If the sheriff there is a elected official, the sheriff may have just pissed in his Cheerios for the next election.

"In the student handbook, it says school officials may search a student only if there is reasonable suspicion the student has an illegal item."

"New Jersey v. T.L.O. is the landmark case on search and seizure at school. Basically, school officials may search a student's property if they have a "reasonable suspicion" that a school rule has been broken, or a student has committed or is in the process of committing a crime. These are called "suspicion-based" searches."

"There are also "suspicionless searches" in which everyone in a certain group is subject to a search at school. (Vernonia School District v. Acton)".

These are called "suspicion-based" searches."

So - everyone in the entire school was "under suspicion"?

"There are also "suspicionless searches" in which everyone in a certain group is subject to a search at school.

Meaning what, the entire football team? The entire chess club? The entire cheerleading squad? Oh - the entire school you say?

Good grief man, how can you defend this shit?

Never mind - in paulsen Bizarro World - cops use the Constitution to wipe their asses and paulsen cheers.

If the sheriff there is a elected official, the sheriff may have just pissed in his Cheerios for the next election.

I guarantee there will be at least a few hundred parents who won't be voting for him.

Worth County Schools attorney Tommy Coleman said in order for the Sheriff's office to search any students, they'd had to have reason to believe there was some kind of criminal activity or the student had possession of contraband or drugs.

Ahem….there was. At the end of March 11 people and several juveniles were taken into custody for a series of burglaries on Woodcrest Road. During those investigations, Worth County investigators found evidence there were drug activities going on at school.

Can't say I'm surprised that you and whitey are cheering this invasion of privacy.

The 4th Amendment doesn't mean anything to you statists, does it?

Frigging fascists.

I guarantee there will be at least a few hundred parents who won't be voting for [the sheriff].

Worth County NAACP leaders invited parents and students of Worth County High School to meet with a civil rights attorney.

They were quick to lawyer up …

Organizers said that Lawyers from the Southern Center of Civil Rights in Atlanta will meet with families who feel their children were violated during Friday's search and pat down of students.

Dozens of parents and students voiced their concerns after a random drug search at the school on Friday.

"She said the officer went at angles both sides when she was underneath her panty line," said Worth County High School parent Amaryllis Coleman.

Coleman recapped how her daughter was treated by deputies.

"It has triggered a whole bunch of stuff, I mean she's been crying and depressed," remarked Coleman. Like many other parents, Coleman described a disturbing reaction from her daughter, Christlike Parker.

Footnote: The Worth County Sheriff's office has [wisely] called in the GBI to investigate the allegations of inappropriate contact by deputies during that search.

They were quick to lawyer up …

Good for them - I hope the renegade sheriff has to pay out of his own pocket.

Nice job deflecting and trying to make this about the race of the students and parents.

I'll bet the white parents will want a piece of that lawsuit action as well.

Ahem….there was. At the end of March 11 people and several juveniles were taken into custody for a series of burglaries on Woodcrest Road. During those investigations, Worth County investigators found evidence there were drug activities going on at school.

Why didn't you post the rest of it?

At the end of March 11 people and several juveniles were taken into custody for a series of burglaries on Woodcrest Road. He road during those investigations, Worth County investigators found evidence there were drug activities going on at school.

Drugs dogs led officers to one car, which yielded nothing.

No drugs were found in a search of Worth County High School Friday.

The Sylvester Police Department did a search on March 17, and found no drugs.

Sure - let's just search EVERYBODY then why don't we?

I don’t think [but I may be wrong] the sheriff got a hair up his ass that particular day and suddenly decided for no particular to search the entire school.

I believe [and again, I may be wrong] the sheriff felt strongly the Worth County investigators found evidence there were drug activities going on at school.

Just because there were no drugs found in the school that particular day doesn’t mean the evidence was wrong, or that there no drug dealings had been going on in the school.

What this probably does mean, after the big stink made by the Worth County NAACP….is that the sheriff hands are now tied and whatever drug dealings there may have been at the school can now reappear with guaranteed immunity from any future interference.

"Meaning what, the entire football team? The entire chess club? The entire cheerleading squad? Oh - the entire school you say?"

Yep. They can drug test the entire football team if they wanted. With no reasonable suspicion.

"Do you prefer boys or girls?"

Is that a trick question?

Do you enjoy groping kids? Do you prefer boys or girls?

That was a particularly dumb remark you posted, that contributed absolutely nothing to the ongoing discussion….showing once again your low intelligence level and proving how stupidly you often times respond.

