The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old September 5, 2011, 01:29 PM   #1
Hitthespot
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 25, 2010
Posts: 191
Breathalyzer test required for Homecoming Dance

My 17 year old son and I was talking last night and he said that everyone entering the high school for the homecoming dance was required to take a Breathalyer test. Well I laughed and said, "we'll get you high school kids straightened out yet." Obviously I thought he was kidding. Soon into our conversation I realized he was telling the truth, they really did have to take a breath test to enter the highschool dance.

Now I'm no lawyer or law expert by any means but this sounds like a civil rights violation to me. What next, urine sample for drugs? Blood Test for the Aids virus or hepititis?

I would love to hear your guys take on this?
Hitthespot is offline  
Old September 5, 2011, 01:50 PM   #2
KyJim
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 26, 2005
Location: The Bluegrass
Posts: 7,762
Since it is a school function involving students, there is a much diminished right of privacy than in other places involving other people. Frankly, as a parent of two fairly recent HS grads, I would be in favor of testing. Now, when you start getting into drug screens for participation in athletics and other school activities, that crosses a personal line I have (yes, I have read of some schools doing this and it being upheld).
__________________
Jim's Rules of Carry: 1. Any gun is better than no gun. 2. A gun that is reliable is better than a gun that is not. 3. A hole in the right place is better than a hole in the wrong place. 4. A bigger hole is a better hole.
KyJim is offline  
Old September 5, 2011, 04:05 PM   #3
pnac
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 7, 2008
Posts: 338
It could be worse. Check out the link below.

http://www.kob.com/article/stories/S2122102.shtml

Alcohol searches have been going on for a while:

http://www.saratogian.com/articles/2...4048848902.txt
__________________
In my hour of darkness
In my time of need
Oh Lord grant me vision
Oh Lord grant me speed - Gram Parsons
pnac is offline  
Old September 5, 2011, 05:08 PM   #4
JerryM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 4, 1999
Location: New Mexico
Posts: 1,884
I think it is an excellent idea.
Jerry
__________________
Ecclesiastes 12:13 *¶Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man.
14 *For God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil.
JerryM is offline  
Old September 5, 2011, 05:17 PM   #5
Chris_B
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 9, 2007
Posts: 2,841
Yeah sure, what do HS kids want to do with with "dignity", anyway? teach e'm young to accept the fact that authority wants them to do things 'for their own good'. Control has nothing to do with it, I'll bet, right? Right. What a good way to ingrain the thought that presumed innocence is an outdated idea, so when they get to voting age, we can sponge away that blight

And before the 'rents get all fussy with me: want to make your kid REAL safe? Don't let them go to a dance or school activity at all. Even if THEY aren't drinking, a drunk driver could still kill them

But, two things do spring to mind:

1) Private school or public?

2) What does this have to do with firearms?
Chris_B is offline  
Old September 5, 2011, 05:24 PM   #6
Don H
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 8, 2000
Location: SLC,Utah
Posts: 2,705
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris_B
2) What does this have to do with firearms?
From the sticky at the top of the forum:
Quote:
Discussions in this forum will be centered upon legal issues as they relate to the 2nd Amendment and other Civil Rights. Constitutional law (which would encompass separation of powers, the impairment of contracts clause, the full faith and credit clause, etc., as well as the Bill of Rights) will also be on topic.
Don H is offline  
Old September 5, 2011, 05:25 PM   #7
Skadoosh
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 13, 2010
Location: Virginia
Posts: 1,776
Any student can exercise his/her right to not attend.
__________________
NRA Life Member (2003)
USN Retired
I think that one of the notions common to the anti-gunner is the idea that being a victim is 'noble'; as if it is better to be noble in your suffering than disruptive in your own defense.
Skadoosh is offline  
Old September 5, 2011, 05:29 PM   #8
Chris_B
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 9, 2007
Posts: 2,841
Quote:
From the sticky at the top of the forum:
From my post:

" "

