Private Prison Company Used in Drug Raids in Private High School

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
There is no reason why someone can't use "private security" for these things, and never has been.

And since the police departments are universally harder worked you can expect more of it.

Modern slavery? That's a pretty stupid comment.

If you cant see the potential dangers and corruption that something like a private (for PROFIT) prison can bring, then youre blind.
'Not to long ago, there was a judge that was booted for receiving kick backs from a private prison.

Originally posted by PsykoOps
Business idea: Start a "private law enforcement" agency that specialises in investigating and busting the "private prison businesses". Considering that the whole concept of a private prisons is discusting I'm fairly sure there would be quite alot of business to do.

Although I would condone such a private agency, let's be realistic here. Any one of these people with their stake in the private prison industry, is the sort of person that doesn't let ethics cloud their judgement. Those that began investigating the PPI would be running a very high risk of "dying in an accident", being blackmailed, having their family safety put at risk, etc. Wherever money is to be made, there's a relentless pervading corruption. Morality & rationality is replaced with a dark, insatiable lust. Even those that have noble intentions often end up backed up the wall.

reply to post by AGWskeptic


Just the thought of private prisons is a friggin' scary idea. The way politics are run today make it even scarier. Get one of the owners of those prisons in the right place in government and we will have a big ol' mess of trouble...if it's not already happening.

Originally posted by XLR8R
reply to post by AGWskeptic

 

Just the thought of private prisons is a friggin' scary idea. The way politics are run today make it even scarier. Get one of the owners of those prisons in the right place in government and we will have a big ol' mess of trouble...if it's not already happening.

They already have a pretty strong lobby in DC.

Things they are pushing include mandatory minimum sentencing and longer sentences.

Yes, very scary.

www.thenation.com...

I posted this link on page one, but it's a must read.

Originally posted by AGWskeptic
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

 

So you're ok with private prison guards doing some law enforcement outside of prison walls?

It's not a loaded question, it's a yes or no question.

the 2 are not exclusive. It is still a loaded question - it starts with saying that the people are private "prison guards".

Using private security (or dogs) for a drug sweep is NOT "law enforcement".

Having them arrest or detain someone would be law enforcement, and AFAIK private security guards have the same powers as any other member of the public to detain people - I don't know what those are exactly, but in general I expect they are not very threatening, and I generally have no problem with them having the same "powers" as me.

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul

Originally posted by AGWskeptic
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

 

So you're ok with private prison guards doing some law enforcement outside of prison walls?

It's not a loaded question, it's a yes or no question.

the 2 are not exclusive. It is still a loaded question - it starts with saying that the people are private "prison guards".

I usually agree with most positions you have on this forum, but not this one. Yes, a private school has the right to hire an outside security agency to conduct security duties under the contract the school has entered with parents to provide a safe educational program for students. But where the lines are crossed is if the evidence collected is passed on to authorities. If the school delivers this to law enforcement, than I see this as a breech of the 4th amendment.

If the school simply takes the evidence and uses their own punishment controls, then there is not much of a conflict. The parents and students entered a contract and the school can have disciplinary measures under that contract. Whether that be expulsion or administrative punishments.

As soon as the evidence is passed on to law enforcement however, the school has circumvented the law by not allowing the law to perform its mandate.

This in a sense is no different than vigilante justice.

The Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution provides, "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." Ultimately, these words endeavor to protect two fundamental liberty interests - the right to privacy and freedom from arbitrary invasions.

A search occurs when an expectation of privacy that society considers reasonable is infringed by a governmental employee or by an agent of the government. Private individuals who are not acting in either capacity are exempt from the Fourth Amendment prohibitions.

www.law.cornell.edu...

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul

Originally posted by AGWskeptic
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

 

So you're ok with private prison guards doing some law enforcement outside of prison walls?

It's not a loaded question, it's a yes or no question.

the 2 are not exclusive. It is still a loaded question - it starts with saying that the people are private "prison guards".

Using private security (or dogs) for a drug sweep is NOT "law enforcement".

Having them arrest or detain someone would be law enforcement, and AFAIK private security guards have the same powers as any other member of the public to detain people - I don't know what those are exactly, but in general I expect they are not very threatening, and I generally have no problem with them having the same "powers" as me.

edit on 3-12-2012 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)

When did CCA become a law enforcement agency?


I'm baffled that you don't see the problem with this.


And it was a PUBLIC school, I mistyped and it won't let me change it.

Originally posted by AGWskeptic
When did CCA become a law enforcement agency?

it isn't one AFAIK - despite what the police quote might have said.

I'm baffled that you don't see the problem with this.

I am baffled that you do - security guards take part in searches every day. Any organisation has, AFAIK and assuming any legal requirements have been met, the right to search its own premises - they do not need to use LEO's to do so.

however if there are no LEO's present then whoever is doing the search does not get to act like an LEO - eg if they find something illegal they do not get to arrest whoever has or owns it - all they can do is notify the Police.

In the case of this search it looks very much like drug dogs were bought in to do the search - these were CCA dogs hence had prison guard handlers. This much does not require CCA to be a "law enforcement agency".

LEO's were present to make any arrests or other actions that required LEO's - so CCA was not acting nor required to act as a LEA.

And it was a PUBLIC school, I mistyped and it won't let me change it.

Yep - I know that - I see no reason why it makes any difference.

