This page includes my articles about issues of law, links, and letters to newspaper editors and others, not all of which were published.
Go Home.
Table of contents for all letters
Letters involving civil rights (in chronological order):
. . . David Levine Should Stay re separatist beliefs as employment criterion.
. . . Ban the Olympics re invasion of privacy and violation of Canada's sovereignty and Constitution.
. . . Ban the Olympic Games re drug testing and publishing results invades privacy and law.
. . . War-free in Yugoslavia? re illegal NATO aggression against Yugoslavia.
. . . War-free in Yugoslavia re NATO war aggression contravening UN and NATO Charters.
. . . Is Canada at War? re NATO war of aggression against Yugoslavia.
. . . Who exactly is undeserving of health care?
. . . Unreasonable search of student
Text of letters
Unreasonable search of student
To: Letters Editor, Ottawa Citizen
Re: Article "Teen vows to fight 'zero-tolerance gone insane'", March 28, p. A1
Proposed title: 'Guilty' before charged?
---- There are about 236 words (1,382 characters, including spaces) in the text between the lines below. ----
Re: "Teen vows to fight 'zero-tolerance gone insane'", March 28.
I am very offended by the suspension by the Ottawa-Carleton Catholic School Board of the student Chris Lauren based on the detection by a police dog of the scent of marijuana on his clothing. Its action violates both the scientific method and ethical standards. I am pleased that he and his family have retained the lawyer Lawrence Greepspon to determine whether the Board has also violated the student's constitutional rights.
Thomas Jourdan, chief of materials and devices at the FBI laboratory in Washington, D.C., says 85 percent to 90 percent of the currency in the United States has measurable amounts of cocaine. Everyone's money is likely tainted -- even those who've never seen cocaine, Jourdan says. Dogs trained to smell drugs might alert officers to the cash of the innocent as well as the guilty. For example, in 1994, a Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco ruled that a drug dog's hit on $30,060 did not justify seizure of the money, even though the owner gave a false account of the money's source.
A more reasonable approach by the Board would have been to advise the boy, his family, and the police of the situation -- in strict confidence -- then to discreetly monitor the boy for the remainder of the season, without any suspension. The Board has not exhibited an exemplary standard of ethics.
You are free to publish any or all of the above, in any form, edited as you please, including my name and city. Signed: Wayne R. Paulson, Ottawa, Ontario
For substantiation of my figures and statements, see the following Web sites:
US Most Cash Bears Traces Of Cocaine, FBI Expert Says: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v99.n710.a07.html Media Awareness Project. Re. article Pubdate: Sun, 27 Jun 1999
Source: Arkansas Democrat-Gazette (AR) Copyright: 1999 Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, Inc. A top scientist for the FBI . . . Thomas Jourdan, chief of materials and devices at the FBI laboratory in Washington, D.C., says 85 percent to 90 percent of the currency in the United States has measurable amounts of cocaine. . . . Several instances are given in which U.S. courts have rejected prosecutions based on traces of drugs on money.
New Products: http://www.britain.or.kr/english/young/199909/np1.htm DRUG-BUSTING EQUIPMENT THAT TRACES CRIMINALS . . . 40 per cent of all paper money in Britain carry traces of cocaine . . .
The rule of law Editorials - Ottawa Citizen - canada.com network: http://www.canada.com/ottawa/ottawacitizen/editorials/story.asp?id={C758F11D-BA02-420A-A7FB-1922D8D9D636} Scent of a jacket March 29, 2002 The Ottawa Citizen March 28, 2002
This week's suspension of an Orléans high school student because a police dog detected a scent of marijuana on his ski jacket should be the final proof Ottawa school boards need to end their policy of random drug searches of students.
It's bad enough that the searches violate students' privacy rights, and probably their constitutional rights, too. It's also unacceptable that they teach students to fear how organs of the state can exercise their authority, regardless of whether they have reasonable grounds to suspect someone of wrongdoing. But to suspend a student when there is absolutely no evidence, other than the "word" of a drug-sniffing dog, is as ludicrous as it is offensive.
As the Citizen reported this week, 15-year-old Chris Laurin and his fellow Grade 10 students at St. Matthew High School were subjected to a lockdown Tuesday as police conducted an impromptu search for drugs and weapons. A police dog zeroed in on Chris's ski jacket, which prompted further searches of his clothing, lunch bag, school bag and locker. Even though these searches found no drugs whatsoever, and even though no human could smell marijuana on Chris's clothes, St. Matthew's principal suspended him for two days and ordered him to see a drug counsellor.