Thanks for being so helpful though Don

(that " " means I'm being sarcastic but I'm just poking fun)
Chris_B is offline  
Old September 5, 2011, 06:15 PM   #9
pnac
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 7, 2008
Posts: 338
Quote:
Yeah sure, what do HS kids want to do with with "dignity", anyway? teach e'm young to accept the fact that authority wants them to do things 'for their own good'. Control has nothing to do with it, I'll bet, right? Right. What a good way to ingrain the thought that presumed innocence is an outdated idea, so when they get to voting age, we can sponge away that blight
__________________
In my hour of darkness
In my time of need
Oh Lord grant me vision
Oh Lord grant me speed - Gram Parsons
pnac is offline  
Old September 5, 2011, 07:19 PM   #10
mehavey
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 17, 2010
Location: Virginia
Posts: 3,061
What part of "child" have we seemed to have forgotten?

The kind of shenanigans/behavior now accepted as kids-will-be-kids would never have been dreamed of/much tolerated during my own (and many others on this forum) HS days. Given the kids have apparently demonstrated no self-control, it must necessarily be imposed externally.

Respect is earned, not given away in Cracker Jack boxes to make someone "feel good"

Xin Loi.
mehavey is offline  
Old September 5, 2011, 07:35 PM   #11
armsmaster270
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 25, 2008
Location: California
Posts: 1,948
Does anyone realize how many "kids" are killed each year by being with a drunk driver.
I applaude the school for their actions. Drunks don't belong at a school function and the Breathalyzer test is non intrusive not like a blood or urine test.
__________________
http://www.armsmaster.net-a.googlepages.com
http://s239.photobucket.com/albums/f...aster270/Guns/
Retired LE, M.P., Sr. M.P. Investigator F.B.I. Trained Rangemaster/Firearms Instructor & Armorer, Presently Forensic Document Examiner for D.H.S.
armsmaster270 is offline  
Old September 5, 2011, 07:44 PM   #12
Pbearperry
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 9, 2008
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 283
As a student in many schools,you give up some rights to go there.You may be issued a locker,but the school does not need a search warrant to look into it.If you don't like that,go somewhere else.
Unfortunately this isn't the 1950's in Mayberry.There are many kids out of control and the school must take certain precautions to keep the majority safe.
Pbearperry is offline  
Old September 5, 2011, 07:57 PM   #13
MLeake
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 15, 2007
Location: Outside KC, MO
Posts: 10,128
So, armsmaster270, do you feel that non-critical employees and non-emergency service employees should all have to consent to breathalyzers when they arrive for a shift at work?

(Random screens have been applied to pilots for some years now; same for military; I'd imagine same for LE and EMS. However, we agree to those terms of employment, and don't have to go to work there. Also, the unions for all those organizations tended to have fought tooth and nail...) Edit: military don't have unions. I realize that. Military also are subject to UCMJ, and give up some rights when they take the oath.

Since breathalyers are non-intrusive, perhaps you feel you should be able to administer them to drivers at impromptu roadblocks? Driving is a privilege, after all, and people could opt not to drive.

I'm pretty appalled at all the strident 2nd Amendment supporters in here, who routinely decry the government pulling its Big Brother routine and wanting to regulate away our guns "for the good of the children," and yet these same folks seem to think breathalzying every kid that goes to a school function is not only acceptable but laudable.

Actually, I'm past appalled. I'm disgusted.
MLeake is offline  
Old September 5, 2011, 07:59 PM   #14
Standing Wolf
Member in memoriam
 
