**
I can’t believe I’m siding with a teenager on this issue because I hate fucking teenagers. Uh, that is to say I fucking hate teenagers. 
Seriously, I am more then surprised by how many people here support breath test before being admitted into the prom. I’m sure you can come up with a better justification then “unless you have something to hide why worry?”
You’d make an excellent jack booted thug in someone’s secret police.
Marc
I understand what Blalron is saying. It’s an invasion of privacy. I mean, if they saw students acting drunk and made them submit to a breath test, that would be one thing. However, having just a little bit of alcohol on your breath gets the cops called? That seems a little over-the-top to me.
Authority: Incubus, you’ll have to come with us.
Incubus: Why? What happened?
Authority: You tested positive for drugs.
Incubus: But I don’t do drugs!
Authority: We presume you’re guilty.
Incubus: There must be some mistake!
Authority: There’s a mistake, all right. Didn’t you know better than to do drugs?
Incubus: But I didn’t. I swear.
Authority: The test says you did.
Incubus: I demand another test.
Authority: Look, wise guy, that’s not our policy. If we let you do that, everybody would want a second test.
Incubus: But I’m telling you the truth!
Authority: You should have thought about that before you lied.
Incubus: This sucks.
Authority: No, it doesn’t. The students who don’t do drugs think it’s a great idea.
Incubus: But listen to me! I. Don’t. Do. Drugs.
Authority: […snickering…] Yeah. And I don’t do tyranny.
Incubus: Isn’t there anything I can do to get out of this?
Authority: […shrugging…] You give good head?
Incubus: I beg your pardon?
Authority: Are you gonna suck my dick or not?
Incubus: That’s outrageous!
Authority: Just testing to see if you’re gay.
Incubus: What!? What the fuck!?
Authority: We have another test here, too. How many fingers am I holding up?
Incubus: One. But it’s your middle one, and it’s turned with the knuckle facing me.
Authority: Congratulations! The test results indicate you’re truly fucked.
Incubus: This isn’t fair.
Authority: If you had anything to hide, you wouldn’t be worried about it.
Incubus: I hate you.
Authority: […smiling…] Like I care.
I’ve gotta throw in with Blalron here. It’s unreasonable and demeaning to test everyone who comes in the door. Prior to–and after–my high school prom, not one drop of alcohol had passed my lips (aside from medicine and communion). Being around drunk people annoys the living hell out of me. Yet, had they done this at my school, I would probably have done the same thing Blalron’s doing.
Being treated as though we’re in prison, or as though we’re all nothing more than a bunch of boozehounds, makes us feel like shit. Go ahead and test those people who’re acting drunk, or who smell like booze, or whatever. Just don’t go all breath-test fanatic on us. Let we who do not drink have a good time without making us feel as though we’re under the everwatchful eye of Der Principal.
And, no, I should not be “guilty 'till proven innocent.” Jesus to Pete, don’t y’all ever watch courtroom dramas anymore? 
I have to agree that this is more a liability issue than anything. If someone underage drinks/is drunk on your property and then goes out and wraps a car around a tree, guess who’s liable for that death? Well, it ain’t the teenager.
There was a case in Kentucky a few years back where a couple of teenagers got fake ID’s, went to a frat party, and got into a fatal wreck on the way home. These kids brought their own liquor to the party and the frat was checking ID’s at the door to screen out the underaged. The famlies sued the fraternity for wrongful death, and won. The judge ruled that the fraternity was something like 65% responsible for the deaths, even though they’d taken reasonable precautions to screen out underage drinkers, and even though the kids in question had knowingly taken steps to not only break the law but to circumvent the screening process.
And, no, I don’t have a cite on me at the moment. I’m far too lazy to look it up, and I don’t remember which frat it was.
The point is, it only takes one dumbass getting themselves killed to really put the hurt on a whole school system. They have a duty to all the students to cover their ass. If the cya policy inconveniences or slightly embarrasses a small fraction of the student population, well, that’s unfortunate but necessary.
It’s like the airport screenings; we willingly give up a little bit of privacy to help minimize the risk of something bad happening. If you’re not willing to do so, you don’t fly. Fair enough.
Maybe you could suggest some alternatives for the administration. If people don’t want to be tested, they and their parents can sign a waiver saying they won’t sue the school board or the staff or faculty if you get hurt due to alcohol. Have it signed and notarized, and bring it with you to the door, and you can go on in.
Or maybe you can have a designated driver program. If you can demonstrate that you’ve got a dd who passes the breathalyzer, you don’t have to take the test. There’s lots of room for compromise.
You’ll have to can the attitude toward the administration if you want them to even listen to you, though, and I fully support calling the cops if anyone who takes a breathalyzer fails it.