The Ottawa-Carleton Catholic School Board says lockdowns are part of Ontario's "safe schools" policy, designed to keep illegal substances and weapons out of schools. (That's the same policy, you may recall, that Ottawa's public school board used last year to suspend a seven-year-old Grade 2 student for five days for bringing an African letter-opener to his school for show-and-tell.)
We're all for safe schools, but there are better ways to achieve that goal than by subjecting students to sweeping random police searches on the off-chance that some illegal drugs might be found. It certainly won't make schools safer to suspend a student when there is absolutely no physical evidence that any transgression occurred.
Imagine if the powers-that-be could do that to someone other than a student. The howls of outrage would be deafening if police could stop and search people without any grounds to suspect them, and then detain or charge them for drug possession even though no drugs were ever found. Why should students be treated differently?
It's true that a 1998 Supreme Court decision said students have a lower expectation of privacy while at school than at home, so some searches can take place without a warrant. But that doesn't mean students lose all their constitutional rights when they're inside their schools.
Allowing the police to act in a manner that is inconsistent with the values and principles that underpin our society, and suspending students without any evidence, sends the wrong message** to young people about the country in which they live.
That's not a lesson they should be learning, inside or outside the classroom.
© Copyright 2002 The Ottawa Citizen
** The message we are sending the students is that this appears to be a fascist police state that can violate individual basic rights arbitrarily. The Communists and Nazis used to do it all the time. Why copy their tactics? Why abandon the hard-won concept of living by a rule of law? The lawbreakers here are the schools and the police. I believe in the rule of law. Let's enforce it.
ACLU Press Release - 3-19-97 -- ACLU Files Suit Against Galt High School Charging Use of Drug-Sniffing Dogs and Unreasonable Search and Seizures Violate Students' and Teachers' Rights: http://www.aclunc.org/pressrel/19mar97p.html March 19, 1997
On March 19, the ACLU-NC filed suit in U.S. District Court in Sacramento against the Galt Joint Union High School District Board of Trustees and Galt High School officials, charging that forcing students and teachers to relinquish book bags, purses, jackets and other personal belongings to random inspections by drug sniffing dogs violates their constitutional guarantees against unreasonable searches and seizures.
The practice of using dogs to search students' belongings has become fairly widespread in school districts throughout the Central Valley. This lawsuit is the first to challenge such policies under which school districts bring in a private company to search students' belongings with dogs.
ACLU-NC cooperating attorney John Heller of Chapman, Popik & White, said, "The school board is bringing in the dogs and subjecting students to searches and seizures without having any basis for suspecting that they have done anything wrong. We would never tolerate that type of suspicionless search and seizure of adults. There's no reason why students should be forced to endure it."
Last June, the Galt School District entered into a contract with Interquest Group, Inc. for random, unannounced dog-sniff inspections of lockers, classrooms, vehicles and communal areas for the purpose of detecting illegal drugs, weapons and other contraband.
On February 6, 1997, Galt High School Vice-Principal Donna Gill entered teacher Michael Millet's Criminal Justice class and directed the students and Millet, who has taught in the District for 25 years, to vacate the classroom and leave all their belongings behind for a "dog-sniff" inspection. Student Jacob Reed objected to the dog-sniff inspection and refused to give up his belongings. Claiming that his refusal created a "reasonable suspicion" to believe that he had something to hide, Vice-Principal Craig Murray took Reed to the Principal's office to be searched.
Behind the closed office door, Vice-Principal Murray searched Reed's binder, jacket, and hat. Murray ordered Reed to empty his pockets, and to turn up his pants cuffs to show his socks, which he then inspected. Murray stuck his hands into Reed's pants pockets. No illegal drugs or contraband were found.
"Drugs are a bad thing, but they are going about this all wrong," said senior Jacob Reed. "I felt although the administration believed what they were doing was necessary, they didn't take into consideration that students are people and they have rights. Also, I didn't want the dogs to slobber all over my papers, books and other stuff," added Reed.
In the meantime, the dog-sniff inspection continued in Millet's classroom. When the teacher began to leave with some of his personal belongings, he was ordered by Vice-Principal Gill to leave them to be sniffed as well. After the inspection, Gill announced to the entire class that the dogs had "alerted" to a jacket and bookbag and ordered the owners to identify themselves. Chris Sulamo identified himself as the owner of the jacket. After Sulamo refused to submit to a search unless it was conducted in the presence of a police officer, Gill telephoned a Galt police officer, who arrived and directed Sulamo to submit to the search.
"I felt uncomfortable -- my rights were not being served," said Sulamo, a junior. Principal Callas searched his clothing, put his hands in Sulamo's pants pockets, checked his socks and disassembled his pens. "I had no say in what they did to me or my belongings," Sulamo said. Again, no illegal items were found.
