I was once pulled over by the police for a very minor infraction. I have long hair. The policeman decided that this was enough of an offense that he asked me to let him do a quick search of the vehicle for drugs.
I do not smoke pot. I do not do any drugs at all. And since my violation had nothing to do with driving in a manner which might be indicative of drug use (I had a tail light out), I took great offense at this. Would the cop have asked a middle-aged woman with the same offense to search her SUV? I doubt it.
So I refused on principal. I told him simply, “I don’t do any drugs, and therefore have none on me. I also don’t see how my offense would lead you to that conclusion. If you would like to search me, I would like to know your reason for doing so. I will allow it if I think you have a perfectly good reason to. If not, I will not.”
The cop told me to forget about it, and he also did not give me a ticket.
So I am a perfect example of someone who ON PRINCIPAL relented to a search without cause.
It should be noted that if I WAS doing something which might have logically led him to think that I might have something on me, I would have let him search the car and me.
In fact, one time while leaving a bar, my car swerved a bit when I was wiping the condensation from inside the windshield. A cop pulled me over. I DID submit to a breathalizer test there, because I could see where the cop was coming from - bar, swerve. And I passed it.
Methinks that AvenueB must love that fascist mayor NYC has now. I think they’re both putzes, actually…
Yes, they are doing it. The entire town, however, has not agreed to it. The parents who raised holy hell obviously have not agreed to it. What part of that do you not grasp? And while it is happening, it is most assuredly not legal. To say such only points up your own idiocy. One can actually use drug testing, in general, as a pretty good argument for “assuming guilt before innocence.”
As for your continued misconstruing of what has taken place, well, I for one have come to expect such.
Stuff and nonsense, laddie. As has been pointed out to you by several others, there are often times when one would choose to stay silent in the face of questioning. And to say that the defenses are used only by the guilty simply continues to point out your ignorance of the Constitution. The framers, I imagine, had pretty good reasons for including the Fifth, as well as a couple of others.
Christ in a truck! Would you please let us know if you ever plan on running for public office? Because people like you need to be shot down early and often.
I have yet to see a single person advocate teaching their children to dodge consequences. On the other hand, I have seen many people say that to force sixth graders to piss in a cup is wrong. Maybe you need instruction in reading comprehension? As to the rest? Sure, it’s a damned shame when people can’t go out at night because they need live in fear of the crack whores. You want that to stop? Then get off of your ass and do something that is helpful, rather than cowering in fear.
Actually, I’m probably too young to have been involved. Maybe you could talk to some of my elders? The “rights”, as you say, are not new. They were always there. Maybe they weren’t elucidated, but they were most assuredly there.
Now, I’m just a fuzzy-headed, mush-mouthed, dumbass liberal, but I do not recall anyone letting me know that “Freedom based on personal responsibility” is code for “I can get away with anything and the law won’t stop me.” Did anyone else out there get a code book? If so, could I borrow it?
Just happy to a part of the team!
Again, to reiterate, no one has advocated their children stonewalling the police. And society seems to be doing pretty damned well, despite my policies that are only designed to protect low-life criminal scum, and to assure that they have more rights that anyone else. Especially folk like you, with your stolen car stereos! Shit, son, my child already is a victim.
And your opinion will be given the consideration it deserves. Really.
Dr. Sue’s gonna tell me to watch my blood pressure. . . .Dealing with twerps and all will do that.
Actually, you guys are doing such a great job here you don’t need me. I thought Hitler didn’t have any offspring?
Somebody tell the Fordham law student that a Boalt lawyer (not to mention oh, say, anybody else who actually knows what they are talking about here) says he’s wrong. Unless, of course, he’s being misquoted.
I suppose that we can take AvenueIdiot here as one positive sign: people who lived during the “Star Chamber” era in England would have no problem recognizing the need for innocent folk to be able to call upon the Fifth Amendment to protect themselves. This country’s experiment with these freedoms is a success, I guess, when children like him don’t understand where the need for these protections came from. It’s like the right to vote. In this country we have a woefully low turnout at the polls, precisely because it’s a right taken for granted, since it’s not threatened.
