Some good points.... I could say, "I won't let you come in my house unless you let me search you for weapons first." Since I have no obligation to let you in my house.... Commercial airlines are not such a private situation as that (they're covered by "common carrier" law; let's not get into that) but even so, the courts allow them to say, "You can't come on our airplane unless you go through the metal detector."
A school, though, a public school in particular ... I would love to hear them explain to a judge they won't let a kid go to school unless she lets them search her car. (Some schools have metal detectors, but searching cars?) I'm not keeping up with that thread; last I looked there was no indication anyone at the school had made such a threat, but if they did ... back when I was in high school I would have said, "I'll see you in court," and driven away (and the next day a third of the students would be outside the school waving picket signs; that actually happened in a somewhat similar situation) -- if they let me drive away; I think it more likely they would slobber all over me apologizing and explaining they didn't mean that....
A judge would ask questions like, "Are you applying that policy equitably, searching all student's cars? If not, why did you single out that particular student?" If they had a convincing reason to search that particular student's car, and a convincing case that allowing that student to attend school without having her car searched before she was allowed in would put students and faculty in danger, I think they would get away with it.
I think the courts would at the very least apply the "probable cause" test. I am not sure they would give the school staff no more rights than a policeman and require them to get a warrant same as a policeman would have to; I think the courts might grant school staff the privilege of determining probable cause themselves even in a situation where there's time to go to a magistrate and get a warrant. The courts might even allow school staff to search all students' cars without probable cause, provided all are treated the same. (Whether the student body and the community as a whole would allow that is another question....)
Disclaimer: I am still not a lawyer, just some dork who posts on the net.
Another thought -- the argument that having something sharp in the first aid kit in your car constitutes carrying a weapon to school sure seems pretty thin,
but the student is now in the position of having been suspended from school and the onus is on her to go to court and ask a judge -- what? It's going to take more than three days to get to see a judge, and then what can he do about it? It's conceivable she could sue for monetary compensation for the three days lost from her education ... how much money is that worth? (I can just imagine the school offering to let her attend school for an extra three days after she graduates....)
Ideally you want to put yourself in a position where the onus is on them to sue (or prosecute) you. Failing that, if you have to sue them ... she would be in a much better position going to court and saying, "The principal has arbitrarily singled me out to deny me my right to an education because I won't consent to an unreasonable search which other students have not been asked to consent to. What are you going to do about it? I want a court order to force him to let me go to school pending trial; at the trial I'm going to ask for damages, plus punitive damages; I'm also pressing criminal charges of violation of my civil rights, etc. etc."
As it is, she could go to court and say, "I was wrongfully suspended from school for three days. What are you going to do about it? I want ... um ... I want ... um ..."
-Cougar Allen :{)
[This message has been edited by Cougar Allen (edited 24 November 1999).]
.