this question has a few different specific questions, but any broad/general answers are appreciated and encouraged.
i've looked at the ACLU website as well as
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/calaw.html
background info...
This all assumes that i am 18 years old and attending a public highschool in California
Warning: the first section may be interpreted as rather petty and crybaby-ish. I do not care and would appreciate if any posts stuck strictly to the facts of the situation. if you truly wish to skip it (but read the rest of the post) simply skip down to the area that is in yellow and says "on to the slightly less crybabyish side of my question."
Im pissed off. Tuesday my public highschool decided to create a policy that would forbid students to wear beanies after school begins. (basically, you can wear them on campus up until the point you enter your first class). the student handbook claims that items violating the dresscode will be confiscated until a parent picks it up. fair enough, right? i suppose, but it is completely unjust and seems arbitrary to have them be a-okay up until a certain time of the day. it is not an article of clothing typically associated with gangs (unlike, say, a bandanna), nor does it pose a saftey hazard or obscure a security cameras view of the persons face. in short, there can be no reason other than meanness to selectively ban them.
When you turn 18 california law dictates that a student is able to excuse their own absences. it would seem to me that this would set a precedent that would suggest anything that would normally require parental approval/action would no longer be neccesary. Furthermore, if a person were 18 they would not necessarily even live with their parents or have anything to do with them, legally. It would then seem that obviously a student would gain the right to pick up their own confiscated items. afterall, to do otherwise would be to deprive an adult of their property, something that i almost certainly think would not fly.
if that is the case, would it be that much of a strech to assume that they would not be able to confiscate the item in the first place (assuming it poses no saftey hazard)? i imagine disciplinary action would be in order (likely under the broad category of "defiance of a school official"), but i wonder whether they have any legal grounds to do it.
on to the slightly less crybabyish side of my question.
on to the slightly less crybabyish side of my question. on to the slightly less crybabyish side of my question. on to the slightly less crybabyish side of my question.
on to the slightly less crybabyish side of my question.
I believe the standard for searching a student was last established in TLO VS some school where the supreme court ruled that (atleast in regards to minors) that schools did not require the "probable cause" standard police officers are held to, but rather "reasonable suspicion".
going back to where it was said that a student is allowed to excuse their own abscences... It seems to me that if a student 18 years or older may excuse their own absences then they may leave school at will because students are only required to be in school up until the age of 16 in california (at which point they may drop out).
it is my understanding that a search can be required as a condition of entry to many areas (not referring to public schools in this instance). it is also my understanding that once in that area if someone requests to search you that you may decline the search and be escorted off the premises immediately.
it would seem to me that if you were legally an adult this same principle would apply to schools because they are in effect private security (in that they retain their power only while on campus).
it clearly states in the student handbook "The only time a school employee may physically restrain a student is if:
1. The student is a danger to himself/herself or others.
2. There is a danger to property"
it would then seem to me that no matter how badly the school wanted to search you that they would not be able to stop you from simply walking out the doors and would be helpless to stop you until a police officer arrived who would then have presumably be able to stop you but be held to the "probable cause" standard.
unless my entire premise is incorrect (which is possible) it seems the only problems with could run into as "there is a danger to property" is kind of a catch-all and that there are a few faculty members who are employed by the county, not the school district. i imagine you could get around the "danger to property" by requesting an escort off campus (as opposed to just taking off).
assuming they did detain you, i imagine that if you flat out refused to consent to any searches by school officials, but were detained, they would have no means to conduct any search (be it of your person, or possesions) unless you willfully consented, due to their restriction on the use of physical force.
the question would then be, can police officers search students as a proxy for school officials? would the officers need to establish probable cause or reasonable suspicion?
sorry for the long post. anyone who says "GFY, just dont break the rules" gets a nice big "GFY" from me. i am horribly bored with school. i could have graduated at mid-term but opted not to and have absolutely nothing better to do than rile things up.
.other injustices i would correct in a perfect world include... our Associated Student Body (ASB) are a bunch of unelected tyranical dictators whose stamp of approval is required for pretty much everything a club or sport wishes to do (their approval must be gained even for activities as mundane as an off campus carwash fundraiser).