If AvenueIdiot represents our future, though, then sadly we’ll find out the need we have for these rights in very dramatic ways. I, for one, will teach my children what their rights are and why they are important, and that INCLUDES refusing to submit to a routine drug test in school – not that I think that the school district where I live would contemplate that (too many judges in town ;)). I will also teach them what their responsibilities are. And that includes making sure other people’s rights aren’t run roughshod over, either.
No one has a “right” to a trial by jury. That is paid for by my tax dollars.
Anyway I think when Texas put “support and maintenance of free public schools” into its constitution, they made attendance at those schools a right.
I don’t normally engage in spelling or grammar flames, but what the hell, this IS the pit. Anyone need further evidence for why schools should NOT be wasting their resources on drugs tests?
Apparently you slept through Logic class too.
BTW TechChick, could you please not refer to this policy as “liberal” or “socialist”? I don’t think you’ll find many liberals or socialists in this country who would agree with it.
Sorry ruadh, sometimes I tend to confuse the two even though they are different…
Anyhow, obviously people agree with me on your fascist views Avenue. Thankfully they were better able to point out the errors in your thinking as my post was hell bent on flaming you. (Course this is The Pit)
I graduated from high school in 1986, I don’t know what kind of crap they are teaching these days, but apparently they aren’t giving you a real history lesson and frankly this is what you need.
I fear for the time I am in my 60s and the people like you will be local office…if this is the kind of shit you actually believe in and it’s wide spread, then I need to make a run for the hills, get my gun and protect my property based on the document I believe in, the Constitution. It is apparent that you wont defend it or live your life based on the rights guaranteed by it and will proceed towards a dictatorship.
I am not by any means an extremeist, I am a Libertarian. I don’t own a gun, but now with people like you out there, I better get one.
Thank you, Dr. Watson, for so pithily making a point that I’m now going to bludgeon into the ground.
Does it strike no one else as surreal the number of putative conservatives, the loudly self-proclaimed limiters of governmental power, who just ache to slide over into fascism? There exists a darling concept called probable cause that suggests that a reason must first exist to suspect wrongdoing before violating the rights of citizens.
BTW, anyone who doubts that this is under attack better look again. The number of black motorists pulled over becase they “look suspicious” is appalling. There was also a recent Supreme Court case on whether police could stop anyone running: flight=presumption of guilt. Want to be a black jogger, dearie?
Just because laws currently permit horrendous violations of personal liberty doesn’t make them right. Just a few droll examples from personal experience: I’m a public employee and have had to take both urine and blood tests pre-employment. I’m subject to random drug tests, totally unrelated to my behavior or job performance.
And I’m subject to a residency requirment. You betcha, pal, all employees are required to live within set boundaries. Where they want to live is irrelevant. If they want to stay employed, they move. Doesn’t matter if they want to stay close to an aging parent, or they lived in the house all their lives, etc. If they want their jobs, they move.
And all of this have been approved by our courts. If hating this makes me liberal, then slap my ass and call me Wanda. Hating abuses of power, presumptions of guilt and erosion of basic human rights is an indicator, and you flunk miserably. Basic human rights and dignity should not depend on skin color, age, place of employment or any other category that suits your paranoia.
Borrowing an equally pithy comment, from WallyM7 this time: putz.
And so, based on this “they are already doing” it principle, it is okay then, that because it’s law we should just shrug the whole fucking Constitution out the window and not question it?
Those parents opted out, they felt the entire issue to be intrusive on their kid’s rights. If anyone should face a penalty it should be the school district for this “no tolerance” policy. Yeah, my taxes go to this school, as much as I would like to see the school system become private, I don’t think that a govnerment agency that takes away the rights of these students is what I would call a democracy, it’s down right dictatorship…If I had kids in that school, you bet your ass I would pull them out and put them in a school that gives my kids the rights they deserve. If I couldn’t find one then I would home school. But in no terms should it ever be considered right for a school that “works for the people” to infringe upon the liberties that we are born with.
