|
Post by Brooke on Dec 29, 2004 22:04:06 GMT -5
I found this story and wondered how it would go over here. --------------------
The dog debate
The school board struggles to balance public safety and individual privacy
By Susan Essoyan sessoyan@starbulletin.com
Bringing drug-sniffing dogs into Hawaii's public schools could either make campuses safer or breed lawsuits and a false sense of security, Board of Education members were told yesterday.
The board is considering whether to allow dogs on campus to help detect alcohol, drugs and guns. The dogs would sniff students' lockers, cars and backpacks for contraband but steer clear of the students themselves because of privacy concerns.
"Students will soon learn to keep any contraband on their person rather than in their lockers or cars," Pamela Lichty, president of the Drug Policy Action Group, told the board's Committee on Special Programs. "How does this help?"
Whitney White, owner of the Hawaii franchise of Interquest Detection Canines, has contracts with two Oahu private schools and would like to work on public campuses as well. Nationally, her company has found that the amount of contraband detected on campuses drops by 70 percent in the second year of the program, she said.
"We are a detection and a deterrent service," she told board members yesterday. "We are showing a huge impact."
Mary Cochran, chairwoman of the committee, said she wants the board to develop a policy on drugs that includes an option for schools to use contraband-sniffing dogs. But board members raised various concerns, including legal questions and the possibility of false positives.
"I have real concerns about administrators being personally sued for violating rights," said Maggie Cox, the new board member from Kauai and a recently retired principal.
Board member Karen Knudsen said she was hearing conflicting opinions on how reliable dogs are in sniffing out contraband. Lichty also warned that students could plant contraband in other students' backpacks.
Glenn Tatsuno, the new head of safety and security for the Department of Education, told the committee that the discipline code does not allow for random searches and would need to be changed to allow dogs in public schools.
"Generally, school administrators have been slow to warm up to this idea," he said. "They see it as invasive. They say we're not in the police business."
The committee moved into executive session yesterday to discuss legal ramifications. If board members want to pursue it, the issue will have to come back to the committee for decision-making before going before the full board.
The Academy of the Pacific in Alewa Heights became the first Hawaii school to hire a drug-sniffing dog when it contracted with Interquest in July 2003. It was followed by Saint Louis School.
The academy's dean of students, Stan Vincent, recently described the dog as the least invasive option to keep drugs off campus, and said it seemed to be working. The golden retriever has twice signaled a find in the last school year. In the first case, a tiny bit of marijuana was found in a student's car. In the second case, no contraband was found
|
|
|
Post by Brooke on Dec 29, 2004 22:10:13 GMT -5
I tend to be of the theory...
"Those who have nothing to hide, hide nothing."
And usually it holds true. When I was in school the only kids who cared whether their lockers or cars were searched were the ones who had something to hide. If they didn't have anything to hide they didn't care.
Personally I think... it's the schools grounds and property, they have the responsibility to ensure a safe healthy environment...they are in my opinion in the right to search as long as they aren't groping kids inappropriately.
|
|
BeTrue
Trained
Banned
Posts: 217
|
Post by BeTrue on Dec 30, 2004 10:09:17 GMT -5
I agree with you, Brooke. I know of a school that had some sort of search over for the kids (taking off the backpack, jacket, and so on...nothing major of course), with the dogs sniffing the bags jacket, and then sniffing through the school. I dont' see what the big deal is for anything like this? Even if a person is afraid or allergic to dogs, the dogs will barely come into contact with the person. And while some students will still be able to sneak in drugs somehow (they always manage to find a way), I'm sure the percentage would lower after they found out their were drug sniffing dogs around.
|
|
|
Post by Kona on Dec 30, 2004 23:03:57 GMT -5
I concur. It's up to the school board members to decide how best to keep the school zone drug-free, but it seems kind of stupid to tell the kids that they personally won't be searched. You might as well tell the kids to just keep their drugs in their pockets if they don't want to get caught. The kids will feel safe bringing drugs to school, and the taxpayers will be wasting money on the contract with the company that provides the dogs.
