Civil Rights Issues
1-Random Drug Testing of Students. Drug testing of workers.
-My opinion about this topic is that it is sometimes necessary for administrators or employers to resort to or exercise the practice of drug testing. I do feel however that this practice should not be involved randomly, and should only be applied if the threat of drug use is present in locations that students or workers appear. I believe that "randomly testing" is only seeking to limit the ends and not the means of drug use. If drug use is to be prevented, then seek out the source, not the consumers.
-side note- I am not saying that it is not effective to drug test randomly, but merely stating that it is ignoring the origin of drug use, its providers/dealers.
--The court's opinion is contrary to that of my opinion with the following case: Board of Education v. Earls, 122 S.Ct. 2559 (2002): The Supreme Court held constitutional an Oklahoma school policy of randomly drug testing students who participate in competitive, non-athletic extracurricular activities. In reversing a federal court ruling, the 5-4 Court stated in its majority opinion that it found such a policy "a reasonably effective means of addressing the school district's legitimate concerns in preventing, deterring and detecting drug use." In her dissent, Justice Ginsberg wrote that "the particular testing program upheld...is not reasonable, it is capricious, even perverse."
-The courts opinion can be summarized as supporting a school or workplace's rights to subject its students or employees to drug testing in order to prevent the use of drugs and maintain this duty through the practice. (However, this is harder to defend in an establishment with citizens that maintain all rights within a working environment that students do not have)
---The constitutional issue at hand is of the loose right to privacy that is consistently upheld throughout the law by its officials, but never directly stated within the Constitution/Bill of Rights. Despite not being stated, it is in a way a constitutional issue.
---- https://www.aclu.org/drug-law-reform/student-drug-testing-relevant-case-law
1-Random Drug Testing of Students. Drug testing of workers.
-My opinion about this topic is that it is sometimes necessary for administrators or employers to resort to or exercise the practice of drug testing. I do feel however that this practice should not be involved randomly, and should only be applied if the threat of drug use is present in locations that students or workers appear. I believe that "randomly testing" is only seeking to limit the ends and not the means of drug use. If drug use is to be prevented, then seek out the source, not the consumers.
-side note- I am not saying that it is not effective to drug test randomly, but merely stating that it is ignoring the origin of drug use, its providers/dealers.
--The court's opinion is contrary to that of my opinion with the following case: Board of Education v. Earls, 122 S.Ct. 2559 (2002): The Supreme Court held constitutional an Oklahoma school policy of randomly drug testing students who participate in competitive, non-athletic extracurricular activities. In reversing a federal court ruling, the 5-4 Court stated in its majority opinion that it found such a policy "a reasonably effective means of addressing the school district's legitimate concerns in preventing, deterring and detecting drug use." In her dissent, Justice Ginsberg wrote that "the particular testing program upheld...is not reasonable, it is capricious, even perverse."
-The courts opinion can be summarized as supporting a school or workplace's rights to subject its students or employees to drug testing in order to prevent the use of drugs and maintain this duty through the practice. (However, this is harder to defend in an establishment with citizens that maintain all rights within a working environment that students do not have)
---The constitutional issue at hand is of the loose right to privacy that is consistently upheld throughout the law by its officials, but never directly stated within the Constitution/Bill of Rights. Despite not being stated, it is in a way a constitutional issue.
---- https://www.aclu.org/drug-law-reform/student-drug-testing-relevant-case-law
Following the trend of issues involving a persons more physical privacy, the next topic I choose to discuss is that of:
10-strip search/searching.
-I believe that the use of this practice is a very touchy one (no pun intended). I say that in order to use this method for enforcing anti drug use or other possession laws, that only trained officials (police/military personnel) and of the same sex of said person being searched should be in charge of the procedure. In regards to school use of strip searching, I find it in no way within the responsibilities of teachers or administrative staff. If there is probable cause for searching like this, then the required persons should immediately be contacted and their services utilized in the most respectable and professional manner possible. Furthermore, it is only reasonable to employ strip searching if one is within probable cause and or has a search warrant against them. This is obviously agreed upon in the court case below.
