Civil Rights Violated: Entire Senior Class Forced to take breathalyzer test - Polidicks

[quote]ST. CHARLES, Minn. -- Graduation has come and gone for 74 seniors at St. Charles High School but the debate continues about what happened during their rehearsal. Each student was given a breathalyzer test after faculty members noticed something out of the ordinary that morning. "They had smelled alcohol and observed some unusual behavior from a number of students," Superintendent of schools Mark Roubinek explained. School officials called police and law enforcement officers issued the breathalyzer tests. Some parents were upset they weren't called. "We're looking for an apology. For her to be as scared as she was, intimated as she was, again it was wrong. She did nothing wrong," parent Jamie Dolan said. Did the school district, or law enforcement officers, do the right thing? Was the breath test a violation of constitutional rights or was it a necessary safety precaution? It was the subject of debate at this month's school board meeting. Three people spoke in opposition of the school and law enforcement action; while three others were happy with the way the issue was handled. School board members did not respond to any of the comments, which were made during the public discussion portion of their meeting. "In my opinion the bullying was perpetrated by law enforcement officials and the school administration," one angry parent explained. "I thought this was a very proactive thing, I appreciate you doing it," another countered. "It was wrong, my 18-year-old daughter did not have a choice, she was not explained...excuse me, I'm really worked up over this," parent Paul Paladie said. Another parent, who didn't want to give her name said, "Once you lose somebody you appreciate the actions that these folks took on behalf of your children and all the children in the community." Roubinek says the students who were under the influence (he wouldn't say how many) were disciplined and participated in graduation ceremonies with the rest of their classmates. "I think from the standpoint of the schools' perspective it is done," he concluded. [B]Some parents have gone on record saying they are considering a lawsuit, alleging their children's rights were violated.[/B][/quote] [url=http://www.kare11.com/news/article/979149/391/Debate-over-use-of-breathalyzers-on-students-continue]source[/url] -- This is just wrong. They did not have enough probable cause to force the [B]entire[/B] graduating class to take the test. They could have picked a few students out and said "I have reason to believe you are under the influence of alcohol" and then it would be ok. The school is about to get the shit sued out of them.

I would have refused to take the test. Though, I am not quite sure which specific right has been violated here.

I'm conflicted. It's not bad really. It's not like a piss test where I can smoke at home and then get into trouble days, weeks later whilst being sober.

[QUOTE=Chicken_Chaser;36295542]I'm conflicted. It's not bad really. It's not like a piss test where I can smoke at home and then get into trouble days, weeks later whilst being sober.[/QUOTE] I don't think things like this should be simply compared to what could be worse. Judge everything in its own right.

I don't see the big deal, a breath test isn't all that hard, also like Scorpious said I don't know of any specific right this would violate.

[quote] "It was wrong, my 18-year-old daughter did not have a choice, she was not explained[B]...excuse me, I'm really worked up over this[/B],"[/quote] I understand where she's coming from but this is almost satirical

[QUOTE=asteroidrules;36295601]I don't see the big deal, a breath test isn't all that hard, also like Scorpious said I don't know of any specific right this would violate.[/QUOTE] My only guess is the Fourth Amendment. [editline]11th June 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Andokool12;36295627]I understand where she's coming from but this is almost satirical[/QUOTE] Well, how would you feel if you were called and told that at your child's high school called the police and Breathalyzed your daughter?

[QUOTE=asteroidrules;36295601]I don't see the big deal, a breath test isn't all that hard, also like Scorpious said I don't know of any specific right this would violate.[/QUOTE] There needs to be probable cause, otherwise the "no big deal" searches and tests become a regularity. The scent of alcohol is not probable cause to forcibly test an entire class. Saying that "some students were acting strangely" would only justify testing those particular students, and that's being generous. Breathalyzer tests are only really supposed to be for traffic stops. You can be punished for refusing one in the form of fines or revocation of a driver's license because driving does not qualify as a civil right, and by having a license you agree to certain stipulations (such as being breathalyzed.) The existing laws regarding breathalyzers do not account for their use in the instigating witch-hunts in schools.

breath tests aren't aren't an illegal search. You literally just breathe into a tube, it's not that hard

[QUOTE=ButtsexV3;36295705]breath tests aren't aren't an illegal search. You literally just breathe into a tube, it's not that hard[/QUOTE] They were forced to do it. It being a simple process doesn't justify that.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;36295499]I would have refused to take the test. Though, I am not quite sure which specific right has been violated here.[/QUOTE] I'd say unreasonable search and siezure. There's no reason for the school to breathalyze an entire graduating class because of a rumor of a few idiots getting sloshed.

[QUOTE=asteroidrules;36295601]I don't know of any specific right this would violate.[/QUOTE] I'd say a breathalyzer test counts as a "search" for all intents of Search and Seizure laws. [editline]11th June 2012[/editline] oh damn it

[QUOTE=ButtsexV3;36295705]breath tests aren't aren't an illegal search. You literally just breathe into a tube, it's not that hard[/QUOTE] That's foggy territory. I updated the above post, but you can be punished for refusal as a stipulation of being a driver. Having a driver's license and the operation of a motor vehicle are not rights, and therefore you are expected to submit to searches of yourself or your vehicle upon probable cause considering you do not have any specific civil right to operate a vehicle. These tests were conducted on students in a school, completely independent of traffic laws. They should not be expected to submit to such a test under the circumstances. It's like being expected to undergo a TSA pat-down at the local Red Robin. You can say it's easy and simple all you want, that doesn't make it a legal search. Breathalyzers are only really meant for use in suspected cases of DUI, not to indiscriminately test students.

