Teacher who placed bag over student's head will stay on the job
Assistant Superintendent Bob Feaster said discipline is possible, and that matter is being discussed.
Feaster said it's been determined that the unidentified student was never in physical danger.
Remember, we as parents gave the responsibilty to our Public Schools to discipline our children when they are at School. Please read>>> What is "in loco parentis"?
This is a section put together by Panda Bear and is now on webpage>> http://nfpcar.org/Miranda/ and compares Private Schools rights to Public School Rights
This ruling above, however, does give the authorities a loophole, as it restricts these fishing expeditions on PRIVATE property, i.e. a private home, private school, etc. A PUBLIC school does not have these protections. Why? When you drop your child(ren) off at the schoolhouse door, you are then giving the public school authority to act in your stead via something called "in loco parentis" which is Latin for "in place of the parents." (Related term: Parens Patriae which is Latin for "father of the people")
When the public school exercises their version of in loco parentis, they substitute their judgment for yours. Remember, they are government officials that you place in charge of your children for approximately 180 days a year. They will do what they deem best for your child while you are not there, including letting other governmental personnel have access to your child. You remember that the public school is a governmental institution, don't you?
''...[S]chool officials act as representatives of the State, not merely as surrogates for the parents.''469 U.S. 336 (1984)
You give this same authority to a private school, but with a few differences.
Number one, they are not a governmental entity.
Secondly, this school probably reflects your values and standards better than the public institution. A public school probably has different values and standards than you do in your home. Their mantra is often "Is it good for the children?", which they have loosely translated from the legal definition of "in the best interests of the child."
Third, a private school is more interested in protecting your rights as they have a vested interest in keeping you a happy customer. They want your business, (you pay them money) and are willing to abide by your rules, and you have already given them a copy of your Reverse Miranda notice and the Hatch Amendment Letter, right?
A public school has public monies at its disposal. They don't have to please you, as they feel they are the only legitimate source of education there is, even if it isn't. They don't want the parents to have the freedom to choose, because when we do, we often don't choose the public version of school.
Another good case to note is Heartland Academy Community Church, et al, vs. Michael Waddle, decided May 11, 2004 in the United States District Court, Eastern District of Missouri, Northern Division.
"In the context of removing a child from his home and family, a seizure is reasonable if it is pursuant to a court order, if it is supported by probable cause, or if it is justified by exigent circumstances, meaning that state officers `"have reason to believe that life or limb is in immediate jeopardy.'" Brokaw, 235 F.3d at 1010 (quoting Tenenbaum v. Williams, 193 F.3d 581, 605 (2d Cir. 1999) (citation omitted)). The same standard for reasonableness applies when a child is seized from a private school where she has been placed by her parents. See Doe, 327 F.3d at 512 (holding "[i]n our view, there is no basis for concluding that when a minor child is entrusted to the care of a private school in loco parentis his reasonable expectation of privacy, vis-à-vis government officials, differs in any material respect from that which he would otherwise expect to receive at home.").
Michael C. v. Gresbach, another 7th Circuit Court of Appeals decision, this time from 2008, mirrors the Doe v. Heck case above. From the Liberty Counsel website:
"Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled in favor of two Wisconsin children who were strip-searched by a state social worker at a private Christian school. In Michael C. v. Gresbach, the appeals court panel unanimously ruled that the social worker, Dana Gresbach, violated the Fourth Amendment rights of the children to be free from an unreasonable search.
"The court stated that "it is a violation of a child's constitutional rights to conduct a search of a child at a private school without a warrant or probable cause, consent, or exigent circumstances." The court held the social worker personally responsible for violating the students' rights, because the law in this area is so clear that she should have known her actions were unconstitutional. Although the school principal allowed the social worker to interview the students, the social worker never even mentioned that she intended to require the children to remove their clothing. In addition, the social worker refused to allow the principal to contact the parents before the interview or to be present when she forced the children to strip.
"Stephen Crampton, Vice President of Legal Affairs and General Counsel for Liberty Counsel, commented: "Decades ago, the United States Supreme Court emphatically ruled that the child is not the mere creature of the state. Unfortunately, social workers repeatedly ignore that fact and routinely trample parents' rights under the guise of protecting the children. This ruling sends the message that the Constitution is still in effect protecting law-abiding families from the overreaching arm of the state, both in the home and in private schools."
In Arizona on Sept 27, 2007, in the case Loudermilk v. Arpaio, a Federal Court ruled that an unsupported threat to place children in custody was unconstitutional because the fear tactics the social workers and sheriff's deputies used violated the constitutional guarantee of family privacy and integrity.
"Defendants persisted in their threats to remove the children if Plaintiff Parents did not consent to the search, stating that [they] could arrest or handcuff the Parents in front of the children. Based on the allegations set forth in the Amended Complaint, viewed in Plaintiff's favor, no reasonable official would have believed that his or her conduct was authorized by state or constitutional law."
The judge additionally cites:
"The principle that government officials cannot coerce entry into people's houses without a search warrant or applicability of an established exception to the requirement of a search warrant is so well established that any reasonable officer would know it." Calabretta, 189 F.3d at 813. Similarly, "[t]he constitutional right of parents and children to live together without government interference is well established." Mabe, 237 F.3d at 1107 (citing Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745, 753 (1982))."
"Knowledge will forever govern ignorance. And people who mean to be their own governors, must arm themselves with the power knowledge gives. A popular government without popular information or the means of acquiring it is but a prologue to a farce or a tragedy, or perhaps both." James Madison, letter to W.T. Barry (August 4, 1822), reprinted in G.P. HUNT, ED., IX THE WRITINGS OF JAMES MADISON 103
"The people of this state do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies that serve them. The people, in delegating authority, do not give their public servants the right to decide what is good for the people to know and what is not good for them to know. The people insist on remaining informed so that they may maintain control over the instruments that they have created." Washington Public Records Act, RCW §42.17.251
Unless courts are prepared to enforce these rights and protect those charged with crime, irrespective of their obvious guilt, they condone illegitimate and unconstitutional practices which, if long adhered to, may result in a breakdown of the protection accorded free men by the Fourth and Fifth Amendments.[fn3] This course, like the enforcement of other parts of the Bill of Rights, may often afford a shelter for criminals, "But the forefathers thought this was not too great a price to pay for that decent privacy of home, papers and effects which is indispensable to individual dignity and self respect. They may have overvalued privacy, but I am not disposed to set their command at naught."[fn4] BROCK v. UNITED STATES, 223 F.2d 681 (5th Cir. 1955).