If you’re talking about the evidential machines they have in police stations, then they actually can detect bad breath and halitosis. It just won’t turn up in the alcohol reading - there are usually two sensors inside, an IR spectroscopy chamber and an electrochemical cell. The IR will pick it up but the cell won’t, so it gets filtered out. Well, that’s my explanation anyway.
As for mouthwash - if you swallow it (and i wouldn’t if i were you), you will give an elevated reading, as mouthwash can contain over 15% alcohol. If you swill it around in your mouth in an attempt to fool the breathalyser, the software will pick it up and you’ll just have to wait 15 mins and blow again. By that time it will have dissipated.
Anyway, in response to the OP, i don’t think a school will want to fork out $700+ for a breathalyser just to take the law into their own hands.
It is hampering him. It is hampering his ability to be free from intrustion upon his person predicated only on a general suspicion and nothing that he has himself done.
The police can you pull you over in a sobriety checkpoint because the courts have ruled that the interest of protecting other drivers from the dangers of those who are intoxicated override the time and self-protection interests of others who are on that particular road. But the police cannot presumptively give everyone in a sobriety checkpoint a breathalyzer or force them to perform manual dexterity tests; they can only go to that next level if they have some reason to believe that the driver has been drinking after speaking to them and observing them.
If that’s the standard that the police are held to for someone who is driving, why should a governmental agency (a school) get to use a looser standard for people who are attending a dance? If the interests of protecting sober drivers from drunks (who can kill them or cause extraordinary damage and injury) doesn’t rise to preemptive breathalyzers, why should the interests of keeping drinking (not drunk) students out of a prom?
Security in one’s person was a big enough issue that it’s mentioned in the Bill of Rights. Even if the current Supreme Court doesn’t have a problem with non-voluntary drug and alcohol testing as a condition to participation in extracurriculur activities doesn’t mean that it appropriate.
In this case, it’s plainly overkill. That it’s overkill that seems to be based upon the notion of students (even those who are legally adults) having fewer rights or having no choice but to go along with administration’s demands if they want the privileges of being a part of school activities makes it even more onerous.
A prom may not be a big deal to adults who’ve been there, done that, barely remember any of it and what does stick in the brain is that the whole thing was overhyped. But to a graduating senior in high school, it’s a damned big deal. To have the heavy hand of a few administrators saying “we’re going to hold you to a standard that no one else could get away with for much more serious activities or we’re going to withhold this important event from you, even when you haven’t done a damned thing” is just heavy-handed bullying. It might be for a “good reason” like protecting kids from drunk driving and other alcohol-related problems, it might be for the crappy reason of a school district trying to CIA from potential lawsuits. Regardless, it’s too much.
Please excuse my numerous typos. My keyboard is crumb-infested and I have a baby in my lap. Neither is conducive to trying to keep up a good 95-wpm pace without errors.
A school is not a government agency - at least for the purposes of this analysis. A school is the entity in loco parentis for the children in its care – that is, it stands in for the parents.
A school may search lockers without probable cause. Just as an example. It’s not correct to suggest that a school is limited to the same level of intrusiveness as a police officer during a Terry stop.
It’s entirely possible, Blalron, that your principal is too gung-ho and is trying to assert his authority early on to prevent problems later. Or he may just be an asshole. I’ve seen examples of both in places where I taught.
However, as a parent and former teacher, I wouldn’t have a problem with this. As a student, I wouldn’t have had a problem with it, either. School isn’t a democracy. The school has enormous legal obligations to fulfill, and unfortunately this will put them in the position of being the bad guy more often than not.
No one is accusing you, personally, of being a drunkard. They are just attempting to keep the prom dry. If you’ve been to many proms, you know how difficult that can be. If the school didn’t screen, and some doofus ended up dead because he showed up drunk and no one realized it, guess who’d get sued? The SCHOOL, because they’re responsible for you (regardless of your maturity level) while you’re attending their event.
If, on the other hand, they only tested people who “acted” drunk, guess what would happen? Two groups of testees would emerge: Those idiots who ACTED drunk, just so that the chaperones would test them; and those idiots who were ACTUALLY under the influence. And the day after the prom, all holy hell would break loose, as both groups of kids, their friends, their parents, and probably more than the lone attorney joined the fray, complaining about how these individual students were “singled out” and “victims of (whatever type) of profiling.” There were be letters to the editor! General protests! Signs on lockers! Calls for dismissals!
In general, the same shit would hit the fan, except the school would ALSO be accused of some sort of discrimination.
What you do, of course, is your choice. But think it through carefully, and make sure that you’re willing to sacrifice experience* for what may turn out to be very anonymous protest.
