Legislating from the Bench

CHARLESTON, W.Va. -- A federal judge halted the Kanawha County school system's plan to randomly drug test teachers.

U.S. District Judge Joseph Robert Goodwin said the drug testing plan would force teachers to submit to an unconstitutional and unjustified search. He also gave a scathing rebuke of the policy and the school board that approved it.

Goodwin said the Kanawha school system's plan to randomly test 25 percent of its teachers and other school personnel each year was made even though it does not appear that there is a pervasive drug problem in the county.

He said that the school board's argument that something bad could happen while a teacher under the influence of drugs was supervising children was based on an unreasonable kind of worse-case-scenario thinking. Goodwin asked why the board had not also passed a policy to randomly test teachers for tropical diseases.

"Total security for us and our children is only possible - if unlikely - in a totalitarian state," Goodwin said.

He added, "Who wants to live in a society when a government will stop at nothing to prevent bumps and bruises."

http://www.dailymail.com/News/200812290155

"DUH", was not U.S. District Judge Joseph Robert Goodwin's "ruling from the Bench" ..... a totalitarian act by a government official?



.

Goodwin didn't make it illegal to test teachers - he just issued an injunction which keeps things status quo while each side gathers their evidences and straps on their biggest set of balls in order to go to court and settle it. Well, I guess if someone disobeys the injunction they could get in trouble - at that point would it be "illegal"?

Personally - I think this issue already has been settled in the 4th amendment of the COTUS.

I've posted many comments on other boards, the comments section of the Gazette and even called in to the 58live radio show the other afternoon. I'm not a screaming harpie but I am getting frustrated that so many of my fellow teachers are willing to just sit back and let this issue steamroller right over them. Why are they willing to give up their constitutional rights for some shadowy, lame "it's for the children" argument?

It frightens me that there are so few of us standing up against this. What else will the government try to cram down our throats in the future and who will be left to stand against that then?

Wow!

I think I just might change from being a Ziggyite to being a Sashite. This is one of those "I wish I'd said that" moments.

Sasha, my post had nothing to do with legality, illegality, homosexuality or catfishing.

It was about Goodwin's legislating from the bench.

First question, why in hell is a Federal Judge getting involved before a lower Court?

I guess Goodwin can issue his injunction if he wants to but he shouldn't have ....

.... gave a scathing rebuke of the policy and the school board that approved it.

Goodwin is guilty of prejudice.

His actions will directly affect the outcome of any Court case.

Is his wife or kid(s) a School Teacher?

And Sasha, I think you are 100% wrong on said drug testing.

Everyone knows that drug use by students is a bad and harmful thing ........ but we also know that drug are rampant throughout the System and that students should be warned, taught and persuaded not to use them.

But you know what Sasha, that is pretty f'ing had to do when the students know their Teachers, and we all know there are a lot of them in the System, are using drugs and enjoying them.

And Sasha, another thing we also know ....... is that any Teacher that uses drugs is more likely than not to ignore any drug use or possession/sale of drugs by any student.

No one gives a shit.

And, many parents are raising their kids ...... and many Teachers are teaching those kids .......... not to give a shit about anything either.



.

I"m really not sure, other than the change to Federal Court was requested by one of the parties, as to why a Federal Judge is weighing in ahead of exhausting state resources first.

You are allowed to think I'm wrong - that's ok. I won't lose too much sleep over that.

I do find though that your statement that those adults who do illegal activities are usually willing to overlook those activities in other people (including under-age students) one that I can agree with.

I never said it wasn't hypocritical for illegal-drug-using-teachers to preach to their students not to use drugs.

But I still think that just because we became teachers doesn't mean that we checked our civil rights at the schoolhouse door.

ziggy wrote:Wow!

I think I just might change from being a Ziggyite to being a Sashite. This is one of those "I wish I'd said that" moments.

awwww.... *blush*

If you're going into a state funded, state owned building voluntarily, how is a said search "unreasonable?"

Why is it not reasonable that parents who are entrusting our kids to teachers, whose salaries are paid from our tax money who are working in a buildings paid for by our taxes for 1/3 or more of any given day to expect these teachers we entrust our children to be clean and sober?

wvsasha wrote:But I still think that just because we became teachers doesn't mean that we checked our civil rights at the schoolhouse door.

HORSEPUCKY, you check your civil rights to smoke a cigarette, to wear your choice of clothing, to use obsene, deflamatory or foul language, to voice your religious belief, etc., etc. ........ all at the schoolhouse door.

