Legislating from the Bench

So then the question then is whose rights are more pressing, teachers to privacy or a parents and students ensuring safety?

Were safety the only part of the equation then I would say without hesitation that the teacher’s rights would win out. But in Vernonia School District 47J v. Acton, which was decided in 1995, the court argued that the prevailing drug culture and the student athlete’s role as leaders in the community was enough reason to deny those students their 4th amendment rights and force them to submit to random drug test.

Given that the students of 1995 are now the teachers of 2008, I hardly think it’s a stretch to apply the same standards to our teachers as we do those students who wish to participate in extra curricular activities.

Stephanie wrote:How so? If employees in the private sector must submit to random drug testing, why not employees in the public sector?

I read that article in the Gazz....a teacher weilding a history book and all that.....what about a teacher in charge of a group of 6 y/o's. They need constant supervision, they are 6. What about the industrial arts teacher with the class of 25 13 y/o's with power tools?

Those students and their parents have rights too, you know. The state has decided to compel them to attend school and their local school district has decided which class(es) they will sit in. These parents have the right to know the teacher spending so much time with their children isn't doped up.

Students have been compelled to attend public schools for about a century- maybe more. Why wait until now to implement mandatory drug testing? The judge said that to do that the Board of Education would need to show that a substantial drug problem exists among the school employees at issue.

Aaron wrote:So then the question then is whose rights are more pressing, teachers to privacy or a parents and students ensuring safety?

Were safety the only part of the equation then I would say without hesitation that the teacher’s rights would win out. But in Vernonia School District 47J v. Acton, which was decided in 1995, the court argued that the prevailing drug culture and the student athlete’s role as leaders in the community was enough reason to deny those students their 4th amendment rights and force them to submit to random drug test.

Has Kanawha County made a credible showing that there is a "prevailing drug culture" among the school employees at issue here? So far the Court seems to think that it has not.

Pete Thaw and his cohorts want a fishing license to search employee John Jones's body for evidence- without a warranrt- but without a reasonable suspicion that John Jones has committed any crime.

Just wondering Steph.

Do home school teachers have mandatory drug testing?

ziggy wrote:

Aaron wrote:So then the question then is whose rights are more pressing, teachers to privacy or a parents and students ensuring safety?

Were safety the only part of the equation then I would say without hesitation that the teacher’s rights would win out. But in Vernonia School District 47J v. Acton, which was decided in 1995, the court argued that the prevailing drug culture and the student athlete’s role as leaders in the community was enough reason to deny those students their 4th amendment rights and force them to submit to random drug test.

Has Kanawha County made a credible showing that there is a "prevailing drug culture" among the school employees at issue here? So far the Court seems to think that it has not.

Pete Thaw and his cohorts want a fishing license to search employee John Jones's body for evidence- without a warranrt- but without a reasonable suspicion that John Jones has committed any crime.

What was the credible showing of a "prevailing drug culture" in Veronia that allowed random drug testing of students? Two coaches testimony and a "culture of drug use."

Given that about 15% of adults admit to illegal drug use on an on going basis which means that of the 20,200 school teachers in West Virginia, 3030 of them use illegal drugs. That alone shows a credible "prevailing drug culture."

And given those numbers and the fact that teachers act “in loco parentis” to the children, and have "such a portion of the power of the parent committed to his charge" it is well within reason for parents to expect those with whom we entrust our kids to be clean.

There is no fishing trip, there is no invasion of privacy and there is no violation of teachers 4th amendment rights. I've covered all of this before. The facts haven’t changed.

I don’t know what Kanawha County has or has not proven but it would take a really lousy lawyer or a really biased judge (which Goodwin is) to screw up this case.

Wasn't the adminstrator caught with coke in his pocket a Kanawha County employee?

btw Sherm,

Homeschool teachers are teaching their own children. We do this in our homes. Our homes, our children.......

Now here's a newsflash for you. Parents, all nurturing parents, are their children's first teachers. Long before the state gets its talons sunk in, children learn how to smile, talk, crawl, walk and countless other things.......from their parents.

How so? If employees in the private sector must submit to random drug testing, why not employees in the public sector?

Not all employees is the private sector must submit to random drug testing.

Too, there are certain invasions of privacy which a private employer and employees can agree to, but which a government agency cannot impose unilaterally- as Kanawha County B.O.E. is trying to do here.

I don’t know what Kanawha County has or has not proven but it would take a really lousy lawyer or a really biased judge (which Goodwin is) to screw up this case.

Just what is Goodwin's "bias"? I am not suggesting that he has none- but as you allege "bias", can you tell us what is that bias?

Too, what judge anywhere does not bring a lifetime of biases to the bench?

Charging judicial "bias" is a red herring unless there is evidence that the judge stands to profit financially or otherwise from his or her rulings. We all have biases. It is not realistic to expect judges, nor teachers, nor parents, nor police officers, nor preachers nor anyone else to not have a bushel basket full of biases.

You read his comments. All he had to do was state there it was reasonable cause to grant and injunction and go forward from there. Instead he compared subjecting teachers to random drug test to living in a totalitarian state. Perhaps you don't see the bias because you're looking through rose colored glasses.

Aaron wrote:You read his comments. All he had to do was state there it was reasonable cause to grant and injunction and go forward from there. Instead he compared subjecting teachers to random drug test to living in a totalitarian state. Perhaps you don't see the bias because you're looking through rose colored glasses.

If the Kanawha County BOE is allowed to disregard the 4th Amendment, then we would- to that degree- be living in a totalitarian state, or at least totalitarian county.