This one’s pretty much been answered, but hey, if I feel I don’t want to make a statement, yet I am coerced into showing up in court, I will take the fifth…it is a right of mine whether or not I may or may not have some stake in the outcome. If I am forced to testify, in YOUR form of government, I therefore may say something that will incriminate me. I prefer to live my life regardless…however, my personal feeling is, most likely I would be an honest person get up there and answer the questions because I am basically a law abiding person, but if the questions could incriminate me that pertain to my lack of paying the IRS or some other thing like that, then yeah, I would take the 5th.
Deal with it, this is the pit, I never said I was GOING to hit you as I am a non-violent person, but your statements are so aburd that I feel like I want to hit you…very large difference. Oh and yes, if they did attempt to arrest me if I did assualt you and they didn’t follow procedure, you bet your sweet ass I would be back out on the street. That’s the facts Jack.
How did it get that way? I think that before you and your crowd came along to give criminals all there new “rights” we didn’t have this problem. Before Miranda no one had to say a magic phrase to every criminal, and guess what? There was less crime. You tell me, HONESTLY: are we better off then before now, or worse?
[quote]
Miranda:
The only real reason why this law came into effect was for people accused of a crime, either real or falsely accussed was for a potential defendant to understand this. The police, not the criminal, were assumingly using (although I haven’t read the entire case and others that followed) forceful tactics to get confessions to a crime they may or may not have committed. This is YOUR police force, using tatics by which are unconstitutional. This goes back to the 5th amendment.
Where in the hell did I ever state that? Your fascist views are so damned scewed it’s unbelievable. My views are such that your rights and my right are protected by a document < clearing throat > called the Constitution, this does not mean < pay attention here > that I am free to kill, hurt and harm other’s. Good gawd kid, quit reading into shit that isn’t there.
You know, me too, but that doesn’t give the right of the police to not follow due process of law. You bet I would be pissed, but in all fairness, you have to give up a little to protect the liberty of all, as Jefferson wrote. Fortunately, we don’t live in a society (yet) where every one is fearful of everyone. But I will tell you this, wouldn’t you, even if falsely arrested want those rights read to your ass? You bet, because you want to know the charges that are being held against you, and if you are innocent, and can’t afford an attorney, then they can’t take anything you say and hold that against you, even if you are innocent. And if you believe for one minute that there aren’t innocent people in prison then you are delusional.
Nope, no one has a right to education, but that does not make it right for the government authorities to take away rights within the system of education. Since this is public money paying for public education, they should respect first and foremost the liberties of which are in the 5th amendment. But apparently you feel it is okay for the government to trample on the right of the kids.
In fact I don’t support the ACLU, many of their issues go far against what I believe in. They often take on cases that I find go against the rights of others…so don’t start that shit.
Where in the fuck did I state anything close to this…again, you assume too much. Yeah, if my kid
Something else Avenue should consider, that has not been emphasized enough. Even if piss testing were the proper approach, they don’t work for shit.
The first pee test I took, I was angry and resentful, being of sound mind and having Libertarian tendencies, but I was not worried. I had not smoked pot in a long time, being too busy raising and supporting a family and trying to set a good example for my children. I tested positive for cannabis when the only thing in my system Meclomen and Advil, used to treat arthritis. This cost me thirty days without pay, much embarrassment, and the first black mark on my files in over 15 years with the company.
One good thing came from it. I figured if I were going to be punished for it, I might as well be guilty. I quit taking the prescription, which was ruining my stomach, and started smoking pot when my arthritis got bad. I had fewer health problems, and passed the next 8 piss tests I took.
Real effective, aren’t they?
If you won’t question what you think, why call it thinking?
Excellent point on the pragmatic aspects of the problem. Unfortunately many places opt for the cheapest tests which are not reliable. IIRC, the low end tests have a false reading record approaching 30%. That’s real abusers who slip through and nonabusers who have “false positives” lurking in their official records for years.
I remember being worried sick before my last drug test, not because I use drugs but because poppy seed rolls and some diet soft drinks can register as “positives”. Helluva note, when honest, everyday people have to worry about Big Brother meddling with their blood and urine.
Except when it says something we don’t agree with.