If you had chosen to become a Doctor or a Nurse you would be checking your civil rights at the Hospital door also.

.

Well they can already do drug testing for reasonable cause.

So why do they want to do random testing where there is no cause or reasonable suspicion of drug use?

Political grandstanding?

That doesn't address the 4th amendment issues Sodbuster.

sodbuster wrote:
So why do they want to do random testing where there is no ... reasonable suspicion of drug use?

An retired SP who's wife works for a School System says there is no reasonable suspicion of drug use?




And this being the 1st day of the New Year that one will probably rank #1 for the remainder of it.

,

I agree with Aaron. I also question where the outrage of teachers like Sasha has been when the private sector began random drug screenings. Why is it so many teachers support, in some cases insist upon, drug screening of students?

We all have choices to make in life. If you want to work as a public school teacher, where the safety of children (some as young as 3 these days) is in your hands, you should welcome random drug screening.

If you choose to use illegal drugs, or drink alcohol on the job, or go to work under the influence, then find another line of work. Public school teachers are free to do so and I strongly urge them to do so.

sodbuster wrote:Well they can already do drug testing for reasonable cause.

So why do they want to do random testing where there is no cause or reasonable suspicion of drug use?

Political grandstanding?

I've had 4 training classes on reasonable cause drug testing Sodbuster over the past 6 years. The criteria that one has to meet is mind-boggling at the very least, is subjective one persons interpretations of another’s actions and is more often then not, challenged and defeated. And that's in a non-union, not government environment.

I think if teachers, or anyone else for that matter, want to claim reasonable cause testing works then they should have no problem backing it up with documentation.

But I would bet it doesn't work. I would bet that if there were teachers tested, the union would fight to have those test invalidated and claim there was no reasonable cause for the drug test.

Aaron wrote:

sodbuster wrote:Well they can already do drug testing for reasonable cause.

So why do they want to do random testing where there is no cause or reasonable suspicion of drug use?

Political grandstanding?

I've had 4 training classes on reasonable cause drug testing Sodbuster over the past 6 years. The criteria that one has to meet is mind-boggling at the very least, is subjective one persons interpretations of another’s actions and is more often then not, challenged and defeated. And that's in a non-union, not government environment.

Though it may be mind boggling for those whose minds are easily boggled, we can't just throw away the Bill of Rights- not even in a non-union workplace.

I think if teachers, or anyone else for that matter, want to claim reasonable cause testing works then they should have no problem backing it up with documentation.

Backing what up? It is up to the accusers, not the accused, to make the case for reasonable cause.

But I would bet it doesn't work. I would bet that if there were teachers tested, the union would fight to have those test invalidated and claim there was no reasonable cause for the drug test.

Unless reasonable cause were first shown, then of course they should fight it.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated...

Who says the constitution is being violated. Unreasonable is the key word here and given that teachers are entrusted with our children and the day and age we live in where drug use is as prevalent as it is, random testing is no longer "unreasonable".

And teachers arguments that it is no longer meets the two part criteria the Supreme Court set forth in Katz v. U.S, which defines unreasonable. The court stated that first, the individual must show "that a person have exhibited an actual (subjective) expectation of privacy and, second, that the expectation be one that society is prepared to recognize as reasonable."

Given that better then 15% of the population now admits to illegal drug use within the past 30 days, the likelihood that a significant number of teachers would fall into that group of users is a likely expectation, I think it is very likely that "society" in no longer prepared to recognize their expectation of privacy as reasonable.

Especially given the fact that it is the school systems that are now calling for increased testing of students and the Supreme court has ruled that testing students is constitutional as drug use is “compelling national concern” and deterring drug use is a “matter of substantial importance.”

Your contention that this is a clear violation of the 4th amendment is no longer true as this is clearly not a cut and dry issue. Cases allowing random testing of students such as Veronia School District v. Acton or Oklahoma v. Earls has set the table to allow the same testing for teachers.

As much as you hate being wrong, you can't change the facts.

ziggy wrote:

I think if teachers, or anyone else for that matter, want to claim reasonable cause testing works then they should have no problem backing it up with documentation.

Backing what up? It is up to the accusers, not the accused, to make the case for reasonable cause.

Apparently you're a little misinformed. The teachers union has already conceded to reasonable cause testing and it is current policy, so no one has to make a case for or against it.

You ok?

Well hells bells, reasonable cause searches have been "conceded" by most everyone for 200 years or so.

