Jump to content
Howard

Illegal search of 75 to find 5

Recommended Posts

This has been in the news in my town, Randolph NJ  https://www.tapinto.net/towns/randolph/categories/news/articles/randolph-superintendent-clarifies-school-administ

At a school football game last Friday night a open can of beer rolled out of the stands.  I think there was a slightly illegal over reaction to this as the school rounded up all 75 students that were in that section of the stands and told each of them they could go to the hospital within two hours for alcohol testing or be suspended for five days.  Guess the school is now a Constitutional Free Zone.  The nanny state is going way too far.  I believe 5 out of the 75 tested positive, so the policy is the town will pay for the testing for the 70 that were clean.  So this over reaction will likely cost taxpayers tens of thousands of dollars from the local hospitals plus the likely law suits that will follow.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Howard said:

This has been in the news in my town, Randolph NJ  https://www.tapinto.net/towns/randolph/categories/news/articles/randolph-superintendent-clarifies-school-administ

At a school football game last Friday night a open can of beer rolled out of the stands.  I think there was a slightly illegal over reaction to this as the school rounded up all 75 students that were in that section of the stands and told each of them they could go to the hospital within two hours for alcohol testing or be suspended for five days.  Guess the school is now a Constitutional Free Zone.  The nanny state is going way too far.  I believe 5 out of the 75 tested positive, so the policy is the town will pay for the testing for the 70 that were clean.  So this over reaction will likely cost taxpayers tens of thousands of dollars from the local hospitals plus the likely law suits that will follow.

 

Students never enjoyed the constitutional rights to the same extend that adults do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just love the "apology letter" from the administration. I think that roughly translates into

1) We will set up a cavity check at the entrance

2) & 3) We want ability to throw whole town into mandated testing. We will further study on effective means of managing crowds, perhaps borrow some practices from cattle farming

4) Perhaps hire more psychos with experience managing patients at psych wards

5) We dont give a F about what you think. You dont have any alternatives and you will put up with it. Or else, we will setup a CPS visit to your home

 

 

--------------------

Some of the pressing issues I plan to address going forward, are: (1) improving the process for ensuring that drugs and alcoholic beverages are not brought onto our campus for athletic and other events; (2) a methodology for sending students to different facilities in the event we need to send a large group of students for testing so as to avoid overcrowding at any one particular location; (3) clearer direction to medical staff on the type of screening that we require (blood versus urine, etc.); (4) further training for our staff; and (5) a comprehensive review of our substance abuse policy and regulation for which community input is always welcome.

I also wonder, with what authority did Hospitals run the urine and blood tests ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, jackandjill said:

I also wonder, with what authority did Hospitals run the urine and blood tests ?

The students who showed up for testing did so 'voluntarily'.  The hospital wouldn't know (or perhaps wouldn't care) what coercion was going on in the background, only that they had people showing up and asking to be tested.

Though I now wonder if there is a minimum age of consent for such a test...does anyone know at what point you need a parent or guardian to sign off?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, 10X said:

The students who showed up for testing did so 'voluntarily'.  The hospital wouldn't know (or perhaps wouldn't care) what coercion was going on in the background, only that they had people showing up and asking to be tested.

Though I now wonder if there is a minimum age of consent for such a test...does anyone know at what point you need a parent or guardian to sign off?

I had to sign as adult when a nephew had to get a urine test done for EMT.  A nurse refused to draw blood from patient without his consent and its national news, yet hospital(s) got 10s of these kids and performed tests without asking questions ?

I am against lawsuits, but I sure hope parents find some good lawyers and sue the heck out of every person, company and organization and town involved. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, 10X said:

The students who showed up for testing did so 'voluntarily'.  The hospital wouldn't know (or perhaps wouldn't care) what coercion was going on in the background, only that they had people showing up and asking to be tested.

Though I now wonder if there is a minimum age of consent for such a test...does anyone know at what point you need a parent or guardian to sign off?

Parents always have to consent, but their decision not to will result in some form of disciplinary action towards the student. I believe courts have upheld the RANDOM testing of students, when there is cause for concern that alcohol or drugs are being used. 

 

Why they required a blood test is beyond me, and they could be in trouble with that considering any police officer attending the event, or multiple would request students provide a breath test. There is no reason to draw blood and is much more intrusive. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Parents always have to consent, but their decision not to will result in some form of disciplinary action towards the student. I believe courts have upheld the RANDOM testing of students, when there is cause for concern that alcohol or drugs are being used. 
 
Why they required a blood test is beyond me, and they could be in trouble with that considering any police officer attending the event, or multiple would request students provide a breath test. There is no reason to draw blood and is much more intrusive. 

Random might be every 11th person but to take an entire section of stands that was 75 people
Is not random. They found a can or two or beer on the ground and then accused everyone - guilty till proven innocent. A law suit is needed in my opinion, and I once stated at a Holiday Inn Express - so I should know :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Better question yet, any field sobriety tests; before the presumption of guilt?

Nope, they just threatened everyone in the section and offered them a choice of "voluntary" testing or a five day suspension and presumed guilt.
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This will have to land in the 1a lounge for my full, unvarnished opinion. 

