3, 2012 at 8:04 pm

Really?:

Of course I educate my children about their rights, and I am sure all parents do. But we do have about a 3 percent low income students in our high schools, and it is those kids I worry about.

I think the idea of having an assembly to explain their rights to the students is a good one. After all, they have assemblies for all kinds of things, they even had that simulation of an accident to teach about drinking and driving.

Having an assembly to teach students their rights does not substitute for parental guidance, just like having assemblies/acting of an accident due to teen drinking and driving does not take away the parents' responsibility for teaching about this.

Besides, like I said before, a teacher at Amador told students that they lost their rights at school. Maybe if the school had to prepare an assembly to teach students about their rights, this uninformed teacher and others like him/her may learn a thing or two.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Resident
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Jan 3, 2012 at 8:15 pm

"It is also our job to punish people who are breaking the law. Anyone bringing drugs onto school grounds is against the law. Why is it suddenly different now when it comes to how to stop those breaking the law?"


I guess that assembly to teach about constitutional rights is quite needed, and people like you should have a front row seat, so you can learn why it matters "how to stop those breaking the law"


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Really?
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Jan 3, 2012 at 9:13 pm

It was you I was questioning, I am for keeping drugs off campus. Having dogs in the parking lot is not going against our rights anymore than the dogs in the airports.

No need for the backhand insults, really.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Patriot
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Jan 3, 2012 at 10:05 pm

To "Really",

Airports are violating our rights as I said above. Much of it is just theater and feel good measures that don't keep us safe.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Really?
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Jan 3, 2012 at 10:31 pm

"Much of it is just theater and feel good measures that don't keep us safe"

That is exactly my point with an assembly. So what would you do to keep drugs off campus?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Stacey
a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Jan 3, 2012 at 10:54 pm

Stacey is a registered user.

If education is a means of social justice, then let's get right to the heart of the matter. A state-supported education should equip all citizens to rule, not just to allow others to rule over them. Citizens should feel confident to fully participate in our representative democracy. An assembly of student rights could only ever be illuminating. Perhaps young people wouldn't feel so powerless in society.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Patriot
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Jan 4, 2012 at 10:22 pm

"So what would you do to keep drugs off campus"

Parents need to do their part.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Cholo
a resident of Livermore
on Jan 11, 2012 at 9:58 pm

Put up a reward and all the snitches will show up the next day with their parents to claim the money...with a long list of pothead and dealers.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Amador Parent
a resident of Amador Valley High School
on Jan 12, 2012 at 7:58 pm

If a teacher even "suspects" a student has or is on drugs, they are directed to notify the office. They do not need probable cause - just a suspicion. The student will then be pulled out of class with backpack in tow, often by the resource officer on campus. The officer then has the duty of doing several "tests" to see if said student is high or carrying anything. To top it off, there is absolutely no obligation for the school or officer to contact you if your child has been searched. I experienced this first hand and still find it amazing that a student can be accused of something and I have no right to know. What happened to innocent before guilty? Are the teachers in Pleasanton that scared of the students? No probable cause? Really?


Don't miss out on the discussion!
Sign up to be notified of new comments on this topic.

Email:


Post a comment

Posting an item on Town Square is simple and requires no registration. Just complete this form and hit "submit" and your topic will appear online. Please be respectful and truthful in your postings so Town Square will continue to be a thoughtful gathering place for sharing community information and opinion. All postings are subject to our TERMS OF USE, and may be deleted if deemed inappropriate by our staff.

We prefer that you use your real name, but you may use any "member" name you wish.

Name: *

Select your neighborhood or school community: *

Comment: *

Verification code: *
Enter the verification code exactly as shown, using capital and lowercase letters, in the multi-colored box.

*Required Fields

Demographics present challenges for Livermore
By Tim Hunt | 13 comments | 1,232 views

Why we need the Water Bond
By Roz Rogoff | 13 comments | 803 views

November Ballot Prop 2 Devils or Angels in the Details?
By Tom Cushing | 2 comments | 801 views