At a school in the United States, a court session took place because a teen had been shifted out by a drug dog and felt as if his personal rights were being violated. The fourth Amendment protects Americans privacy and search rights. It is important to know about the fourth amendment because some believe high school drug dogs in schools are a controversial issue, however, many see them as a necessity for several reasons.
Historically speaking, student searches came about in response to schools such as Columbine, Littleton, and Springfield sudden acts of violence at these schools. Drug dogs have been a huge debate among many for years now. Drug dogs are canines that sniff out areas to find illegal drugs. Many drug dogs are brought to schools …show more content…
The use of drug dogs makes students nervous to bring drugs into their schools with the fear of getting caught. Ehlenberger writes, “need to maintain a safe atmosphere where learning and teaching can occur” (Ehlenberger 31). In other words, drug dogs can keep drugs far off or around school property to create a very concentrated, healthy environment. Secondly, the use of drug dogs can create a special bond between students and staff. To illustrate the issue, “would create a climate of fear and distrust between teachers and pupils,” shows that many believe it would negatively affect student’s relationships. Although this is true, it can also create a trustworthy bond by being able to inform teachers when something is wrong. Lastly, students will be less prone to trying drugs. If students aren’t allowed to have drugs at school, then its less likely to happen. Robinson states, “Dogs at 1,200 school districts”, can help teens be focused on staying clean (Robinson). To conclude, the use of drug dogs can bring students and administrative closer together, keep a safe environment, and create less teen drug …show more content…
Drug dogs can cause problems along with their solutions. In fact, “kids feel their personal rights are being violated and the reason we are deciding to do this is that we don’t trust them” (Robinson). The fourth Amendment showcase individual rights and boundaries while it’s stated that drug dogs are breaking that right. To continue, if someone wanted to go to court for drug dog testing, it is morally up to who can bring the best argument. “the answer depends on whether the court views the law enforcement personnel assigned…” (Ehlenberger 32). The evidence provides perfect explanation of negative effects of drug dogs. To express why drug dogs are considered good or bad, some find it almost embarrassing to be accused even though they came back fine. “It intrudes on the expectation of privacy,” (Ehlenberger 33). Privacy is a large argument in the fight for or against drug dogs. Finally, though negative impacts can be strong points, the positive effects of the drug dogs over powers the negative. To conclude, drug dogs are seen as a problem and solution to student drug issues around America. As a solution, drug dogs create a healthier, safer, learning environment. Despite this, they can also arouse issues affecting personal rights and the fourth Amendment. In the end, as student drug issues progress more and more ways to prevent them are
Historically speaking, student searches came about in response to schools such as Columbine, Littleton, and Springfield sudden acts of violence at these schools. Drug dogs have been a huge debate among many for years now. Drug dogs are canines that sniff out areas to find illegal drugs. Many drug dogs are brought to schools …show more content…
The use of drug dogs makes students nervous to bring drugs into their schools with the fear of getting caught. Ehlenberger writes, “need to maintain a safe atmosphere where learning and teaching can occur” (Ehlenberger 31). In other words, drug dogs can keep drugs far off or around school property to create a very concentrated, healthy environment. Secondly, the use of drug dogs can create a special bond between students and staff. To illustrate the issue, “would create a climate of fear and distrust between teachers and pupils,” shows that many believe it would negatively affect student’s relationships. Although this is true, it can also create a trustworthy bond by being able to inform teachers when something is wrong. Lastly, students will be less prone to trying drugs. If students aren’t allowed to have drugs at school, then its less likely to happen. Robinson states, “Dogs at 1,200 school districts”, can help teens be focused on staying clean (Robinson). To conclude, the use of drug dogs can bring students and administrative closer together, keep a safe environment, and create less teen drug …show more content…
Drug dogs can cause problems along with their solutions. In fact, “kids feel their personal rights are being violated and the reason we are deciding to do this is that we don’t trust them” (Robinson). The fourth Amendment showcase individual rights and boundaries while it’s stated that drug dogs are breaking that right. To continue, if someone wanted to go to court for drug dog testing, it is morally up to who can bring the best argument. “the answer depends on whether the court views the law enforcement personnel assigned…” (Ehlenberger 32). The evidence provides perfect explanation of negative effects of drug dogs. To express why drug dogs are considered good or bad, some find it almost embarrassing to be accused even though they came back fine. “It intrudes on the expectation of privacy,” (Ehlenberger 33). Privacy is a large argument in the fight for or against drug dogs. Finally, though negative impacts can be strong points, the positive effects of the drug dogs over powers the negative. To conclude, drug dogs are seen as a problem and solution to student drug issues around America. As a solution, drug dogs create a healthier, safer, learning environment. Despite this, they can also arouse issues affecting personal rights and the fourth Amendment. In the end, as student drug issues progress more and more ways to prevent them are