My school had a science teacher who would beat kids with an eraser including in the mouth and eyes.

As a kid, Mr Lake’s arm was tied to a chair because he’s left handed.

I got my period once all over the back of my skirt (no pants people) and was forced to sit in class to the bell and walk down the busy hall with my then shame.

Bullies and sadists in public school then and now.

Then or now.

Not just school cops.

According to the complaint there was no "stinky weed", just a BS excuse to assault the student.

telling the student to stop,, she should've told the cop to stop immediately so she could call the kids parents down and then they could all check the back pack.

The teacher was so willing to give up the kid's 4th Amendment right (google it if ya dont know what it is) because of the bully cop. Perhaps she was intimidated by the cop but she should have helped the kid not the cop. School administrators should instruct teachers/adult staff on how to protect their students and deal with abusive cops.

The cop lied as there were no drugs in the backpack.

and the adult went along with it, ok, call me nasty then.

The cop was abusive. It's right there in the video for all of us to see.

Multiple people at the school had the same suspicion that drugs may have been present. They seemed to be administrators, teachers or other school staff. So, a search was reasonable. Yes, the parents should have been called for the search if such notification is a requirement.

The actual search, though, seems to have occurred well after the initial situation had been escalated by the kid's choice to resist. So, the search seems to have been done in relation to the kid being taken to the police station. I doubt that type of search requires parental notification.

I'll leave it to you to adduce your own evidence, since that's your burden of proof, if you want to make a point. (Telling others to google your argument? Get real.)

If you have other information on this, I am open to your opinions and facts if you want to present them.

Either way, "The cop lied...." seems to not be relevant as far as I can tell. This was about suspicion of possession, not actual possession. Did I miss a statement somewhere that drugs were actually found in the backpack? Or is that something that you have just added to the discussion?

Last edited Wed May 4, 2022, 01:00 PM - Edit history (1)

couldn't articulate it. What is wrong here. This is DU, a progressive site. We should all be aware of this.

And I didn't bring it up earlier, but it was a Black kid being targeted by the cop and the teacher. This was clearly abusive. The adult watching should've stepped in, told the cop to stop until the parents were bought down.

The cop clearly lied. What is up here on DU with posters favoring abusive cops in schools. And of course it's usually a Black kid targeted.

On page 16 of the linked document, it appears to indicate that warrantless searches are considered legal under this particular exception:

Though the document seems to have been produced specifically for the use of persons in MA, perhaps the reasoning in it also applies nationally.

Clearly, from the video, there were multiple school staff who believed that the student had violated a school policy regarding drug use and/or drug possession. Fitting the suspected smell of marijuana to the above excerpted paragraph's "noxious odor" seems then to justify a warrantless search.

As noted before, you may be correct. However, at the moment, it does not seem so -- based on the above excerpt and the document from which it was taken. Please show me where I am incorrect.

called and met with before calling a cop? And the teacher and the cop had time to research all of that like you just did? And the Black kid should have just complied and his 4th Amendment rights didn't matter, right?

And so should have George Floyd too, I guess?

And there was no suspicion of a firearm involved, and the cop lied and on and on. Forget it. I'm disappointed in the reactions here.

..., and, yes, there are definite intrusions upon a person's rights that should not be tolerated in our society.
There are injustices, as well.

MA is Massachusetts, and ME is Maine, but that's beside the point.

Ideally, the parents should have been called.
(What the actual policies in the US are is unclear, so I don't know if it is required in the exact situation in the video.)

Chances are the teachers and the police are somewhat aware of what they can do - this could be wildly wrong, though. There seems to be ample evidence on video of police claiming all sorts of rights that they just do not have. The relative percentage of knowledgeable officers versus unknowing officers is unclear.

IF the search were in fact justified by law, the kid should have complied. (This is a point that I'll leave open to you. I get the ideal of the absolute inviolability of one's personal space and belongings (not that this is what you are arguing), but whatever form that takes under the 4th Amendment is unclear to me. If I am wrong, let me know someday.)

Clearly, what happened to George Floyd was absolutely wrong.

Yes, there was no firearm - nor do I believe that it was stated that there was one in the video. It was so in that textual excerpt, but that was a separately cited case. So, I am not sure where the officer lied in the video.