Another scummy public employee making stupid decisions without consequences. Let the 70 parents sue and win $70 million. What does he care? Taxes go up to cover the mess, it does not cost him a dime or a wink of sleep and the stupidity continues.

At least now I found a good weekend hobby. I'm getting one of those water balloon launchers and I am going to shoot empty beer cans over the fences into the crowd at high school football games.

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What a crock.  The school superintendent is a moron.

From his own comments in the article:

"several of the students seated in that section were visibly intoxicated."

"Visibly intoxicated" is probable cause to test them, NOT everyone sitting in that section.

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Howard said:


Random might be every 11th person but to take an entire section of stands that was 75 people
Is not random. They found a can or two or beer on the ground and then accused everyone - guilty till proven innocent. A law suit is needed in my opinion, and I once stated at a Holiday Inn Express - so I should know :)

every 11th person would be a pattern. random is just walking past the group, and picking random kids.

 

 that said......it was on private property, right? as in the schools property? and they were all underage students, right? i suspect that those two things combined makes this legitimate. i could be wrong on that though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, jackandjill said:

I had to sign as adult when a nephew had to get a urine test done for EMT.  A nurse refused to draw blood from patient without his consent and its national news, yet hospital(s) got 10s of these kids and performed tests without asking questions ?

I am against lawsuits, but I sure hope parents find some good lawyers and sue the heck out of every person, company and organization and town involved. 

Schools act in loco parentis when students are in their care. You would be surprised what they can legally do and authorize. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, 1LtCAP said:

every 11th person would be a pattern. random is just walking past the group, and picking random kids.

 

 that said......it was on private property, right? as in the schools property? and they were all underage students, right? i suspect that those two things combined makes this legitimate. i could be wrong on that though.

Good point on every 11th not being totally random.  Did not know Constitutional rights don't apply to private property - although a town school is public property not private property.  So I guess this means if I own a business on private property you are saying I can discriminate against people and search them for no reason :)

 

1 minute ago, raz-0 said:

Schools act in loco parentis when students are in their care. You would be surprised what they can legally do and authorize. 

Well just because they say they can do something does not mean the courts will support it.  Further their policy says they can "blah blah blah blah" when they observe a student who appears to be impaired.  That does NOT give them the right to just pick an entire section of 75 students and say you are guilty until you prove you are innocent.  This was the case as proved by the results that only 5 out of 75 had any alcohol in their system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Howard said:

Good point on every 11th not being totally random.  Did not know Constitutional rights don't apply to private property - although a town school is public property not private property.  So I guess this means if I own a business on private property you are saying I can discriminate against people and search them for no reason :)

 

Well just because they say they can do something does not mean the courts will support it.  Further their policy says they can "blah blah blah blah" when they observe a student who appears to be impaired.  That does NOT give them the right to just pick an entire section of 75 students and say you are guilty until you prove you are innocent.  This was the case as proved by the results that only 5 out of 75 had any alcohol in their system.

that's the part i don't know. i do know that i can refuse to deal with a customer at my business. i wouldn't personally try to search them if i thought anything illegal was going on. to me, that's wha the police are here for. and i have in the past called them on 1 customer that was a car salesman. one of those gypsies. 'cause every time he was here, i found needles, and little dope bags out on the lot. that shit don't fly here. they couldn't really do anything since i nor they didn't witness it, and they tried. they parked unmarked across the street. in the end, i kicked him off the lot. i ain't risking ANYthing because a drug addict(and face it, that's what alcoholics are) can't control himself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You'd need to go look at cases such as New Jersey v. T.L.O, which have established that schools acting in loco parentis aren't immune from the protections of the 4th amendment, however it grants them significant leeway. In this case I would suspect that maintaining order/sobriety at a school run sporting event would fall within their permitted abilities perform a search. 

The medical nature of said search would fall under their abilities as presumed temporary guardians/custodians of the students. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Howard--I'm sorry to single you out--read up several SCOTUS decisions regarding schools and children under their care. You would be surprised to find out that the school even has the authority to punish students for behavior outside the school and school hours. Now, I'm not saying I agree with it, I'm just tell you how it is.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, WP22 said:

Howard--I'm sorry to single you out--read up several SCOTUS decisions regarding schools and children under their care. You would be surprised to find out that the school even has the authority to punish students for behavior outside the school and school hours. Now, I'm not saying I agree with it, I'm just tell you how it is.

 

This is a logical consequence when there is a political element in our society that believes "it takes a village" to raise a child and "government knows best."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Howard said:

Good point on every 11th not being totally random.  Did not know Constitutional rights don't apply to private property - although a town school is public property not private property.  So I guess this means if I own a business on private property you are saying I can discriminate against people and search them for no reason :)

 

Well just because they say they can do something does not mean the courts will support it.  Further their policy says they can "blah blah blah blah" when they observe a student who appears to be impaired.  That does NOT give them the right to just pick an entire section of 75 students and say you are guilty until you prove you are innocent.  This was the case as proved by the results that only 5 out of 75 had any alcohol in their system.

Did they all test positive or did some  the parents let them refuse and take the suspension? The BOE will never divulge that info.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Did they all test positive or did some  the parents let them refuse and take the suspension? The BOE will never divulge that info.


The word is five or less than five, depending which story you read, tested positive. That means over 93% tested negative. Total over reach was done and heads should role.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...