"After being contacted by the students and their parents, we informed the school board that these searches are illegal because they violate the students' rights," said ACLU-NC managing attorney Alan Schlosser. "However, the district insists that they will continue the program. This type of dragnet search is exactly what the Fourth Amendment was intended to prevent. Galt school officials are giving the students a terrible civics lesson," he added.
Teacher Michael Millet noted the irony of his students being yanked from a class on criminal justice and treated like criminals for no reason. "This is an intolerable situation in a democratic society. For the money that the District is paying for dogs to teach negative points about our Constitution, we could have more educational assemblies or we could take our students to Solano State Prison at Vacaville to talk to incarcerated people who used drugs.
"There are more positive ways to address the drug problem with our youth. Let's not take the Constitution and use it against our future citizens," added Millett. . . .
DRUG TESTING IN SCHOOLS VIOLATES RIGHTS, EXPERT SAYS
MANHATTAN -- Mandatory drug testing for students, teachers and other school employees holds serious pitfalls and in some cases may violate personal rights guaranteed in the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
That's the view of Kansas State University Professor Bob Shoop, who says the Fourth Amendment protects citizens against unreasonable search and seizure.
"Courts have ruled that drug tests are a search," said Shoop, a professor of educational administration. "A search is a privacy issue, and there has to be a clear reason for the search."
Opponents of mandatory drug testing argue that forced random or uniform drug testing severely endangers constitutional democracy. The Fourth Amendment issue of reasonable suspicion is a fundamental objection to mandatory and comprehensive drug screening, Shoop said.
"Proponents cite dramatic evidence that drug testing has been effective and argue for routine screening," Shoop said. "The results of aggressive drug screening are genuinely impressive.
Shoop said prospective teachers do not have the same rights to privacy as current employees. They may reasonably anticipate that some districts may require drug testing because the district's interests lie in maintaining a safe and conducive learning environment. School districts may require prospective teachers to submit to drug testing before hiring.
"The Fourth Amendment does not prevent a school from requiring urine, blood or breath specimens under conditions of pre-employment examination," Shoop said. After the teacher is hired, drug testing may only be done if there is reasonable suspicion where there is particularized fact or inference that the employee is then under the influence of a chemical substance.
"You get a constitutional issue if you try random drug testing once the teacher is employed," Shoop said. "The testing of current teachers cannot be justified without suspicion of wrong doing."
School districts may be interested in testing teachers for drugs to determine their fitness to teach, and the effect of an unfounded search may result in loss of employment, contractual rights and possible criminal charges, he said.
Schools are more limited than businesses in the private sector when it comes to requiring drug tests because schools are funded by the government, Shoop said. Private employers may create a policy which requires their employees to submit to random or regular drug testing. However, the employer must have a clear policy and the employees must know about it before it may be applied. The employees then have the option to leave the company if they do not agree with the policy.
"The real issue is not whether schools can or cannot test," Shoop said. "The question is why do they want to do it?" The controversy over drug testing in schools has been growing and holds significant implications for the way schools are run in the future, he said. Real concerns about school safety have resulted in increasing demands for drug screening for both students and faculty.
"The increasing number of drug-related tragedies has heightened the debate," Shoop said. "In a school, the primary reason for drug testing is to eliminate the use of drugs and create a safer school environment."
Shoop said he recommends that school districts write specific and clear policies stating how drug tests may be used by the district to fight a known drug problem.
"Teachers have a tremendous amount to lose," Shoop said. "The drug tests are incredibly invasive, may read a false positive or may be done improperly."
There is a distinction between drug testing for students and for teachers. The primary object of a student search is to preserve safety in schools as it is threatened by drug abuse. However, unfounded random searches still violate the Fourth Amendment, he said.
Shoop said he thought once a student was observed using drugs, the school could take the appropriate disciplinary action without a drug test.
Some schools in Kansas have looked into creating a policy for blanket drug testing the student body, but the procedure would be incredibly expensive, Shoop said. However, Shoop is not aware of any Kansas school districts that have implemented policies at this time.
Courts are also divided on the issue of drug testing student athletes. In some cases, it has been ruled legal to submit student athletes to drug tests if they have been notified before the tests are administered. Other courts have ruled that the school needs a written and publicized policy on drug testing first.
"The risk of ruining a reputation is so great, there are better ways to find out if you have a drug problem," Shoop said.
Go Home. ___ Go to Table of contents for all letters. ___ Go up to Letters involving civil rights.
You can e-mail me at waynerp@sympatico.ca