The Supreme Court (which the Constitution and all our practice since the beginning says should interpret the Constitution)says that people have the right to an attorney, and if you don’t tell them that, it’s a violation of there rights. Crap! I say. Oh, no, come the mewling whines, it’s the law!! It’s the Constitution!!
OK, fine. But now we come to the running away from cops, and we hear a different story. “Unfortunately, even the Supreme Court has said that this is probable cause.” Good! I say. Oh, no, come the mewling whines, its a violation of basic rights for black joggers!
So let me get this straight, shitheels (plural). What you are REALLY saying is YOU should be on the Supreme Court. You know much better than they do about whats right for this country? I had no idea. Please except my apologies, and maybe I can visit you in DC as you take up your new job.
HA HA HA!!!
You apparently cannot understand simple facts: the people are tried of living in fear. The pendulum swung too far over towards criminals rights and now it is swinging back. Scream all you want you powerless assholes about oh, no, they are degrading basic human rights. The fact of the matter is that BASIC human rights are to live in a country where wrongdoers are punished.
It is happening. We spent all this time arguing about a school system in Texas. Guess what? There policy is in place. They are testing kids for drugs and suspending those that fail. If you don’t play you dont get to be part of the school. Tell me how wrong it is. Boo hoo. The REALITY is it is happening, right now. So keep whining, go ahead. But guess whose winning and whose losing this argument? (Hint: see the headlines).
You love the Constitution? OK. Tell me exactly where it says that this procedure is wrong. You love the Constitution? Hmmm… it says the Supreme Court can make judgements, and the Supreme Court says testing all school atheletes is OK. What do you have to say to that?
AvenueB, the Constitution provides that the law of the law is flexible enough to reflect the changing attitudes of society. At one time, the Supreme Court ruled that we met the requirements of the Fourteenth Amendment by providing facilities that were “separate but equal” as between the races.
Society changed, and it was recognized that this approach was used to systematically deny equality of rights, while presenting a thinly-veiled facade of equality. So the Court overruled itself.
Now, it’s somewhat difficult to follow your points, because as I read your writing, what at first blush appears to be almost a coherent conclusion slips away like an superball on steroids. I am left to wonder exactly what you are trying to say.
I can discern, however, from your last missive, that you suggest that you are winning this argument because, in fact, the school system is following this policy. And because they are following this policy, it is automatically right, and legal.
So let’s focus on that one point, and take this step by step. I am only addressing this point: that because they are doing it, it is legal.
It is true that when a legislature passes a law, it enjoys a strong presumption of Constitutionality. In this case, I believe we’re not even talking about a legislature, but simply a Board of Education policy. But that’s all right. For this discussion, let us assume that we’re talking about the law of Texas. Let’s assume that it is absolutely clear that it is the will of the people of the state of Texas that sixth grade children be required to pass drug tests.
It hasn’t yet been challenged in court. No court has ruled on it.
So for you to come along and assert that “It must be right,” because they are doing it is a little premature.
Even when the Court approved testing of student athletes, it did so using the reasoning that athletics are a voluntary aspect of school. This, in their view, made the testing permissible. I hoep you can see that there is a world of difference between that and the instant case, which involves no voluntary activities at all.
So… again just addressing the point about, “If they’re doing it, it must be right,” I hope you see that we don’t yet know that.
No, the voluntary nature of athletics was only a minor part of the Vernonia decision (which I’ve just re-read, and I see that I erred in the other thread in placing it only in Ginsburg’s concurrence). The syllabus doesn’t even mention it.
Frankly, I’m not so sure they would strike the Texas policy down - have a look at this text from Vernonia:
Scary stuff.
AvenueB:
The Fourth Amendment. You seem to be the only one here who doesn’t think it applies to a person’s body.
They made a bad ruling. It’s happened before. Hopefully sometime the drug hysteria will have died down and they’ll overrule themselves just as they did on some of their other bad decisions (Plessy etc).
We who oppose this decision should shut up and accept it? I’m glad the black students in Topeka didn’t do that.
You lose.
If you hate drugs so much, what the hell are you doing on AvenueB?