[edited for spelling]
|
|
|
Post by Aussienot on Dec 31, 2004 20:22:28 GMT -5
If the point is to have drug free kids, I rate this one: Good intention, bone-head execution. If the point is to have drug free lockers and cars, I rate it Bone-head intention, good execution.
Sniffer dogs are widely used in Sydney in train and bus stations prior to public events, in some pubs on Friday and Saturday nights, and at some raves. They sniff the people and their posessions. And yes, the people caught with drugs hate them!
There was a court case in November where a guy caught in a pub search with a sellable quantity of drugs on him had the case against him thown out. The first judge ruled a sniffer dog "pushing and ferreting" at a nightclub patron's groin was conducting an unlawful search, and also committing battery!
Luckily, the guy lost on appeal and the evidence was upheld.
I do have a quibble with the fact that the police using the dogs target young people, but I suppose they are just playing the odds. I'd like to be the kind of person who had personal liberties objections to sniffer dogs-- but nah, I really don't have a problem with the idea.
|
|
|
Post by Kona on Jan 1, 2005 1:20:09 GMT -5
If the point is to have drug free kids, I rate this one: Good intention, bone-head execution. If the point is to have drug free lockers and cars, I rate it Bone-head intention, good execution. LOL
|
|
|
Post by amyjo on Jan 1, 2005 21:09:25 GMT -5
I got personal liberty objections AND I think schools should not be run like prisons - but then mostly I just have problems with authority...go figure ;D
|
|
DFrost
puppy
Any behavior that is reinforced is more likely to occur again.
Posts: 11
|
Post by DFrost on Jan 4, 2005 9:54:08 GMT -5
Balancing personal liberty with safety for a public area is difficult at best. I'm sure the parents of Columbine would now not be against stricter rules and closer monitoring of students in the school. It always amazes me, as a police officer, how we can be subject to so much criticism before and after an event. Before an event we are accused of being too intrusive, violating rights, having no business doing our jobs. After an event, it's why didn't we do something before all this started, we should have known etc etc. I think one poster hit the nail on the head, if you have nothing to hide, ..........
DFrost
|
|
|
Post by Brooke on Jan 4, 2005 19:51:10 GMT -5
Thats a very good point Dfrost. I agree
|
|
|
Post by amyjo on Jan 4, 2005 20:31:11 GMT -5
Though I certainly have no objections to weapons/drug free schools... eroding personal liberty for security is a slippery slope.
Freedom from unlawful search has the unfortunate side-effect of aiding criminal activity, but the flip side of that is our government cannot persecute political dissidents with impunity, like governments in other countries can (yet).
I am not saying that a drug snifffing dog in a school will destroy our democracy as we know it - I am not that out there - but I do think it is something we need to think about when we allow one more search or give up one more right in the name of security.
|
|
DFrost
puppy
Any behavior that is reinforced is more likely to occur again.
Posts: 11
|
Post by DFrost on Jan 5, 2005 9:21:01 GMT -5
I don't disagree with Amyjo a bit. As I said, it is a delicate balance. When looking at the 4th amendment, which covers searches etc the courts themselves have a hard times, sometimes, determining what exactly our founding fathers meant to say. When looking at a public area, such as a school, there is a responsibility to protect those that attend that school. There is a difference in letting a dog sniff lockers, book bags, vehicles etc than sniffing a person, which our department and most departments do not do. Purely as a point to consider, the Supreme court has said in numerous decisions, that the "sniff" of a trained detector dog of propery is not considered a search as defined by the 4th amendment. They say that because the dog is unobtrusive, in that it is not opening and causing to be seen personal items. It is merely checking the air around an object. This of course is just a rendering of the many decisions and of course many of them go into greater detail, but I think it's an interesting fact.
DFrost
|
|
|
Post by Richard on Jan 5, 2005 9:40:58 GMT -5
I have read the posts here so far and they all bring up good points....I too agree though, with DFrost...I work for the Police too and I can see how the term "Thin Blue Line" continues to get thinner and thinner - the balance between public safety, security and an individuals rights gets sometimes messed up. Who is right?
