Search, but Don’t Destroy Liberties

For eight years, the Los Angeles Unified School District has had a policy of searching students at school with metal detecting wands. The searches must be random and may include a physical pat-down. Searching a student’s belongings is permitted only when there is reason to suspect the student of carrying a weapon.

Earlier this year, several students at Locke High School in South Los Angeles contacted the American Civil Liberties Union complaining that these guidelines often are not followed at their school. Subsequently, a lawsuit was filed by the ACLU on behalf of six Locke High students who claim that searches violate their constitutional rights.

Karen Karlitz spoke with RAMONA RIPSTON, executive director of the ACLU, and HAL KWALWASSER, LAUSD general counsel, about the lawsuit.

*

First, it is important to say that the ACLU is not opposed to all searches. Some people have reacted unfavorably to our lawsuit because it has been mischaracterized as challenging district policy on conducting random searches. In fact, what we want is to have the policy properly enforced.

We believe that students have the right to not be physically touched by school personnel when there is no reason to suspect they are carrying a weapon. We also object to instances where students are called to the front of their classroom and searched, often by hand, in front of the entire class. They are forced to stand spread-eagle facing the blackboard, required to untuck their shirts and are then patted down. Sometimes all the girls are told to go to one side of the room and the boys to the other, and then they are all asked to put their hands up.

This is demeaning and humiliating, and we believe it is against the law.

Some of the reasons that would indicate a physical pat-down is needed are that another student says he or she has seen that student with a weapon or a bulge in a pocket looks like a gun; perhaps a teacher suspects the student has a gun or the student has made threats.

But absent any of these things, reasonable suspicion to perform such a search does not exist.

Another problem at Locke that is particularly onerous has been female students patted down by male personnel in obvious violation of district policy.

Also, LAUSD policy on random searches clearly lays out procedure for when students may be touched--and that is only when a metal detector has gone off and after a security guard has questioned the student. The only form of touch permitted is a light touch to confirm the student’s explanation of the metal object that set off the alarm.

When metal detectors were introduced into the Los Angeles schools in the early 1990s, the ACLU issued a statement saying that as long as there is no racial profiling, as long as the selection of students is truly random--for instance every third student or every fifth student--it did not oppose the searches.

But we have received complaints of Locke High School personnel going into classrooms and selecting certain students to search because of the way they are dressed, the way they look or the color of their skin.

In March, we sent a letter to the principal of Locke High saying that some students had brought to our attention problems about searches at the school that we were very concerned about, and we hoped they would improve their procedures. As far as we know, they did not address these issues, but instead wrote back to say their procedures were fine. Had they attempted to alleviate the problems, there would not be a lawsuit today.

It is interesting that this is happening in a school in South-Central L.A., where race and class play a factor.

These types of searches make students who live in high-crime neighborhoods feel that they are automatically looked upon as perpetrators of crime.

That is the crux of the issue. These searches have been conducted in the wrong manner and send the wrong message. They fail the basic fairness test.

We believe that students are entitled to safety at their schools; there are ways of achieving that, and reasonable searches do play a small part.

Those who justify violating students’ rights in the name of safety confuse the issue and offer a false dichotomy: safety or civil rights.

The answer, of course, is both.