-- The court's opinion is as follows: FLORENCE v. BOARD OF CHOSEN FREEHOLDERS OF COUNTY OF BURLINGTON ET AL. CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT No. 10–945. Argued October 12, 2011—Decided April 2, 2012 Petitioner was arrested during a traffic stop by a New Jersey state trooper who checked a statewide computer database and found a bench warrant issued for petitioner’s arrest after he failed to appear at a hearing to enforce a fine. He was initially detained in the Burlington County Detention Center and later in the Essex County Correctional Facility, but was released once it was determined that the fine had been paid. At the first jail, petitioner, like every incoming detainee, had to shower with a delousing agent and was checked for scars, marks, gang tattoos, and contraband as he disrobed. Petition-er claims that he also had to open his mouth, lift his tongue, hold out his arms, turn around, and lift his genitals. At the second jail, petitioner, like other arriving detainees, had to remove his clothing while an officer looked for body markings, wounds, and contraband; had an officer look at his ears, nose, mouth, hair, scalp, fingers, hands, arm-pits, and other body openings; had a mandatory shower; and had his clothes examined. Petitioner claims that he was also required to lift his genitals, turn around, and cough while squatting. He filed a 42 U. S. C. §1983 action in the Federal District Court against the government entities that ran the jails and other defendants, alleging Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment violations, and arguing that per-sons arrested for minor offenses cannot be subjected to invasive searches unless prison officials have reason to suspect concealment of weapons, drugs, or other contraband. The court granted him summary judgment, ruling that “strip-searching” non-indictable offenders without reasonable suspicion violates the Fourth Amendment. The Third Circuit reversed. Held: The judgment is affirmed.
-in addition, this case mostly reflects the rights of citizens and supports that only people within the parameters of probable cause, a defendant under legitimate accusation of a crime, and search warrants can be subjected to strip searching.
--- The constitutional issue at hand with this is that of search and seizure. It is clearly stated in the 4th amendment and the 14th amendment. It falls under the already defined rights of citizens to not be subjected to unreasonable search and seizure without warrant or probable cause and to not be deprived of liberty.
----http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/10-945.pdf
10-strip search/searching.
-I believe that the use of this practice is a very touchy one (no pun intended). I say that in order to use this method for enforcing anti drug use or other possession laws, that only trained officials (police/military personnel) and of the same sex of said person being searched should be in charge of the procedure. In regards to school use of strip searching, I find it in no way within the responsibilities of teachers or administrative staff. If there is probable cause for searching like this, then the required persons should immediately be contacted and their services utilized in the most respectable and professional manner possible. Furthermore, it is only reasonable to employ strip searching if one is within probable cause and or has a search warrant against them. This is obviously agreed upon in the court case below.
-- The court's opinion is as follows: FLORENCE v. BOARD OF CHOSEN FREEHOLDERS OF COUNTY OF BURLINGTON ET AL. CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT No. 10–945. Argued October 12, 2011—Decided April 2, 2012 Petitioner was arrested during a traffic stop by a New Jersey state trooper who checked a statewide computer database and found a bench warrant issued for petitioner’s arrest after he failed to appear at a hearing to enforce a fine. He was initially detained in the Burlington County Detention Center and later in the Essex County Correctional Facility, but was released once it was determined that the fine had been paid. At the first jail, petitioner, like every incoming detainee, had to shower with a delousing agent and was checked for scars, marks, gang tattoos, and contraband as he disrobed. Petition-er claims that he also had to open his mouth, lift his tongue, hold out his arms, turn around, and lift his genitals. At the second jail, petitioner, like other arriving detainees, had to remove his clothing while an officer looked for body markings, wounds, and contraband; had an officer look at his ears, nose, mouth, hair, scalp, fingers, hands, arm-pits, and other body openings; had a mandatory shower; and had his clothes examined. Petitioner claims that he was also required to lift his genitals, turn around, and cough while squatting. He filed a 42 U. S. C. §1983 action in the Federal District Court against the government entities that ran the jails and other defendants, alleging Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment violations, and arguing that per-sons arrested for minor offenses cannot be subjected to invasive searches unless prison officials have reason to suspect concealment of weapons, drugs, or other contraband. The court granted him summary judgment, ruling that “strip-searching” non-indictable offenders without reasonable suspicion violates the Fourth Amendment. The Third Circuit reversed. Held: The judgment is affirmed.
-in addition, this case mostly reflects the rights of citizens and supports that only people within the parameters of probable cause, a defendant under legitimate accusation of a crime, and search warrants can be subjected to strip searching.
--- The constitutional issue at hand with this is that of search and seizure. It is clearly stated in the 4th amendment and the 14th amendment. It falls under the already defined rights of citizens to not be subjected to unreasonable search and seizure without warrant or probable cause and to not be deprived of liberty.
----http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/10-945.pdf