Just because there were no drugs found in the school that particular day doesn’t mean the evidence was wrong, or that there no drug dealings had been going on in the school.

They searched (illegally in the most recent case) 3 times.

Maybe you would like it if they searched every day?

Would that give you a big cop woody?

At the end of March 11 people and several juveniles were taken into custody for a series of burglaries on Woodcrest Road. He road during those investigations, Worth County investigators found evidence there were drug activities going on at school.

Drugs dogs led officers to one car, which yielded nothing.

No drugs were found in a search of Worth County High School Friday.

The Sylvester Police Department did a search on March 17, and found no drugs.

Sure - let's just search EVERYBODY then why don't we?

Uh, “HELLO.” I think they did, or have I misread the article you posted.

It was sarcasm you simpleton!

2 hours ago

View Hide

View Hide

"That was a particularly dumb remark you posted, that contributed absolutely nothing to the ongoing discussion….showing once again your low intelligence level and proving how stupidly you often times respond."

That's all he's got. Pathetic.

Yep. They can drug test the entire football team if they wanted.

Oh - the entire school you say?"

Pathetic.

That aptly describes both you and your 4th Amendment-shredding bootlicker pal.

Worth County Schools attorney Tommy Coleman said in order for the Sheriff's office to search any students, they'd had to have reason to believe there was some kind of criminal activity or the student had possession of contraband or drugs.

"If you don't have that then this search would violate an individuals rights," said Coleman. "[It] violates the constitutional right and enforcing them the right against unreasonable search and seizures."

Sure didn't take long for the police state cheerleaders to show up.

It’s a tough job to present the truth to smack down the fake news and yellow journalism that is posted…but someone has to do it.

Worth County Schools attorney Tommy Coleman said in order for the Sheriff's office to search any students, they'd had to have reason to believe there was some kind of criminal activity or the student had possession of contraband or drugs.

Ahem, I repeat….there was. At the end of March 11 people and several juveniles were taken into custody for a series of burglaries on Woodcrest Road. During those investigations, Worth County investigators found evidence there were drug activities going on at school.

...before the defenders of justice appear to offer rational insights.

Defender of justice?

Don't make me puke!

And rational? Come on man - you are defending the sheriff department completely ignoring the constitution.

No drugs were found in the first incident.

No drugs were found in the second search.

No drugs were found in the latest search.

Yet you fascists say "well done LEO!"

Un-frigging real!

Worth County investigators found evidence there were drug activities going on at school.

THEY FOUND NO DRUGS!

In ANY of the searches!

You frigging simpleton!

That you condone this egregious violation of the students' 4th Amendment rights is hardly surprising.

That aptly describes [….] 4th Amendment-shredding …

Well, Sport, you are challenged here, in that …

The Fourth Amendment guarantees that the security of “persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated.”

There were reasonable searches conducted because ….

At the end of March 11 people and several juveniles were taken into custody for a series of burglaries on Woodcrest Road. During those investigations, Worth County investigators found evidence there were drug activities going on at school.

There were no unreasonable searches conducted at the school

Yeah - you said the same thing about the Martial Law in Boston. It' s pretty obvious you don't give a rat's ass about the 4th Amendment.

We're done here queerbait.

Your authority fetish is stinking up the thread and is becoming quite nauseating.

THEY FOUND NO DRUGS!

In ANY of the searches!

You are also saying the sheriff had no reason for the searches and it violated their 4th Amendment rights….and that is not correct.

The sheriff had ample reason to conduct the searches and those searches in no way violate their 4th Amendment rights because …

At the end of March 11 people and several juveniles were taken into custody for a series of burglaries on Woodcrest Road. During those investigations, Worth County investigators found evidence there were drug activities going on at school.

We're done here.

because …

"That was a particularly dumb remark you posted, that contributed absolutely nothing to the ongoing discussion….showing once again your low intelligence level and proving how stupidly you often times respond."

That's all he's got. Pathetic.

He never has anything….he always reminds me of Fred Mertz with his idiotic one-liners.

Deckard: We're done here.

Hey, misterwhite, if you will please ...

After all - you've been "going down" on one another this entire thread.

Sod off fascist.

What does it mean when you post “we’re done here?”

It means nothing….like everything else you post.

Oh, wait….it means you are coming back with more posts.

Got it …

place your hand here

Pervert.

Why would this be a “NAACP” problem….can anyone explain that to me?

