Sniffing out trouble
Original post made on Feb 3, 2012
Read the full story here Web Link posted Friday, February 3, 2012, 12:00 AM
on Feb 3, 2012 at 7:15 am
"all school administrators need is a reasonable suspicion, which is a legal proof less than probable cause."
They need INDIVIDUAL reasonable suspicion.
"In Livermore, when they're brought in, students are asked to leave their backpacks behind in the classroom and class is held somewhere else."
This is a violation of 4th amendment rights here in California. It goes to show that Livermore parental population is not as aware of their rights as we are here in Pleasanton. The 9th circuit court already ruled that sniffing a student or his/her backpack is considered a search, and if done without INDIVIDUAL reasonable suspicion, it is a violation of 4th amendment rights.
"In pushing for the drug dogs, Kevin Johnson, Pleasanton school district's senior director of pupil services"
With all thess budget cuts, this is a position that should be let go. After all, he is about to cost the district a lot of money in legal fees. Kevin: Connecticut is in the 2nd circuit court of appeals, we are in the 9th circuit court. Have you not read all the legal background here in California? Glenn has a summary in this article. Or about the legal background in other states like Washington which are also in the 9th circuit? Here is the map of the circuit courts:
"It's unlikely, however, that the court will rule before the Pleasanton board lets drug dogs start their searches here"
Yes, so Pleasanton may well be in court at the same time. This is absolutely ridiculous.
The board members are out of line for approving this. When will you stop doing what the administration tells you and start thinking for youselves? I am especially disappointed in Hintzke, whose husband seemed to have reasonable ideas and objections to this issue.
Let the legal battle begin!
on Feb 3, 2012 at 8:37 am
Since you keep referencing the 9th circus court, I thought this L.A. Times article might bring some perspective into this discussion about their judicial record: Web Link
Just saying, they are not the unquestionable authority on most matters brought before them, so any ruling they make will likely be overturned or at least thoroughly re-examined.
None of this is settled law, is my point, especially with this court's liberal interpretations so often proven wrong.
on Feb 3, 2012 at 9:06 am
"None of this is settled law, is my point, especially with this court's liberal interpretations so often proven wrong."
The ruling of the 9th circuit court stands until a challenge is made and the US Supreme Court rules. There is a Florida case pending.
Until someone challenges the ruling of the 9th circuit court (about sniffing), that applies right now, and Livermore is doing something that in California so far is considered a violation of 4th amendment rights.
Another school district in California was doing something similar to what Livermore is doing and a parent sued and the district quickly ended the nonsense (this was in 2009 and the case did not go to court since the district decided to change what they were doing).
We will see what happens. I am surprised that a district that claims to be short in cash and is about to make some serious budget cuts is willing to spend money on litigation, making decisions based on cases in different areas (2 circuit) and a district (Livermore) that is not even following existing rules.