You may have heard that Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools is proposing to bring in drug-sniffing police dogs to curb an increase in drug activity in the school system. Mark Price of The Charlotte Observer recently reported that the actual number of drug incidents last year was 543 students out of 133,774 enrolled, a 13-percent increase.
School officials are anxious to nip the issue in the bud, so they are attempting to use dogs to search desks, book bags, lockers, automobiles and other personal property. Students “linked” to the drugs will be subject to criminal prosecution. (The school board will host a second reading — which is open to the public — for the proposed strategy on Sept. 28. The board will vote on the policy in October.)
While I commend CMS officials for trying to get ahead of what appears to be a growing problem, I find it disconcerting that their approach involves the use of drug-sniffing police dogs as a remedy. Apparently, students will be in “lockdown” while the dogs are allowed to sniff the students’ personal property. All students are subject to the search, not just those who are suspected of engaging in illegal activities. Searches will only take place with the approval of the superintendent, chief operating officer, and with a CMS police member on campus.
Is it just me or does this proposed policy seem to trample on the constitutional rights of students? To force students to relinquish book bags, purses, jackets, cars and other belongings to random inspections by drug-sniffing dogs could very well violate guarantees against unreasonable searches and seizures. I’m not a legal scholar by any stretch of the imagination, but it does appear that drug-sniffing dogs at schools is a slippery slope that CMS would not want to mess with, which may be why the practice was discontinued (sometime in the 1990s) in the first place.
WBTV reported that Randy Hagler of the CMS Law Enforcement Department stated that doing drug searches like this has been ruled constitutional because there is no “expectation of privacy” when a student does things like use a school locker or parks his or her car on a school campus. Why wouldn’t a student expect privacy in his or her personal property like an automobile? If a student is pulled over by a police officer on his/her way to school, the police officer has to have probable cause to search the vehicle. Why wouldn’t that law apply to a vehicle parked on school grounds?
While I get it — no one in his right mind wants students using drugs — trampling on their rights is wrong. Has CMS looked at the possible correlation between laying off school security staff and “behavior management technicians” last spring, who worked with troubled students, and the increase in drug activity on CMS campuses? What is the difference in the cost of using drug-sniffing police dogs and having proper security staffing at schools? Does CMS have other strategies in place to help curb the growth in drug activity — or is this it?
In my mind, there are far too many questions to put a policy like this in place. It is important to curb drug activity, but at what cost? Should schools resemble prisons in their treatment of students? Being on “lockdown” is not an educational or aspirational device. Why are individual rights being discarded as if they are unimportant? If we’re teaching students about the U.S. Constitution and to value it, doesn’t it fly in the face of those efforts when subjecting all students to search and seizure without probable cause? One could argue that the increase in drug activity is probable cause, but this is such a broad application of probable cause, one wonders how it could possibly stand up in court. Again, so many questions and very few answers.
Whenever there are more questions than answers, particularly when it comes to children — and teenagers are children — then I think it’s best to exercise some restraint. More research needs to be done before CMS proceeds with a policy like this, which communicates to kids that they are guilty until proven innocent — which, quite frankly, is unacceptable and un-American.
This article appears in Sep 21-27, 2010.
I wonder what are they teaching students about the US Constitution these days, especially since the govt appears to have gone batshit crazy in trampling all over this document along with civil liberties.
The current administration claims the right to execute US citizens w/o charge or due process.
The Bush administration signed the Military Commissions Act that allows for suspension of habeas corpus for US citizens and noncitizens and eliminates habeas corpus rights for anyone deemed by president to be an enemy combatant. In Sept 09, Obama allowed continuation of this program.
In Oct 09, Justice Dept attorneys argued before San Fran Fed Dist Judge Walker that he should toss out the Shubert v Bush suit brought by Electronic Frontier Foundation. Suit challenges secret State driftnet surveillance of Americans’ electronic communications. NYT did several stories in 2009 revealing that despite assurances from Obama administration, the NSA continues warrantless surveillance of private e-mails and phone calls of Americans on a scale that goes beyond the broad legal limits set up by Congress in 2008.
The terrorist label is being expanded to include any acts that interfere or promote interference with operations of animal enterprises. The Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act expands the definition of animal enterprise to include any business that uses or sell animals or animal products. The law essentially defines protestors, boycotters, or picketers of businesses in US as terrorists – a clear infringement of 1st Amendment rights.
The current administration is seeking authority from Congress that would compel ISPs w/o a judge’s approval to turn over records of a person’s internet activity for use in secretive FBI probes. The adminstration proposes changes to the Electronic Communications Privacy Act that would expand volume of private records that can be seized through Natl Sec Ltrs (NSLs). NSL is administrative subpoena that can be executed by agencies such as FBI, CIA, DOD solely on say so of supervisory agents, not a court order. Recipient can’t disclose that he/she had received NSL.
In March, Federal Computer Week Reported that Fusion Centers are Rapidly Expanding. DHS and Justice Dept have provided cash and personnel to these data mining centers. Numbers increased from 38 in 2006 to 72 currently and counting. ACLU did reports in 2007 and 2008 which found a broadening of types of info sought by these centers to include not only criminal intel but public and private sector data. Participation in centers includes law enforcement, other govt agencies, military, and private sector. ACLU Sept 09 report found fusion centers spy on antiwar, environmental, and religious groups – and will receive access to classified military intel.
A heavily redacted report released in 2009 by inspectors general of 5 federal agencies found that most intel officials interviewed had difficulty citing specific instances when the NSA wiretapping program led to successes against terrorists.
Recently, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the Justice Dept’s argument that Bush’s rendition programs are state secrets and its legality thus cannot be adjudicated by courts. Obama DOJ had appealed to 9th Circuit from 2009 ruling by 3-judge panel which rejected state secrets argument and held it cannot be used to shield Exec Branch from allegations in this case that it broke the law.
First it was the Muslim terrorists. Now those pesky infringements upon civil rights and liberties are slowly trickling down to affect your basic black and white US citizens – even the kids.
Lockdowns and drug sniffing pooches w/o probable cause at CMS are troublesome. More scary is how our govt appears to be quietly moving towards a police state.
Really? Are you an idiot Nesenga? This article was poorly researched made apparent by several of you erroneous statements. The canine use in CMS did not stop in the 1990’s. I have seen searches myself up to around 2006. Also the students have to go by the student handbook. It is not a right to drive to school. it is a privilege. Part of the agreement is that you are subject to search being on school grounds. I guess you would be opposed to the dogs searching for weapons too? Do not bring drugs to school and you do not have to worry!
This comment sounds outrageous
This comment sounds outrageous
Well when schools around the country are using xray machines and metal detectors as well as hand searching and patting down students for everyone’s safety I have to say using a dog that just walks by and smells is less intrusive on so many levels. Drugs destroy lives. My daughters school has already had 4 children removed for either using or selling on campus at a CMS school. Wake up people it’s an epidemic. Send in the dogs!