Before I begin, I already searched this topic in the archives and I think I’m posting this in the right place.
Situation: Students at a service academy (i.e. West Point, Air Force Academy, etc.) are now subject to random breathalizer tests while returning to the campus from town. Being of legal drinking age (21) and falling under the “rules” allowing one to drink, does this situation rase any real questions of legality? Please note that when returning to the campus, it is done on foot, not in auto.
This particular situation has not yet gone into effect with the current policy, but being a federally run institution, is this legit?
I don’t see a problem with it at all. The USA wishes to have the best possible men and women represent her in her defence forces. This is a way of achieving that goal. Especially considering the prestige which is attached to qualifying to enter West Point. Alcohol is a funny old drug. It’s both a calorie source, as well as a drug which is legally obtainable. But it’s downsides are widely documented. The desire to have the best possible men and women go through West Point is not an unreasonable one in my opinion - and I daresay that West Point has every right to enforce such a policy.
I agree with the policy just as you, but is there legality behind this move. What if Super Wal-Mart started giving breathalizers before you entered the store?
A service academy is much different than a Wal-Mart. Students of a service academy are military members subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice and short a few rights and privileges (voluntarily) that civilians can expect.
If the commandant, or a higher ranking person, issues a lawful order, students are subject to it. If the commandant issued an order that cadets are not allowed to operate vehicles, the cadets aren’t allowed to operate vehicles.
Keesler AFB (one of the bases enlisted Airmen receive follow-on technical training) had (probably still has) strict rules about walking under the influence of alcohol. I believe servicemembers in Korea also have strict walking under the influence rules, and they aren’t even trainees.
An order was issued, it isn’t unlawful, so the students must comply or face some form of discipline if caught.
I believe the rule is in place to cut down on embarrassment to the Academies, but if the Military wants the best possible men and women, then the academy is probably the right place to weed out the ones who act stupid when drunk.
Also, if anyone wonders about unreasonable search and seizure, usually the installation commander decrees that entering the installation is consent to search and seizure. It’s iffy for civilians but, again, military personnel give up certain rights and privileges when they barter their youth to Uncle Sam.
Are you assuming that all Cadets and Midshipmen are of legal drinking age? They’re not.
leenmi: Members of the military do not surrender their rights. Feel free to check the Uniform Code of Military Justice for proof of that. Also, the law allowing the Installation Commander to search anyone or anything on the installation is prominently posted at the entrance to the installation.
They’re probably allowed to do it. (I throw in the word “probably” in my lawyer-like manner to help me escape from any oddball exceptions.) Wal-Mart is a private business and is theoretically entitled to set any conditions to entry onto its property. I went to a Six Flags last month and had to go through a metal detector. While I don’t think Wal-Mart would give us breathalyzers, they could do so just as legally as you could tell your kids’ friends not to come into your home with dirty shoes.
I assume by “legally,” you mean “Constitutionally.” Let me nitpick-illy clarify this now: with very few exceptions, i.e., the 13th Amendment, the Constitution only applies to the government.. I could get even more specific and point out that in many matters, and indeed, to textual literalists, the U.S. Constitution applies only to the federal government. Please, for the sake of us lawyers (or those of us waiting to get their bar results), keep this distinction in mind: only the government* can commit censorship. Only the government can abridge your freedom of speech. Only the government can invade your privacy**. Only the government can deny you due process. In all other cases, it’s just some shmoe being an ass.
End rant.
Yes, I realize that individuals can be “state actors” for constitutional purposes. Still, those instances are few and far between, and anyway, the courts have basically looked at them as government extensions.
** - In the constitutional sense of the word.
You are right, Monty, they don’t give up all rights, but they do give up some. Maybe curb them is a better term.
Free speech, right to assembly are a couple. Not completely gone, but definitely curbed.
Others, such as freedom of religion and the right to vote, remain in force
UCMJ. Big book. Lot of articles. Makes it illegal to call in sick when you ain’t. Or miss work. Or go home when you darn well please. Or a whole bunch of other things.
Such as walk back to the barracks when you’re drunk if a ranking person ordered you not to.
Don’t get me wrong. I loved my time in the military. Had a lot of fun, learned a lot of things, highly reccommend it. But I did give up certain rights and privileges for the duration of my enlistment.
Ha…that’s an entirely different debate, one that most fresh out of high school enlistees will LOVE to debate you on. As far as I know, correct me if I’m wrong, but it used to be so that if you were 18, you could drink on the base, even though 21 was the legal drinking age. I guess the last base to change that policy did so only 4-5 years ago too. …but maybe my facts are wrong.
It is my understanding that the military operates outside our civilian laws, and can make and enforce pretty much any regulations it chooses.
When a man or a woman signs up for military service, he/she accepts that.
As far as I know, correct me if I’m wrong, but it used to be so that if you were 18, you could drink on the base, even though 21 was the legal drinking age. I guess the last base to change that policy did so only 4-5 years ago too. …but maybe my facts are wrong.