I should have read it myself, rather than going from memory. Having corrected that omission, I now see thay while they don’t exactly emphasive the voluntary nature of sports, they do take pains to distinguish the lessened degree of privacy that is inherent in school athletics:
They use the above standard for the expectation of privacy that student-athletes enjoy in their analysis of the case. I’m not sure I agree that Veronica stands for the proposition that testing all students would be permissible, or even that the dicta you quoted supports such a conclusion.
[quote]
Originally posted by Bricker:
** They use the above standard for the expectation of privacy that student-athletes enjoy in their analysis of the case.**
True, but the way the opinion is written, the athletes’ lack of privacy appears more as additional justification for, rather than as the basis of, the decision. By the time the Court even brought the matter up, they had already stated that students in general have a lesser expectation, particularly as involves medical procedures. It’s somewhat telling that this is the privacy issue that the dissent focuses on - the athlete-specific issue doesn’t even get a mention.
I didn’t say that it shows that testing all students would be permissible, only that nothing in the decision rules it out. This is why Ginsburg filed her concurring opinion: to emphasize that she was only upholding the law as applied to athletes. The majority opinion just isn’t clear on that issue.
AvenueBDude, here is a hypothetical senario that I would like your response to.
Let’s say, just for the record, that I had a child. Let’s pretend that this child was born what they call inter-sexed. That means that they, due to a random genetic mutation, was born with both male and female sex charicteristics. As is usual, we have raised her as a female. Now she is 13, and, as is normal, on hormone replacement therepy to encourage her devlopment into a female. Now, as are most 13 year olds, she is mortified by the fact that she is different, and it is even worse that it is related to sexuallity–a delicate topic at that age. She considers her condition a deep, dark secret, and I respect her wishes. I sure as hell don’t tell the school about it, because her condition in no way affects her academics.
Now you want to give her a fucking drug test even though you have no reason to suspect her of doing any-fucking-thing wrong? And she has to explain to a stranger before she pisses in a cup so that they don’t freak out when they get the test back? That is an invason of her privacy–why can’t you see that?
Other hypotheticals–it could be a 13 year old girl on birth control pills because of bad cramps (very common) who has to tell the nurse about them–the nurse may well then assume that this 13 year old is a slut, and in a small town, tell everyone.
Or a 13 year old boy may be on ridlin and embarresed about it–why should he have to explain his medical history to the school?
Can you see that searches can reveal things that are not illegal but which are embarressing, and because of this they should only be conducted when there is some reason to justify the intrusion. Do you want a group of jock-cops fliping thru your playboys with the stuck-together pages? Going thru your computer and reading the bad poetry you wrote in the twelve grade to a girl who never cared? Looking at your credit card bill and noting how much you spend at the bar, the grocery store, and to a one nine hundred number? Hell, I wouldn’t want a stranger to see how nasty my toilet is, just on genral princeple. There are many reasons to refuse a search beyond the concealment of illegal activities. If you have nothing to hide you live an awful boring life.
The winner of the understatement of the year award, ladies and gentleman!
AvB: Are you really this obtuse in your day-to-day dealings with people? If so, I think we’ve found the underlying reason for so much of your anger.
I don’t recall a single person saying that they are more able to interpret the Constitution, or that they should be a member of the Supremes. Again, I will ask you to please point out where anyone said that. Otherwise, I will be forced to think that you are talking out of your ass. Which I think is pretty damned astute of me.
If the people are, indeed, tired (which is the correct spelling) of living in fear, then they should get off their asses and do something about it. There is no pendulum that swung toward the rights of criminals. Again, those rights were always there. They are just enforced, now.
Again. . .Yes, it is happening. It is also, however, unconstitutional. That is where the crux of this issue seems to lie. Whether or not you think that you are winning doesn’t matter a jot, the courts will shoot this nonsense down, just as they should. I’m not whining, simply stating the truth. Are you up to trying the same?
GlWasteful: AvenueB is quite right. Many Americans are living in fear because of high crime in their areas.
Maybe these people would not be so fearful if the cops and courts worried more about murderers, thieves, rapists and thugs than people who are smoking a weed that grows naturally in much of the country.
Let’s quit worrying about heads and get the scum off the street.