[QUOTE=Lankist;36295762]That's foggy territory. I updated the above post, but you can be punished for refusal as a stipulation of being a driver. Having a driver's license and the operation of a motor vehicle are not rights, and therefore you are expected to submit to searches of yourself or your vehicle upon probable cause considering you do not have any specific civil right to operate a vehicle. These tests were conducted on students in a school, completely independent of traffic laws. They should not be expected to submit to such a test under the circumstances. [B]It's like being expected to undergo a TSA pat-down at the local Red Robin.[/B] You can say it's easy and simple all you want, that doesn't make it a legal search. Breathalyzers are only really meant for use in suspected cases of DUI, not to indiscriminately test students.[/QUOTE] Perfect example.

I would be pretty pissed and refuse to take the test, citing that it violates my rights.

[quote]"We're looking for an apology. For her to be as scared as she was, intimated as she was, again it was wrong.[/quote] Yea! How could they intimate such a poor girl?

I'm pretty sure you are only allowed to randomly breathalyze people in certain areas with proper permits. Then again I live in Australia and not the US. so fuck if I know.

[QUOTE=BigBoom;36296406]I'm pretty sure you are only allowed to randomly breathalyze people in certain areas with proper permits. Then again I live in Australia and not the US. so fuck if I know.[/QUOTE] Not in US - You must have PC (Probable Cause) to even subject one person to it.

[QUOTE=Lankist;36295667]There needs to be probable cause, otherwise the "no big deal" searches and tests become a regularity. The scent of alcohol is not probable cause to forcibly test an entire class. Saying that "some students were acting strangely" would only justify testing those particular students, and that's being generous. Breathalyzer tests are only really supposed to be for traffic stops. You can be punished for refusing one in the form of fines or revocation of a driver's license because driving does not qualify as a civil right, and by having a license you agree to certain stipulations (such as being breathalyzed.) The existing laws regarding breathalyzers do not account for their use in the instigating witch-hunts in schools.[/QUOTE] You said they're "suppose to" be used for traffic stops - is it actually written in the books that that is all they're allowed for, or is it just an "unspoken rule" that can't technically be enforced? And though they shouldn't have swiped the whole class down for it, would it have been legal to search out those suspected of intoxication on grounds of underage drinking?

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;36296672]would it have been legal to search out those suspected of intoxication on grounds of underage drinking?[/QUOTE] Yes

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;36296672]You said they're "suppose to" be used for traffic stops - is it actually written in the books that that is all they're allowed for, or is it just an "unspoken rule" that can't technically be enforced? And though they shouldn't have swiped the whole class down for it, would it have been legal to search out those suspected of intoxication on grounds of underage drinking?[/QUOTE] I didn't say it was directly illegal, I'm saying nearly all precedence and legislation for the use of breathalyzer tests exists under the auspices of DUI laws. If driving were not a privilege, all breathalyzer tests would be considered unreasonable searches. [editline]12th June 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=yawmwen;36296323]Yea! How could they intimate such a poor girl?[/QUOTE] The act of intimation in this context refers to engaging someone's privacy. There was no misuse of a word. The mother was saying that her daughter's privacy had been violated, and that the test was intimate and inappropriate.

[QUOTE=Lankist;36296832]I didn't say it was directly illegal, I'm saying nearly all precedence and legislation for the use of breathalyzer tests exists under the auspices of DUI laws. If driving were not a privilege, all breathalyzer tests would be considered unreasonable searches. [editline]12th June 2012[/editline] The act of intimation in this context refers to engaging someone's privacy.[/QUOTE] Wouldn't underage drinking be a reasonable search?

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;36296860]Wouldn't underage drinking be a reasonable search?[/QUOTE] Possibly for the students who were "acting strangely" if you're being generous, though that probable cause likely won't hold up if the test returns negative. [I]NOT[/I] for the entire senior class. Probable cause works on an individual or small-group basis. It does not apply to wide groups. For instance, if a black person robs a store, that does not give the police the authority to stop and search all black people indiscriminately. Similarly, if someone "smells alcohol" and a student "acts strangely," that does not justify forcing tests upon the entire senior class.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;36296860]Wouldn't underage drinking be a reasonable search?[/QUOTE] Yes it is. But that does not constitute the entire class to be searched, or tested. That constitutes that subject to be tested

I already said even if it were so I don't believe it was right to give the whole class a search. Just in case you guys missed that part.

[QUOTE=Lankist;36296832]The act of intimation in this context refers to engaging someone's privacy. There was no misuse of a word. The mother was saying that her daughter's privacy had been violated, and that the test was intimate and inappropriate.[/QUOTE] Lankist: The walking, posting dictionary

In Virginia (My state) you automatically consent to a blood or breathalyzer examination upon signing up for a driver's license whenever the state authority believes you to be under the influence of a substance. That may be the case here.

i must know all words

[QUOTE=Remscar;36296312]I would be pretty pissed and refuse to take the test, citing that it violates my rights.[/QUOTE] i'm guessing what you would really do is probably take it because you don't want to be pulled from graduation

[QUOTE=stupidass;36297031]In Virginia (My state) you automatically consent to a blood or breathalyzer examination upon signing up for a driver's license whenever the state authority believes you to be under the influence of a substance. That may be the case here.[/QUOTE] Even off the road? Plus, it's a good bet that there were many of these students there that didn't have their license yet. [editline]12th June 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Lazor;36297061]i'm guessing what you would really do is probably take it because you don't want to be pulled from graduation[/QUOTE] I didn't like graduation anyway, so personally I wouldn't have had a problem with it.