Join Date: April 26, 2002
Location: Colorado
Posts: 1,649
Some people commit crimes; therefore, we're going to treat everyone as a suspect. That worked just fine in the Soviet Union and China today.
__________________
No tyrant should ever be allowed to die of natural causes.
Standing Wolf is offline  
Old September 5, 2011, 08:11 PM   #15
Shotgun693
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 3, 2011
Location: Poteet, Texas
Posts: 959
Going to the dance is a privilege not a right. That's like driving is not a right it's a privilege. Owning a gun is a right. Voting is a right. Its easier to infringe on a privilege than a right. The government can require a test to use a privilege. Like you have to pass a test to drive but not to vote. As is becoming clearer every day you don’t need to pass a test to own a gun, it’s a right. Going to the dance can require you to pass a test of some kind, like a breathalyzer because it’s not a right..
Shotgun693 is offline  
Old September 5, 2011, 08:16 PM   #16
MLeake
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 15, 2007
Location: Outside KC, MO
Posts: 10,128
So, shotgun693, you'd be ok with random roadblocks and breathalyers for all drivers?

As you pointed out, driving is considered a privilege, not a right, and is subject to more regulation.

And, before people go into the adults vs minors thing, note that the OP is the parent of one of the kids. He was caught unaware by this, which would suggest the school DID NOT CONSULT WITH NOR INFORM THE PARENTS.

Are we all cool with that concept? Really?
MLeake is offline  
Old September 5, 2011, 08:30 PM   #17
Chris_B
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 9, 2007
Posts: 2,841
Quote:
What part of "child" have we seemed to have forgotten?

The kind of shenanigans/behavior now accepted as kids-will-be-kids would never have been dreamed of/much tolerated during my own (and many others on this forum) HS days. Given the kids have apparently demonstrated no self-control, it must necessarily be imposed externally.

Respect is earned, not given away in Cracker Jack boxes to make someone "feel good"

Xin Loi.
Hmmm. HS kids. Being children. I think there's a useful distinction between a 16 year old and a 6 year. Both children, technically, but a 16 year old has a more defined sense of right and wrong for example

In HS, some of 'em are 18. And almost any of 'em would be tried as an adult. A fair number of them drive. A few states in the US will let a 17 year old vote under the right circumstances. If there was a draft on an 18 year old would be in the Army, so an 18 year old as a child- depends on things like when their birthdays fall and if they got held back once, but some kids in HS are 18....but let me reply to some of your questions:

Quote:
The kind of shenanigans/behavior now accepted as kids-will-be-kids would never have been dreamed of/much tolerated during my own (and many others on this forum) HS days
Really? Accepted shenanigans/behavior? Accepted by whom? Well, "back in the day" in the US, kids were smoking in student designated smoking areas. Now a kid can't play a prank like letting off a stink bomb without a school going into lockdown. Picking on a classmate a little? Watch out for 'bully laws'. Are you sure your reception is static-free on the shenanigans/behavior now vs. then picture? Because I think you're forgetting some things about what was done as 'normal activity'. In 1972, if you were 18 in MA, you could buy alcohol legally. Try drawing a gun as a child in a school today. Hoo-WHEEEE

Quote:
Given the kids have apparently demonstrated no self-control, it must necessarily be imposed externally.
If children 'back in the day' did have self control, and now they 'apparently don't', what changed? Children? Or parenting? In my opinion, now that the former inmates run the asylum, parents do a poor job- in general, on average, not in each case- of controlling their kids. Bluntly, parents are supposed to treat their kids like little adults and reason with them to cease bad behavior, because it was 'bad' to punish traditionally. that's the fashion now- no repercussions for bad behavior. How's that working? Now, I don't think kids should be beaten with a hairbrush until the lacquer is gone, but kids are selfish. That's the way they are. They may be good kids but they are essentially selfish. My my my, want want want, me me me. And if the parent goes around saying "NObody is going to punish MY child in THAT way" the kids learns he/she can get away with things. And if the parent doesn't discipline the child, all bets are off. I don't feel it's kids' fault that they act like kids. I feel it's parents' faults that their children act like little jerks.

