WTF?

Aug 04, 2005 15:50

Last night, I picked-up my local biweekly and this morning when I was reading through the "Legal Notices", I saw that the local school district is advertising for bids from Drug Dog Services. If you read through their 2001-2002 Accreditation Application (p. 12), you'll see that it's funded by the "Safe and Drug Free Schools" program. And, staying ( Read more... )

local, education, constitutional law

Leave a comment

litos August 4 2005, 22:22:10 UTC
Is the drug dog full time? Or is the contract for occasional usage ( ... )

Reply

discreet_chaos August 4 2005, 23:24:40 UTC
Mr Gonzales reduced his bid from $400 to $350, so I guess it's an on-call kind of thing. Hopefully, a local teacher will correct me, if I'm wrong. Though judging from voices_speak's comment, he may have given them a per-visit price. I haven't actually looked at the bid packet and really don't have any more specific information than I've given ( ... )

Reply

litos August 4 2005, 23:47:10 UTC
See.... the cameras I am against. Why should students who are doing nothing wrong have to be videotaped in one of their public institutions? It would be acceptable to have them on at night to prevent break-ins.

Metal detecters are shitty as they criminalize every child who has to walk through one. Practically speaking, if there is a proven reason for them, I am not going to get up in arms about it. But, I don't like them.

Random locker searches.... how fucked up it that? At any time your belongings can be spread out all over the hallway floor.

A dog that walks through the halls, sniffing lockers for dope, is only going to lead to lockers with dope in them being opened. This would prevent the "need" for random searches and would be much more effective in keeping drugs out of schools.

Reply

(The comment has been removed)

litos August 4 2005, 23:59:44 UTC
I ride the Metro here is D.C. I would be exceptionally pleased if there were dogs at every station, sniffing the crowd for explosives ( ... )

Reply

(The comment has been removed)

litos August 5 2005, 01:44:40 UTC
Our civil liberties are not violated by reasonable measures used to enforce the law.

They are violated by legislaters who impose unjust laws.

The law should be ours and we should not be scared of it.

That said, it occurs to me that I may be a bit ignorant about the practicalities involved with dogs.

How sensitive are they?

I'm picturing a gymnasium full of people. The dog walks in and immediately goes up to the person with the bag in his pocket. Which, I would find it hard to believe anyone would call invasive.

You seem to be portaying a situation where everyone entering the gym has to be pawed and sniffed individually. If it's the equivalent of a pat down, that's not okay.

Reply

(The comment has been removed)

eparchos August 5 2005, 04:28:56 UTC
It also depends on the drugs in question and how well sealed they are.

Reply

discreet_chaos August 5 2005, 02:38:40 UTC
I've yet to read back through the posts that happened, while I was away from the machine and I'll have to put them off for a little longer, but a quick search found this text from NY and this video from CA. Both pretty much state that the dogs are led down the line of lockers and they react to one that contains drugs. (Though, there is a little question, as to the CA clip) I still don't know what happens in this town, but if you're in the market, I also ran across this dealer's site.

Reply

eparchos August 5 2005, 04:28:03 UTC
For some reason, we have decided that a dog may [sniff people] for a policeman, even though it would be invasive if the policeman himself did so.
That's because cops are assholes and dogs are CUTE! I'd much rather have a dog sniffing me than a cop.

Reply


Leave a comment

Up