With Little Notice,

It’s Hard For The Public

To Accept Or Reject Policy Proposals

To the Editor,

At the July 6 Board Of Education meeting, the board introduced and approved the use of drug-sniffing dogs at Newtown High School. The Newtown Bee reported strong support for the policy at the meeting. In fact, of the 19 people who spoke, not one opposed the policy. The Editorial Inkdrops column on July 13, 2006, stated: “The anticipated opposition [to the policy] never materialized.”

Lack of opposition might be because the policy was approved at a meeting during a holiday week when no one was around. Shouldn’t an issue like this, that has been deemed unconstitutional in some courts, be given more public exposure than three hours of discussion at a summertime BOE meeting? Perhaps lack of opposition is because those opposed to the policy are apprehensive about vocalizing their views in fear of being labeled pro drugs or weak on crime — an unfair accusation since we all agree to wanting safe, drug-free schools. The disagreement lies in the methods used to create this environment.

If you have concerns about the policy there are some things you can do. First, call your BOE rep and let them know where you stand. Second, familiarize yourself with the Connecticut Board of Education Policy entitled “Student Search and Seizure: Use of Dogs to Search School Property.” This is the model the BOE is working from to set policy. A copy can be obtained through the Superintendent’s Office. Third, attend the BOE meeting on August 15 at 7 pm in the RIS Library Media Center. The use of dogs has been approved but the policy and procedures are not in place. This is the time for comment and citizen oversight.

The legal argument for random searches is, that since the search is done on public property, there is implied consent by the students. However, the Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution protects against unreasonable searches and seizures and requires that police have probable cause before doing a search. It would be logical to conclude that random searches — where’s the probable cause? — are unlawful. Additionally, the use of drug-sniffing dogs assumes every student is a suspect without evidence of wrongdoing.

If this flawed policy is destined to happen, we as citizens must ensure that the principles of our Constitution prevail and the civil rights of our children are protected.

Tracy Fiore

19 Taunton Lake Drive, Newtown                              August 9, 2006