Quote:
Respect is earned, not given away in Cracker Jack boxes to make someone "feel good"
Not an issue of respect. It is not 'disrespectful' to have a blanket policy that requires a breath-test- it is applied to everyone. However, there is an element of assuming kids are in the wrong that in my opinion is probably a bad idea. Eventually, resentment is the only outcome, and what happens on all those other nights there isn't a school dance? But I do feel your comment about "Cracker Jack boxes to make someone "feel good" " is appropriate- it makes the school feel good, and probably makes some parents feel good. I also don't see where a mutual respect comes into play except the standard respect that a 'child' can expect from a school

But logically, these kids are not distilling their own whisky in the backyard or brewing beer in the tub- it comes from somewhere.

Sounds like a band-aid on a sucking chest wound to me.
Chris_B is offline  
Old September 5, 2011, 08:43 PM   #18
zxcvbob
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 20, 2007
Location: S.E. Minnesota
Posts: 4,215
Quote:
My 17 year old son and I was talking last night and he said that everyone entering the high school for the homecoming dance was required to take a Breathalyer test. Well I laughed and said, "we'll get you high school kids straightened out yet." Obviously I thought he was kidding. Soon into our conversation I realized he was telling the truth, they really did have to take a breath test to enter the highschool dance.

Now I'm no lawyer or law expert by any means but this sounds like a civil rights violation to me. What next, urine sample for drugs? Blood Test for the Aids virus or hepititis?

I would love to hear your guys take on this?
What is the penalty for getting caught? If it's just turned away from the dance (and maybe "call you a cab to take you home" if they are *really* drunk) I don't have a problem with it. If they turn them over to the cops, I have a problem with it.

I have a big problem with schools using their loco parentis status to search lockers etc, and then prosecute if they find something illegal. Or when they consent on the kids' behalf for the cops to perform a search that should require a search warrant, etc. Loco parentis is supposed to protect the kid's interest, not the school's.
__________________
"The only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is with a good guy with a gun"
zxcvbob is offline  
Old September 5, 2011, 09:09 PM   #19
gc70
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 24, 2005
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 2,500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MLeake
folks seem to think breathalzying every kid that goes to a school function is not only acceptable but laudable
In the current environment, it may be. If the schools could, or parents would, supply a little discipline, the guilty might be appropriately punished for their misbehavior. Without such efforts, the only way to deal with misbehavior is either on a preventative basis - and that is the very regrettable genesis of the current focus of presuming guilt until innocence is proven - or through gross over-reaction by calling in the police.
gc70 is offline  
Old September 5, 2011, 09:30 PM   #20
MLeake
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 15, 2007
Location: Outside KC, MO
Posts: 10,128
So, basically a lot of people are in fact saying they want government to treat people as needing to prove themselves innocent in order to enjoy privileges, but want government to remember it works the other way when it comes to a right... even though SCOTUS has allowed, thus far, that some regulation of rights is ok...
MLeake is offline  
Old September 5, 2011, 09:57 PM   #21
shortwave
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 17, 2007
Location: SOUTHEAST, OHIO
Posts: 5,936
The State of Ohio puts on DUI check-points quite often. Matters of fact, in the last week through next week, with the holiday, we're going to have a total of somewhere between 120-125. There's no law against it and has been proven to be effective.

I too pee'd in a cup so much at work, I had to pee in a cup at home or it was hard to go. I could heat the house with the drug/alcohol screening paperwork I've gathered over the years....

...but I choose to work there.

As a parent of four, I wouldn't like the breathalyzer business unless parents were informed pryor to the dance.

Also, as a parent, I would not object to the breathalyzer with prior notice as a school dance is not a requirement and we choose to let our kids go there.

All my kids have long graduated, youngest is 25. They went to a country school that had more of a dope problem then the parents in the area wanted to believe.
The PD wanted to bring a dog in to sniff the lockers and when the parents heard, they STORMED city council chambers demanding that this not happen.

I sit and listened to many parents getting up in front of council saying how much of an abuse of privacy this would be, that there just wasn't that big of a drug problem in the high school. They blamed what amount of drugs that was there on people bringing them in town from Columbus,Ohio.

