“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”
The Fourth Amendment guards against unreasonable searches and seizures. The amendment specifically also requires search and arrest warrants be judicially sanctioned and supported by probable cause. Furthermore, probable cause is the standard by which a police officer has the authority to make an arrest, conduct a personal or property search, or to obtain a warrant for arrest. In Mapp v. Ohio, (1961), the Supreme Court ruled that the Fourth Amendment applies to the states by way of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Supreme Court has also ruled that certain searches and seizures violated the Fourth Amendment even when a warrant was properly granted.
Case against school searches isn't frivolous
DAVID ISEMAN • The News-Leader • October 29, 2010
If you read about the lawsuit against Springfield schools recently, you might be thinking: "Geez that wacky Doug Burlison's at it again. Suing the schools just for trying to keep kids safe." "Talk about frivolous. And he's a city councilman — embarrassing." Check those thoughts, please. All of them. The 3-week-old federal lawsuit by Burlison and his wife, Mellony, claims the school district violated the Fourth Amendment by using Greene County deputies and their dogs to search for drugs and weapons without warrants or "individualized suspicion" at Central High School. It's not a joke or a ploy by any means. The Burlisons are serious. They have a serious lawyer. They have support from a very serious organization — the Virginia-based Rutherford Institute, which for a quarter-century has been fighting what it sees as infringement on civil liberties. It often keeps cases going to "terminal courts," as in as far as they can go, said the Burlisons' local attorney Jason Umbarger. You probably remember that name. He created a real fuss for the city of Springfield after he and an angry retired state trooper helped shut down all the red light cameras in the city. Doug Burlison realizes he'll get flak for suing. But he hopes, in the long run, he'll be seen as righteous. "I was crazy when I went and got signatures for the (Springfield city) audit, too," he said of the popular, negative opinion at the time, adding, "After a while it became a good idea." In case you don't recall, the Burlisons' lawsuit came after an April maneuver with dogs, deputies and administrative staff at Central, which the Burlisons' kids attend. Kids were made to leave classrooms, but leave possessions behind. When they returned, it was clear, the kids say in the lawsuit, that someone had rummaged through some purses and backpacks. Dog drool was evident on some belongings. Schools Attorney Ransom Ellis III insists the deputies and school police didn't seize or search anything unless a "dog hit on it." He says it's well established in law that a school has the right to bring in dogs to sniff at inanimate objects in search of drugs and weapons, in the greater interest of school safety. The Burlisons think this was clearly a search, warrantless, without any sort of concrete suspicions established first. They also say it was a very bad message for kids. Umbarger says it this way: "We're teaching kids the exact opposite of what schools are mandated by law to teach our children." You know, he says, like in all those history and social studies classes about the Constitution and those pesky amendments. Some lament this lawsuit. I think it's a good thing — especially if the kids really follow it and get to dissect and discuss it in class. A teaching moment? For sure. By the way, the district defends its practices vociferously but has put similar maneuvers on hold. A serious matter? Yes. Just how grave might depend on how aggressive the Burlisons, their feisty lawyer and their freedom-fighting backers — who are paying for this suit — decide they want to get. David Iseman is the editorial page editor for the News-Leader, Springfield, Mo.
____
http://www.baxterbulletin.com/article/20101029/OPINION01/10290317
http://www.wethepeoplepolitics.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/comebackwithawarrant.jpg
No comments:
Post a Comment