Parents want safe schools for thier kids...Teachers need to be protected as well..up here in Ontario, they're looking at putting in metal detectors (like at the airports) to screen students as they pass by (given that the exacto knife/switchblade Is the weapon of choice to carry now by those who deem it necessary) so where to draw that line?
It still comes back to the simple fact as stated before: if you've got nothing to hide, then you have no worries.
Kids have no reason to bring drugs/booze/weapons to school but they continue to do so - at an earlier age. Where disputes used to be settled with fist fights are now being settled with knives and serious (and sometimes fatal) injuries. There has to be some point where someone takes control and says "hey, this not right and we need to do something about it." Which is what they've started doing up here. Like everything else in this complex, complicated life these days, you need to pick a point to start from and stick with it.
If searching lockers (who are not owned by the users but by the school board - which is another issue) with trained K9 dogs is necesary to keep the school and its occupants safe, then it should be done. Someone needs to take some responsibility and as long as individual rights are not violated, it will make for safer schools...not 100% but better than not doing anything at all.
-Richard
|
|
|
Post by sibemom on Jan 5, 2005 19:44:14 GMT -5
A few years ago in my town we went through the BOMB SCARE ERA. Every other day a bomb threat was being called into one of the schools. First the middle school then the grade schools, then the Catholic High School and finally the High School. Each building was searched by bomb squad and the dogs. Each and every locker was opened and searched, all campuses were closed to outsiders except parents with proper ID. The kids had to use all clear back packs and anything deemed as BOMB MAKING MATERIAL was confescated and the kids were questioned. It got to the point where on one isolated thursday night the TV News and the papers put out an allert to keep your children home from school on Friday because it was the anniverary of the Columbine tradgedy and they had information that a gang from Milwaukee was comming up to our small little town to re live what had happened on that tragic day. This had to be the most stressful and horriable time for these students. My oldest son was a senior then and his grades started slipping, because the tension in the school was INTENSE. After this passed and NO a gang from the BIG CITY never did come here, metal detectors were installed at every entry, and the Admin. Offices were put under a coded lock. They limited exit and entry to just a few doors and if you were late for school you got a complete search by the officer posted at the door along with a good sniff up by his dog. They had found two pipe bombs REAL ONES, and one phoney, but I for one was pleased with the way this was taken so seriously. Yes it cost the city and taxpayers alot of money but no price is to much to keep the children safe. I do not think it is inappropriate at all to use dogs or locker searches etc... what could have been an extreme tradgedy was put to a hault by these measures. I will say it again like everyone else "If you have nothing to hide they you have nothing to be afraid of" any one doubting or questioning these types of tactics should have lived through what we did, although I hope you never have too.
|
|
|
Post by ladyarya on Feb 12, 2005 8:48:12 GMT -5
"Those who have nothing to hide, hide nothing." I have to disagree, respectfully, but vehemently. I never had drugs on me at school. I never had weapons. They could have searched me, my locker, my bag, my car, etc all day and they would have come up with bubkis. However, I do believe my privacy is mine. You get tortured, censored and belittled enough in highschool from the faculty, security guards and administration. The last thing you need is a policy that will pave the way for free reign to search anything as they see fit. I was pushed up against a wall and frisked by my math teacher in the 11th grade for no good reason. What's next? Body cavity searches before each class? School is school, not maximum security prison and if it's treated as such, education in this country is going to go farther down the toilet than it already has. And for the record: I was in school during columbine. We had a shooting in my school. My mother is a teacher. And even I think this is too far.
|
|
|
Post by DivineOblivion19 on Feb 14, 2005 0:18:03 GMT -5
I was pushed up against a wall and frisked by my math teacher in the 11th grade for no good reason. What's next? Body cavity searches before each class? WOW! How did your teacher get away with that?! There's NO WAY I would have let it happen! I would definitely would laid down the smack! I was kind of a trouble maker when it came to teachers I didn't like...
On the other hand, once or twice a year we had the police bring the dogs into our high school. I had no problem with it. There's no reason for kids to be bringing drugs/alcohol/guns into school. Nobody felt "violated" except for the people who got busted, of course. I think it's fine.
|
|