Wasn't any of THEIR kids doing the dealing.

It was almost comical as I watched three parents of kids that were known big-time dealers at the school making the most noise.

So the police Chief caved in and said instead of bringing the dogs in to sniff the lockers, he suggested the principal along with the truant officer do a scheduled locker inspection.

On the day of the pre-scheduled, announced locker inspection no drugs were found in any lockers....BUT, while the locker inspections were going on inside, the dope dogs had a field day in the parking lot.

The busts they made that day was incredible. They were also able to bust a theft ring consisting of about a half dozen high school kids which they in turn ratted out several adults involved. Some of the cars that contained dope also had many $1000's of stuff stolen from neighboring homes....

...and yes two of the three known drug dealers that their parents were at the city council meeting objecting the most were busted. Go figure!

When we were in high school, locker searchs happened often. If I remember correctly, if you chose to drive to school and park on the school parking lot, you signed a waiver that your car was subject to a search. The buses drove everyday, it was law you had to go to school but not law you had to drive there.

We had truant officers that if they heard you had something illegal in your locker/car, would come get you out of class and search till their heart was content. Since the truant officer was an LEO, he could arrest you.

Course, it was the truant officers job to make as big a deal out of a bust as he/she could to try to intimidate the kids to think twice about bringing something illegal to school.

By the way, this was a public school.
shortwave is offline  
Old September 5, 2011, 10:23 PM   #22
Sharpsdressed Man
Junior member
 
Join Date: June 21, 2009
Location: NE Ohio
Posts: 1,176
Duh, all of you in favor.....how many of you would have passed? I can think of a lot of occasions when I was in high school (especially at football games, etc) that if they had done "spot checks", I wouldn't have made it. Todays kids have lost a lot of freedoms that we used to have. In that, I often feel sorry for them. But given the nice "early" warning, a student has the right to not attend, and hold their own dance somewhere else (imagine students independently renting a hall, inviting the whole school, and no one attending the school sponsored breathalyzer function). If a school wants to be like a prison, some students are just going to have to make for freedom.....................PS: How about surprise drug test for teachers, or surprise alcohol test for politicians and cops? I don't think Ted Kennedy would have lasted so long.
Sharpsdressed Man is offline  
Old September 5, 2011, 10:28 PM   #23
MLeake
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 15, 2007
Location: Outside KC, MO
Posts: 10,128
I was one of the "good kids" in my high school days, but I'd have passed on the mandatory breathalyzer function on principle.

I also don't think kids today are all that different than they were in the 80's, for the most part... although I do think parenting is not as good as it had been.
MLeake is offline  
Old September 5, 2011, 10:55 PM   #24
chack
Junior member
 
Join Date: May 24, 2011
Location: dixie
Posts: 477
I wouldn't want my son wrestling or doing any other close contact sport with somene with HIV. Including that test as part of te physical they already take seems reasonable. My only objection would be the cost.

I had a friend that rolled his ranger after a end of the school year party when he was driving drunk the spring of my Junior year. He came back to school a paraplegic his senior rear. The breathalyzer costs nothing, and if a 17 year old kid wants to attend a dance how can anyone have a problem making sure they're not drinking there?

I think that making them go through a metal detector seems reasonable too, especially if there has been a history or threats that heighten the risk.

Last edited by chack; September 5, 2011 at 11:00 PM.
chack is offline  
Old September 6, 2011, 12:28 AM   #25
maestro pistolero
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 16, 2007
Posts: 2,092
For everyone who thinks this is ok:

Why not a mandatory blood test, as well? How about a mandatory lie-detector test to see who's having underage sex? Strip searches for weapons and drugs?

If not, WHY NOT, and what would be the difference and where do you draw the line?

I agree that conditioning kids to think unwarranted, intrusive searches are normal and acceptable is dangerous business for the future of our Republic.

Every single kid should take a big swig of mouthwash before the test in protest.
maestro pistolero is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:20 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.15516 seconds with 7 queries