Resource Officer’S Action Sets Dangerous Precedent

The ability of law enforcement agents to search citizens’ property and their bodies is outlined in the Constitution and has been upheld by the courts, but the legal burden of probable cause has remained as a bulwark of privacy rights.

This burden is what stops police from searching people out of boredom, personal hatred or prejudice. But it seems that burden disappears on the whim of school officials.

I speak of this out of personal experience. After watching the homecoming game of Lake City High School on Sept. 22, I decided to attend the dance afterwards. While in line to purchase my ticket, I noticed the school resource officer’s repeated glances toward me.

After I paid the money, I was blocked by the school resource officer from entering and he promptly stated: “OK buddy, you’re the next contestant.”

My surprise was evident as he held up the Breathalyzer machine and basically forced it into my face. When I asked how he could possibly do this without probable cause, he replied, “I can do whatever I want, when I want.”

This is almost word-for-word the response I received when I asked both the Coeur d’Alene Police Department and the sheriff’s office the same question on the phone after a previous dance where another student had been approached the same way.

After two minutes of fairly intense argument, I submitted and passed the test with no trace of alcohol in my system because I had not been drinking. But the thought pounded in my head all that night: How could a police officer force someone to do what essentially is a drug test without any possible reason other than they are there and he feels like making them do it? An anonymous police official later explained it to me.

It seems that the Constitution is a contract between the people and the government. It therefore is binding on all public lands owned by the government; but on private property, when asked by the owners of that property to do random searches or whatever, law enforcement officials are able and supposed to do what that owner wishes them to do, without having to worry about petty issues such as probable cause.

To say the very least, I have some issues with that explanation. First of all, why is the school considered private property? My parents are paying taxes that go to education, and the last time I heard Lake City was a public school.

Even if it is private property, how can anyone justify a business owner or, in this case, a school administration, to be able to throw out probable cause at a whim and require random drug testing? To even begin on that course of action is to set a dangerous precedent for all kinds of constitutional abuses such as mandatory strip search upon entrance to the school or any other place of business merely because the controller of the building wishes it done.

This tiny action would justify a building owner ordering the police to rifle through all of their employees’ cars that were parked on the property of the business because they didn’t like Fords, or whatever other petty reason they had. You don’t think its done? Guess what school system has done it again? Any car parked on school grounds is subject to a random search.

How fair is that? How many people would be willing to have their cars searched because the management at Burger King felt like giving the orders that day, or they were paranoid and thought every white Dodge carried a bomb inside? This tiny little allowance opens a floodgate on the ability of people to have private property exist beyond the boundaries of the land they own.

And there is absolutely no way that what goes on is a random testing. It’s up to the personal discretion of the officer (which after my experience I don’t really trust). I don’t believe anyone else should either when it comes to weighing your right to privacy vs. the judgment of an arrogant police officer.