You are the one who said: "I think if teachers, or anyone else for that matter, want to claim reasonable cause testing works then they should have no problem backing it up with documentation."

Why should anyone need to "back it up with documentation" when basing a search on reasonable cause is already the constitutional way to conduct a search?

sodbuster wrote:Well they can already do drug testing for reasonable cause.

So why do they want to do random testing where there is no cause or reasonable suspicion of drug use?

ziggy wrote:Backing what up? It is up to the accusers, not the accused, to make the case for reasonable cause.

As you can see, sodbuster (as have teachers and you have said in the past) made the claim that there is no need for random testing as reasonable suspicion testing is already in place and works.

It is my contention that if teachers are going to use the mantra of reasonable testing working, thus there is no need for random testing, then they should be able to show that reasonable testing is in fact an active practice and not just a paper policy and that it does indeed work.

Understand now?

Aaron wrote:Who says the constitution is being violated. Unreasonable is the key word here and given that teachers are entrusted with our children and the day and age we live in where drug use is as prevalent as it is, random testing is no longer "unreasonable".


................................. The court stated that first, the individual must show "that a person have exhibited an actual (subjective) expectation of privacy and, second, that the expectation be one that society is prepared to recognize as reasonable."

Given that better then 15% of the population now admits to illegal drug use within the past 30 days, the likelihood that a significant number of teachers would fall into that group of users is a likely expectation, I think it is very likely that "society" in no longer prepared to recognize their expectation of privacy as reasonable.

So then what is "reasonable" is a matter of ever-changing subjective societal determination?

Oh my. So then the Constitution is a document subject to interpretations based on particular day and age expectations instead of those of the day and age of the Founders? Is the Constitution a "living, breathing document", as someone called it?

So the strict constructionists are all wrong? Or can we have it both ways- a document that is to be both strictly followed to the letter of the Founders' words, yet loosely interpreted in concert with changing societal expectations of what is "reasonable" at the same time?

Take it up with the court. The case Katz v. United States

I know for a fact that random testing works as I've seen the effects of the testing. Now whether it's the right thing to do, firing 20 and 30 year employees for drug use, that's debatable.

But not by teachers and/or the school system, not when it is they that are requesting the very same testing for students they claim subjecting themselves to is unconstitutional.

The way I see it, if drug use is such a problem that random testing should be required for students, then it is most certainly enough of a problem that teachers should be required to subject themselves to the same test.

Aaron wrote:Take it up with the court. The case Katz v. United States

That's twice today that you have said to take it up with some Court or other when you've talked yourself into a corner.

If we can say that "reasonable" in the 4th Amendment means whatever we'd like it to mean is some particular "day and age", then the rest of the Constitution- including the "general welfare" clause- can be interpreted equally loosely.

I've not talked myself into anything. Several posters imply that random testing is unconstitutional and I've merely pointed out that is just not the case AND cited the court case that proves my point. I can cite a few more if you like. Or you can feel free to prove me wrong.

And I hate to burst your bubble, but the general welfare clause was raped by FDR and his blackmail of the supreme court in 36/37. It's too late to intrepret it loosely as it's been dismantled and destroyed thanks to the far left.

Aaron wrote:Take it up with the court. The case Katz v. United States

I know for a fact that random testing works as I've seen the effects of the testing. Now whether it's the right thing to do, firing 20 and 30 year employees for drug use, that's debatable.

But not by teachers and/or the school system, not when it is they that are requesting the very same testing for students they claim subjecting themselves to is unconstitutional.

The way I see it, if drug use is such a problem that random testing should be required for students, then it is most certainly enough of a problem that teachers should be required to subject themselves to the same test.

So violating the 4th Amendment rights of students justifies also violating the 4th Amendment rights of teachers?

Do you have a problem with teachers being required to abide by the same standards students are required to abide by?

Aaron wrote:

Take it up with the court. The case Katz v. United States

In that decision the Supreme Court sided with Katz, holding that the Fourth Amendment protects his right to privacy, wherever he may be- Harlan and Black's dissents notwithstanding.

From the Wiki article:

For the majority, Justice Stewart wrote, "No less than an individual in a business office, in a friend's apartment, or in a taxicab, a person in a telephone booth may rely upon the protection of the Fourth Amendment."

The thrust of the Court's argument was that the Amendment protects people and not just places. This ruling also extended the protection of the Fourth Amendment to include private conversation in addition to corporal objects.