Anyway, I'll just leave it at that. If I am actually incorrect in my take, feel free to correct me in the future. I'll listen.

the kid's backpack. Cops do lie quite often I'm sure you know. There was no pot.

The Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution provides that "[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures...

That would include students and their backpacks...without their parents presence and approval I would think.

Yes, the officer did state that he thought he smelled marijuana. There was no pot. That's quite correct.

Your point about the Fourth Amendment is important, too. It seems, though, that there is a legally perceived/created
loophole around that - if one considers the document from Massachusetts which I found online. If that document's
presented analysis is accurate, the reality of the situation seems to be that there is no shield by the Fourth Amendment in a case such as this. (I'm not arguing that this situation is right - only that it seems to exist in this way.)

So, all that a police officer needs to do is form the opinion that he is suspicious (or, worse yet, in fear as happens in
other more lethally ending cases, but that's another serious problem).

What guard is there against the formation of such an opinion? I hesitate to call his statement a lie here, since I cannot
guess his intent. (It could easily be that the several others who claimed that they also thought that the student may
have had pot on him were engaging in some form of group dynamics. Or he may have honestly believed his statement. I don't know.) Such intent is not necessarily automatic, but it is easy to imagine an officer who has decided such opinions are a carte blanche for his actions.

You're right that that there should be a line and that that line should be related to the interpretation of the Fourth Amendment, but what can one do to handle this sort of case? On some level, there needs to be a proper (non-zero) degree of enforcement against drugs in schools, and yet it's not desirable to violate people's rights or throw them around as was done.

It may sound flippant, but it is not intended as such. If verbally or physically accosted by a police officer, perhaps the advice that is given on how to survive a bear attack is near to what should be done: play dead (i.e., be compliant, but say nothing). It's not an optimal situation, but it might prevent physical (and possibly lethal) violence. After surviving if wronged, perhaps remedies in the court can be sought. That is happening here.

Anyway, I wanted to try to write fairer response to you, because I don't think you're wrong in the larger sense of things. It does seem, though, that the legal system has significantly reduced the meaning of the Fourth Amendment from what you see it as. As I said, I don't think that you're wrong about the Fourth Amendment's importance.

Unfortunately, in light of a recent SCOTUS draft opinion, minimizing rights just seems to be what we do here.

and it should've been worked out without a cop.

Wonder if the teacher would've called a cop it the kid was white? There is that too.

n/t

no pot in the backpack that he claimed he smelled. The teacher should've called the kid's parents before calling an effin' cop who violated the kid's 4th Amendment rights.

I repeat. Parents should've been called in.

Nothing else needs to be said. Kids have 4th amendment rights too. And we on DU should know that. Since when do we agree with cops abusing kids?

Last edited Sat May 7, 2022, 08:12 PM - Edit history (2)

the teacher called a cop when she should've called the parents. The kid's 4th Amendment rights were violated by an abusive cop and many on this thread sided with the cop.

This is a progressive site and I call that unsavory. As progressives, we should know better. And on top of all that, he was a black kid and posters were saying he should've complied with the lying cop...see George Floyd and all the rest of Black victims who should've complied?

was abusive and violated the kid's 4th Amendment rights and the teacher aided him.

What's hard to understand about that?

I don't get what you're trying to say. All cops are not being demonized. Try something else.

They've easy to see right on the video.

None of this situation had to happen except by the kid's choice to resist being searched. The use of force seems completely justified, and the officer seems to have used minimal force to gain compliance.

It is reasonable to attempt to maintain a drug-free environment in a school system. Cooperation is necessary for that, and there is a public interest in that. Maintaining such a drug-free environment is analogous to maintaining safety in an airport.

The lawsuit seems frivolous in this case, and the document seems to be written to exaggerate; i.e., "...slight frame face-first...", etc. That's alliterative poetic license run logically amok.

However, the problem is that this could in principle be a good kid who had a bad day. This incident might well determine much of what his future is and in our society probably will. A few temporary bad choices should not irrevocably destroy someone's future chances to have a good life. He should not be defined by his worst moment.

I hope things work out well for him in the near and long terms but fear that in our system things will not work out well.