Best wishes, whatever you choose to do. And please, keep in mind: High school doesn’t last forever. Thank God.
*Note: I attended my proms and hated them both, so I’m not starry-eyed about the whole “experience” thing.
*Note, again: I have protested those issues I felt very strongly about, and would do it again, but I went into it with my eyes wide open and the sure knowledge that I’d probably end up blacklisted in my local job market.
Bricker - tho your post is consistent with my interpretation of current US law - with regards to reduced privacy rights of students - that does not necessarily establish that everyone must agree that it is a necessary or even good thing. Or that once certain policiies have obtained S.Ct. approval, opponents necessarily should fold up their tents and go home.
I, for one, tend to disfavor the vast majority of searches done without cause, whether urine tests of adults, or locker/parking lot searches of high schoolers.
Heck, on the continuum of issues high schoolers get riled up about, I’d say Blaron’s choice is better than many.
(Uh, you might want to work on those slogans, tho.)
Suggestion - emphasize your outrage at what you perceive as an excessive, unwarranted invasion of your privacy, instead of appearing to object to limits on your ability to be drunk on prom night. Unfortunately, in today’s climate of sobriety roadblocks, employment drug tests, civil liberty restrictions in the name of the wars on drugs and terrorism, and S.Ct. decisions consistently upholding student’s reduced expectation of privacy, I do not expect you to find a tremendously sympathetic audience.
You can’t be drunk coming in, but that doesn’t mean you can’t bring alcohol in! Barring that they pat you down, just sneak in a bottle of <insert hard liquor> and spike it in the punch or whatever. Then you got a party inside! Besides that, you can smoke some dope or something before coming in. I think you’ll dance better high than stumbling around drunk.
<insert note here: The above is all in jest. If you should do the above and get busted and thrown in jail or crash your car, I assume no liability>
Teebone
No, but it does help with the aftertaste! :eek:
D & R
They don’t need a full-tilt boogie four-on-the-floor evidentiary breathalyzer–all they need is a Screening Device. Like the AlcAlert Breath Alcohol Detector, $49.95. And it doesn’t use mouthpieces–all you do is exhale into the grille.
Well, if they use one of them, there are countless ways of fooling it. You get what you pay for, i guess…
Besides, the $700 i was talking about was for a screening device - the one the police use. The evidential machines cost something around $5500 i think…
It wouldn’t matter if it wasn’t 100% accurate, if all they’re really interested in is covering their butts in case a carload of DUI kids racks it up after the prom. They could say with perfect truth, “Look, they passed our Official Alcohol Screening, so they weren’t drunk when they got here, they must’ve gotten it after they left here…”
Do you plan on drinking/getting drunk before you go to prom or something? Because if not, then it really doesn’t matter and you have nothing to worry about. The only people who get worked up about this kind of stuff are the “too cool for school” or the “we always get screwed by the system” people. Welcome to the real world. Sometimes you have to face a little bit of inconvience for the good of the rest of us.
IANAConstitutional Lawyer! But, going waaay back into my brain for a moot court case I worked on in high school. A nonconsentual search of a student in a school setting must be “justified at it’s inception” according to Supreme Court… meaning the results of the search cannot provide the justification of the search – the has to be a reason before you start. (New Jersey vs. TLO in case you’d like to read up).
However, “justified” is not the same as probable cause. I believe one could argue that the simple fact that many attending prom do drink, and in fact historically students have shown up at this school’s prom drunk, would constitute a justification for the search. As long as it remained “reasonable in scope” the search would be deemed appropriate.
I appreciate that it seems unfair, but the school has been deemed to have a right to keep order within it’s grounds, and that includes curtailing illegal activities through the use of searches, given a reasonable assumption that an illegal activity will be happening on that day in that place.
Moreover, schools need not have individualized suspicion, but can search students uniformly, when drugs, weapons, or other matierials that have the potential to harm students are the object of the search. (It seems schools cannot search without individualized suspicion for non-harmful items of property). (DesRoches v. Caprio).
Okay, forgive me my slowness here (I’m overdue for my afternoon nap).
Are you protesting the breathalyzers themSELVES? Or the fact that if you fail the breathalyzer the cops will be called?
I can somewhat understand your protesting the first. THAT part seems pretty over the top, to make everyone take a breathalyzer whether they are suspected of having been drinking or not. (and I could just be behind the times here, is this something that’s normally being done at high school these days??).
However, if what you are protesting for your right to drink or be drunk, sorry, you’re underage and “dems da rulez” so to speak.
Just hold out until you get to college, then you get to breath free. Hell, I can get beer and porno on campus at my college.
Well, the porno’s only Playboy, but still…