Jump to content

astrov

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    474

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

 Content Type 

Posts posted by astrov

    Make some money this way....

    in Spray

    Posted

    Last summer on the Emmons route one of the womyn guiding the group in front of us dropped trou at about 12 thousand feet and laid a deuce while tied to her rope team. Unfortunately we were right behind, following them up.

     

    Gross. Use a bag next time.

     

    But the spectacle was free, "faster than you"!

    the highlight of my day

    in Spray

    Posted

    thanks for the link - i'd heard of this case before but didn't remember the specific details

     

    Hi Ivan. This is from the opinion's syllabus, so it's more of a coherent distillation of the (constitutional) law than an expression of the law itself. Long and short of it is that if this case is still controlling, your search of the i-pod wouldn't fly under 4th Amendment. The search was not justified "at its inception" since the offense which you had "reasonable suspicion" to believe was going on (disrupting class) was a foreclosed possibility as soon as the i-pod was taken away. Unless you had some "reasonable" (that is, articulable) suspicion that search of the i-pod would turn up evidence of violation of the law or of school code, you shouldn't have searched it. This is not to say that the law forbids a search; rather, just that if the 4th Amendment exclusionary rule is deemed to apply, the evidence of commission of crime you gathered couldn't be used in a prosecution of the girl et al. It would of course be up to you and the prosecution to argue that the girl's reluctance to hand over the i-pod (before turning it off) gave you grounds to believe that it contained fruits of criminal activity. (After all, maybe she didn't want the batteries to die?) I don't really know the cases, or the law in Washington. Hell, I don't really know anything. I just thought it would be interesting to talk about this in addition to the "should we let our kids do drugs" aspect.

     

    "2. Schoolchildren have legitimate expectations of privacy. They may find it necessary to carry with them a variety of legitimate, noncontraband items, and there is no reason to conclude that they have necessarily waived all rights to privacy in such items by bringing them onto school grounds. But striking the balance between schoolchildren's legitimate expectations of privacy and the school's equally legitimate need to maintain an environment in which learning can take place requires some easing of the restrictions to which searches by public authorities are ordinarily subject. Thus, school officials need not obtain a warrant before searching a student who is under their authority. Moreover, school officials need not be held subject to the requirement that searches be based on probable cause to believe that the subject of the search has violated or is violating the law. Rather, the legality of a search of a student should depend simply on the reasonableness, under all the circumstances, of the search. Determining the reasonableness of any search involves a determination of whether the search was justified at its inception and whether, as conducted, it was reasonably related in scope to the circumstances that justified the interference in the first place. Under ordinary circumstances, the search of a student by a school official will be justified at its inception where there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that the search will turn up evidence that the student has violated or is violating either the law or the rules of the school. And such a search will be permissible in its scope when the measures adopted are reasonably related to the objectives of the search, and not excessively intrusive in light of the student's age and sex and the nature of the infraction. Pp. 337-343."

×
×
  • Create New...