So you are unable to tell us what the alleged "bias" is? Is he an anarchist? Is he a druggie? A drug dealer? A "decriminalization" advocate? A civil libertarian? A constitutionalist? What is his "bias"?

Or is it just that your own biases cause you to disagree with his opinions about the law and the Constitution?

My grasp on the constitution far exceeds yours becasue I don't allow my liberal bias to cloud it.

Random drug testing is not a violation of the 4th amendment as it has been upheld by the Supreme Court many times for various industries.

They will now decide if Teachers have a reasonable expectation of privacy as set for by the criteria of the Katz decison. If so, there will be no random drug testing. If not, there will be. I'm quite confident the Kanawha County BOE will live by whatever decision the deciding court makes.

I explained Judge Goodwins bias. Your refusal to see it doesn't change the simple facts.

All you said was that he was biased as indicated by his words. But you did not explain anything. So apparently all that means is that he does not share your bias.

..."Homeschool teachers are teaching their own children. We do this in our homes. Our homes, our children......." <-------- Steph

Well Steph I have not kept up with all the changes since I looked at it.

I know there have been some, such as educational requirements, etc.

But I did not know you could only teach your own kids, and I did not know that only the parents can teach.

Are you saying that is the case now?

Yes Ziggy, I did explain how he is biased and you responded to it so I think that’s covered

The Supreme Court (nor any other court for that matter) can determine if a law, rule or policy is constitutional or not until that law, rule or policy has been put in place. This is HOW we find out if teachers have a reasonable expectation to privacy as set forth by the 4th amendment and decisions regarding that right.

Why are you so opposed to the Judicial Branch exercising it’s constitutional enumerated responsibilities?

I would pose the same questions to teachers as well?

shermangeneral wrote:..."Homeschool teachers are teaching their own children. We do this in our homes. Our homes, our children......." <-------- Steph

Well Steph I have not kept up with all the changes since I looked at it.

I know there have been some, such as educational requirements, etc.

But I did not know you could only teach your own kids, and I did not know that only the parents can teach.

Are you saying that is the case now?

That varies from state to state. I know in WV grandparents are allowed to teach, and we collaborate and can hire tutors, utilize virtual classrooms, pay for private classes etc. However, all of these decisions are made by the parents, not some bureaucrat or committee of strangers. The parents make those decisions and have the ability to screen these people in any manner they see fit.

That isn't the case with public school children. You send your child to whatever school they tell you to and your child sits in whatever classroom he or she is assigned with whatever teacher. There is no parental control, no parental choice. Parents who can't homeschool or private school have all of their authority stripped from them by the state's compulsory attendance law, the state DOE and their local school district.

I really don't think it's too much for parents to require proof the teacher who has so much control and influence over the lives of their children aren't under the influence.

Why are you so opposed to the Judicial Branch exercising it’s constitutional enumerated responsibilities?

I am not opposed to that. And nothing I have said indicates otherwise.

You are the one one said that the judge was biased, but refuse to describe his bias- other than to let us know that he disagrees with your own biases.

I have discussed it. Twice.

And you've participated on 8 pages claiming that the boards policy for random drug testing of teachers IS a violation of their 4th Amendment rights and you've went as far to say Pete Thaw doesn't know anything about the constitution.

If that's not opposition, then you missed one hell of an opportunity.

"Opposition" to what?

I predicted that the Courts will rule against the Kanawha Co. BOE. I could be rigtht, or I could be wrong about that. We'll see.

Either way, how does any of it mean that I am opposed to the Court "exercising its constitutional enumerated responsibilities"?

Play dumb Ziggy.

I know what the gist of your post has been from day one on this thread and that is that is the drug test is a violation of the 4th amendment. You've said it too many times to count.

And you don't want the courts to decide the issue as they should because you know how they will likely decide.

For the record , you've not offered one bit of logic to refute the numerous post where I've shown how the court can find teachers do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy thus it is not a violation of their 4th amendment rights.

Not one.

It is not up to me to do that. It is up to the teachers' lawyers to do that. And I predict that they will do so successfully.

For the purpose of our discussion, will they be logging on under your name or will they be creating their own account?

Aaron wrote:For the purpose of our discussion, will they be logging on under your name or will they be creating their own account?

The case is:

AMERICAN FEDERATION OF TEACHERS -
WEST VIRGINIA, AFL-CIO, et al.,
Petitioners,
v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:08-cv-01406
KANAWHA COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION, et al.,
Respondents.

The lawyers are Robert Bastress for the petitioners, and James Withrow for the respondents.

http://www.wvsd.uscourts.gov/district/opinions/pdf/PUBLISH%20MEM%20OPINION-%20grant%20prelim%20injunction.pdf

We were discussing the subject and I pointed out that you've not given any reason as to why random drug testing is a violation of the 4th Amendment.

You were the one that brought them into the conversation.

So will they be logging in under your account or creating one of their own.

The case is:

AMERICAN FEDERATION OF TEACHERS -
WEST VIRGINIA, AFL-CIO, et al.,
Petitioners,
v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:08-cv-01406
KANAWHA COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION, et al.,
Respondents.

The lawyers are Robert Bastress for the petitioners, and James Withrow for the respondents.

http://www.wvsd.uscourts.gov/district/opinions/pdf/PUBLISH%20MEM%20OPINION-%20grant%20prelim%20injunction.pdf

So you've been blowing smoke for almost 2 weeks.

Why is no one suprised?