Yes, I can explain it.

What we have going on here is a test of power. The police have asserted that they have the power to do something that a plain read of the Constitution says they do not have, and that about two centuries of legal precedent say they do not have, but that some recent muddled precedent say they do have.

This is Texas, where human rights are a sometime thing on the best of days, and where everything is decided by POWER. In Worth County, the Sherriff's department and police structure - that's POWER - and it's power that's in cahoots with the local prosecutors, of course, and quite possibly the local judiciary.

What can one do against the power? Keep it local, and thereby go up against the local Boss Hoggs and lose? Sure, that's one way.

The better way is to weaponize the case by taking it federal, and bringing in the NAACP, which is better funded than Worth County, and that has connections with the Federal Judiciary, Congress, and the national media.

Against that sort of firepower, Worth County's Boss Hogg and Sherriff Roscoe don't have a hope in hell of winning.

The NAACP brings a massive amount of firepower to bear against a local miscreant (I speak here of the sherriff), and he will lose.

Since the parents want to win the case and thump the sherriff down into remembering that he is service personnel, not the local overlord, bringing in the NAACP is a good start.

Once blood is in the water, other organizations will jump in to pile on against the sherriff, and he'll be drummed out.

The parents will win this one, and the cops will lose and be diminished in their power. A PRECEDENT will be set.

"The police have asserted that they have the power to do something that a plain read of the Constitution says they do not have, and that about two centuries of legal precedent say they do not have, but that some recent muddled precedent say they do have."

Can you search your child's bedroom? Don't they have a constitutional right to privacy?

The United State Supreme Court has ruled in two different landmark cases (which I cited previously in this very thread but which you obviously did not read) that children are subject to a lower threshold for a search.

"The high court said school administrators don't need to have a search warrant or probable cause before conducting a search because students have a reduced expectation of privacy when in school."

Your "plain read of the Constitution" is wrong.

"You did not answer my question."

Correct.

"Oh - the entire school you say?"

Sure. All they need is "reasonable suspicion". No probable cause. No warrant.

This is Texas, where human rights are a sometime thing on the best of days, and where everything is decided by POWER. In Worth County, the Sherriff's department and police structure - that's POWER - and it's power that's in cahoots with the local prosecutors, of course, and quite possibly the local judiciary.

This is not Texas, this is Georgia….not that it really changes the dynamics for our discussion of the story, but we can agree that its best to work from a point of clarity.

What we have going on here is a test of power.

We don’t really know “what” we have going on here, we never do when reading from an article authored by Matt Agorist and published in The Free Thought Project. I will however grant you that a grapple for power is going to be the end resultant of whatever is going on here.

The police have asserted that they have the power to do something that a plain read of the Constitution says they do not have.

I don’t understand, because …

The Fourth Amendment guarantees that the security of “persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches [and seizures], shall not be violated.”

Worth County investigators found evidence “drug activities” were going on at the school. I therefore fail to understand how the searches were unreasonable.

Also, from the school handbook …

School officials may search a student only if there is reasonable suspicion the student has an illegal item.

School officials were present and the Sheriff had reasonable evidence the student(s) had an illegal item(s). Again, I cannot understand why the searches were unauthorized.

In summary....you are correct when you say the sheriff lost. He has admitted that, called for an outside investigation by the GBI and stated he will conduct no more searches.

So, when the drug dealing is uncovered and brought to light [and it probably will be when dealing this day and tine with the law of averages and 900 students involved], I hope the sheriff just sits back, puts feet up on his desk and tell the parents to go fuck themselves when they come crying to him for help when [and if] their little babies are in trouble with drugs at the school. I say that, realizing of course that the sheriff will never do that….he will answer the call of duty, as any LEO will.

There were no unreasonable searches conducted at the school

Yeah - you said the same thing about the Martial Law in Boston.

See there, I am always truthful.

You can rely on me for correct information at all times.

Completely and utterly unconstitutional. The Contitution makes it HARD to fight the drug war. Which is a good argument to not fight it, not a good argument to weaken the protections of the Constitution.

"You did not answer my question."

Correct.

I think you prefer boys.

"I think you prefer boys."

The next time you visit your psychiatrist, ask him about psychological projection and tell him you do that a lot.

The next time you visit your psychiatrist, ask him about psychological projection and tell him you do that a lot.

Thank you for the advise. I might see a psychiatrist - I have an inordinate phobia of brazen gropers at the airports and jack booted thugs.