Originally posted by boncho

I usually agree with most positions you have on this forum, but not this one. Yes, a private (you meant public as your next post points out) school has the right to hire an outside security agency to conduct security duties under the contract the school has entered with parents to provide a safe educational program for students. But where the lines are crossed is if the evidence collected is passed on to authorities. If the school delivers this to law enforcement, than I see this as a breech of the 4th amendment.

that is not what the 4th amendment is about at all.

The Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution provides, "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." Ultimately, these words endeavor to protect two fundamental liberty interests - the right to privacy and freedom from arbitrary invasions.

A search occurs when an expectation of privacy that society considers reasonable is infringed by a governmental employee or by an agent of the government. Private individuals who are not acting in either capacity are exempt from the Fourth Amendment prohibitions.

www.law.cornell.edu...

Firstly this is a completely different question to whether or not CCA should have been part of the search team and/or are or were acting as a law enforcement agency..

Later in that article you have quoted comes this (noting that your comment about a private school was a mistype on your part, and you meant public school) - public schools ARE subject to the 4th amendment

The law treats staff and faculty members of public educational insitutions as agents of the government. Therefore, the Fourth Amendment applies to public school employees, but a less stringent standard prevails. In the context of public school searches, employees may perform a search on the condition that they have reasonable suspicion. Reasonable suspicion requires a rationale basis upon which to believe that a student possesses contraband or has committed a crime. Hunches, rumors, or guesses do not constitute reasonable suspicion.

the question of whether or not school searches breach the 4th amendment is one that has vexed the legal system, however the current position is that they have a lower threshold of what constitutes "reasonable suspicion" than general criminal cases

Eg from here:

New Jersey v T. L. O. (1985) addresses the issue of whether a search by a school official is a "search" at all for Fourth Amendment purposes. It also considers whether the standard of probable cause that applies in the cases of criminal standards should be modified to reflect the special circumstances of public education and the relationship between school officials and students. The Court concludes that searches by school officials are governed by the Fourth Amendment, but adopts a lower standard for searches than it applies in the criminal context. Specifically, the Court only requires officials to have something like a moderate chance of finding evidence of wrongdoing. In T. L. O., the Court found that standard met.

however strip searching is a bit too far (same site):

In Safford v Redding (2009), however, the Court found that Arizona school officials went too far in strip-searching a 13-year-old student who they believed might have provided ibuprofen to another student. Given the intrusiveness of the search and the relatively low threat posed, the search was unreasonable and a violation of the Fourth Amendment, according to eight members of the Court. Justice Thomas dissented.

There is a highschool classroom module covering this subject that can be taught to students so they know their rights you can download from here

and many more links at this google search

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

Later in that article you have quoted comes this (noting that your comment about a private school was a mistype on your part, and you meant public school) - public schools ARE subject to the 4th amendment

The OP is concerning a private school no?

No mistype.

the question of whether or not school searches breach the 4th amendment is one that has vexed the legal system, however the current position is that they have a lower threshold of what constitutes "reasonable suspicion" than general criminal cases

There shouldn't be a "lower standard" for children, if anything, a higher one.

But even from the .pdf you linked:

Regarding “effects” – what about your backpack? (yes), your
ipod? (yes), your collection of comics? (yes).

A sniffing dog requires or should require the same amount of justification that a full search does. If the students leave their backpack in a locker, they should expect that a warrant be needed to search it. The law is up for debate in this matter where the home and car, and other circumstances offer up different levels of the 4th amendment (which seems absurd in my opinion).

In the second case, there were solid grounds for doubting Aldo’s accuracy. Two months after the first incident, the officer stopped the same driver and his truck for a traffic infraction. The officer again deployed Aldo, who again indicated drugs, but this time the officer’s search of the truck yielded no illegal substances. There is mounting evidence, as former Justice David Souter warned in dissent in a 2005 case, that the “infallible dog” is “a creature of legal fiction.” The justices have a duty to protect citizens from infringements on their constitutional rights, including by man’s best friend.

www.nytimes.com...

I think the most important thing here is the law is always one Supreme Court ruling away from being changed. Just because there is a standard today does not mean it is the right one.

Look, I'm opposed to private prisons, and I don't like cops....
but this story is whack.

It's not a drug raid like you see on TV. The police usually just stand around and don't take any real action. The dogs do most of the work. Not to mention the article doesn't even say what the company did there. They could've just been standing around, which is most likely what they did.

A lot of you are just letting your imagination fill in the gaps for this story, and making it to be a bigger deal than it is.

reply to post by AGWskeptic


Many posters are tossing the term slavery around regarding the prison system which is true but they overlook the slavery of the school/education system. children and young adults are kept against their will in prision like condtions without pay for 12 years and they never committed a crime!

I would like to know why at age 18 or 21 the former students don't sue the school system for slavery.
Tell me why it doesn't qualify

A)Taken from their family
B)Kept against their will
C)Made to work and do more work at home
D)Not paid for their work

reply to post by boncho


Our laws should be laid out as simply as the code of hammurabi of course it would need to be updated to get rid of slavery, amputations , death penalty, acknowledge womens rights, things like that.

Originally posted by VforVendettea
reply to post by boncho

 

Our laws should be laid out as simply as the code of hammurabi of course it would need to be updated to get rid of slavery, amputations , death penalty, acknowledge womens rights, things like that.

I agree. There shouldn't be 40,000 some odd statutes that no one knows. There should be a set amount of rules that everyone can remember, since ignorance is no excuse to the law and all that...