Originally Posted By: DesertFox
Originally Posted By: Leigh_Ratcliffe
"The Lansingburgh Central School District has a zero-tolerance policy on weapons. According to the district's Codes of Conduct, students are not allowed to have "a weapon of any kind" on school grounds. Even though a pocket knife is not considered a weapon under New York State penal code, the district also prohibits students from possessing anything "that reasonably can be considered a weapon."


So I had better leave my hands, feet, head, arms, elbows , knees, pens, pencils, belt, torch, shoes, key's, 550 cord, karabiner et al at home then?

To me this is a catch-all policy that can be applied any which way they feel like.

Anything can be "reasonably considered to be a weapon" if you know what you are doing.

Yes, he should sue. If only on the grounds that he has been denied a fair & impartial hearing.



You hit the nail on the head. Even if you have a zero-tolerance rule, the kids still have to understand what the rule prohibits. The wiggle words "that reasonably can be considered a weapon" leave that pretty much impossible. If some administrator had it out for a kid, a car itself could "reasonably" be considered a weapon, or his shoelaces.

As for refusing to allow them to search your car, that is a losing argument. Google the Supreme Court decision "New Jersey v. TLO". Remember that the fourth amendment forbids UNREASONABLE search and seizure. And the Supremes have decided that in order to protect students, just about anything is reasonable. The cops may need a warrant and probable cause, but a school administrator only needs "reasonable suspicion" (there's that wiggle word again, "reasonable"). In New Jersey v. TLO, the Supreme Court upheld the search of a student's purse because she was suspected of having cigarettes.

What's scary about TLO and the line of cases it has spawned isn't so much the ruling, but the logic behind it. Basically, the court reasoned that since students are compelled by governmental authority to attend school, the government owes them a higher duty of safety. The only way to guarantee this higher duty of safety is to give the school authorities more lattitude under the Bill of Rights. The court has upheld school administrators who conduct strip searches, drug dog searches, urinalysis and many other invasions of what we once considered privacy, all under the relaxed standard of "reasonable" suspicion.



I apologise for quoting. Unfortunately it is necessary for readers to follow the discussion smile

There is a point worth noting about the above. First and most prominent is that these students are all Minor's. That means that they cannot sue in their own person. They can only sue through a parent or guardian. Something of which the School Boards are perfectly well aware.

As an adult, anyone who strip searches, drug tests or urine analysis me is courting an action for slander, libel, defamation of character, repudiation of the basis of trust, unreasonable behaviour etc. That is irrespective of any imposed terms and conditions of employment, entry or anything else of that ilk.

What is often not appreciated is that self granted rights to search do not impede action against them, even if it is a condition of entry, employment etc. Unless they have what is commonly referred to as qualified or absolute privilege. That is to say that they enjoy partial or absolute immunity in law. Ditto any imposed conditions stating that it does not constitute suspicion etc.

The position in law (in the U.K.) is that your agreement has been obtained under coercion. Specifically: Expulsion, refusal of services, dismissal without pay or references etc.

_________________________
I don't do dumb & helpless.