CT teen refuses to be searched

[KBCraig]

While reading the WTNH article about Lauren's arrest, I spotted this item. You should read the idiotic sheeple comments! But, the young man posts a comment and defends himself very well.

http://wtnh.tv/blogs/index.php/anchors/2006/09/19/student_searches_and_metal_detectors_at

Topic: Student Searches and Metal Detectors at School
Posted by:  Sara Welch;  09/19/06  10:53:06 pm

A New Haven high school junior is challenging the school district's addition of metal detectors and random student searches at Career High School. He is refusing to pass thru the detectors or be randomly searched. He says its all about his claimed 4th amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. The New Haven school district says like the right to enter a courtroom or get on a plane, its new policy is all about keeping people safe.

16-year old Nick Evans argues there is no formal policy in the school's handbook outlining the new security measures. Infact, the student says the handbook reads that the school needs reasonable grounds to search someone.

The district says the superintendent has the right to make changes to policy in what he considers to be emergency situations. The decision to add the increased security comes after a violent summer in the Elm city. A spokesperson for the district says the decision to add metal detectors and random searches is ensure a safe learning environment.

The district admits there is no formal policy on this, but says that will change next week when a policy is presented to the Board of Education.

Nick Evans wants to be in school and says he will follow the new policy as long as it's legal.

Do you think this student is justified in challenging the legality of the use of the detectors and searches? Do you think that added security is simply part of our daily life and must be accepted?

[error]

Justified? He should be applauded!

[Spencer]

I wonder how the teachers' unions would react if teachers were included in the group that has to go through metal detectors and be subject to random, suspicionless searches?

[error]

I wonder how the teachers' unions would react if teachers were included in the group that has to go through metal detectors and be subject to random, suspicionless searches?

Let's try it and see what happens.

[aries]

oohh I like that idea

[aries]

Shit look at all the comments on that article though

pretty much every single one is against him.

For isntance this one is golden: "Unreasonable search and seizure does not mean you cannot mean searched if you don't to be.

It means if the authorities feel it is reasonable you can and they will."

ever heard of a fucking warrant?

[error]

And some people are so inert, so hopelessly dependent on the system, that they will fight to protect it.

[error]

I couldn't let this one go by, so I left the following comment:

The experts have already testified that these metal detectors are useless for security. Anyone who's really intent on doing students harm isn't going to be deterred. Instead, it's a smokescreen intended to distract parents from the real issue.

The real issue is instilling in our children a blind obedience to the dictates of the bureaucratic state, no matter how senseless or how detrimental to our individual freedom and values.

We spent nearly half a century locked in a Cold War with another state which did exactly the same thing to its children, until it crumbled under its own bureaucratic weight.

Now we are on that same downward spiral. But it's not too late to change.

[Spencer]

I, too, left a comment.  Mine is as follows:

How about a deal?

Nick agrees to go through the metal detectors / submit to random, suspicionless searches IF AND ONLY IF the teachers and administrators (including the superintendent) agree to the same treatment as the students.

Deal?

Somehow I doubt that the teachers and administrators would agree to such humiliating, unconstitutional treatment.

[Kat Kanning]

Good for him!  Quick, someone recruit that kid

[KBCraig]

Finally had a chance to post my comment:

Comment from: KBCraig [Visitor] ? http://www.freestateproject.org
Nick, move north!

I salute Nick Evans. He's obviously a young man with principles. Principles are not only not required for "zero tolerance" schools, they're actually forbidden. All that matters are The Rules, as if words on paper determine right from wrong.

Nick, please join us in New Hampshire. Or join our friends protesting the imprisonment of Lauren Ann Canario, jailed for sitting on a porch in New London.

Liberty and justice for all,

Kevin

[mraaron]

   I hope this guy becomes a court judge.

[cpmarch]

I also left a comment, slightly different perspective

Comment from: Cary M. [Visitor]

I applaud Nick - he has a very valid point:

The state government compels (forces) him to come to school through truancy laws, then requires him to submit to a search in order to comply with the truancy law. This is a very clear violation of his constitutional rights.

But let's not be myopic about the issue. Isn't it reasonable, in general, for a school to search anyone coming on the property for weapons? Surely it is! If this were a private school, would anyone still have a problem with the search requirement?

At root here we have a conflict between Nick's (and every other student's) constitutional rights and the perfectly reasonable requirement of the school administration that he submit to a search before coming on school property. How's that possible? To put it simply: this is an unintended consequence of state intervention in the economy.

When the government goes beyond it's most basic charter - protecting the fundamental rights of its citizens - it opens a Pandora's Box of unpleasant outcomes and conflicts. The whole issue of prayer in school springs to mind. Now, it's poor Nick's constitutional rights.

Don't think for a second that this is a "small" matter. If Nick's constitutional rights can be suspended in this case, then the constitution is no protection at all - for any of us!

But what's the solution? It's just as simple as the problem: get government out of education. The state of Connecticut has no business indoctrinating... err, "educating"... our children -- nor any business compelling them to appear at school through truancy laws, nor forcing the public to pay for the whole rotten business through property and other taxes.