My 15 year old son recently ran away from home. I contacted every friend of his and one of those friends parents happen to be a local "well known" Doctor. The Doctor and his family; My son's friend, his sister, mother and the Doctor himself were all present when I went to their home asking if anyone knew the whereabouts of my son. The Doctor immediately stepped up and said " We all know where your son is. But we are not going to tell you because I don't want to have my son breach the confidence between your son and my son." I specifically asked the Doctor and his wife if they knew exactly where my son was. They both replied, " Yes." When I said to them " You are refusing to tell me where my son is?" Again both the Doctor and his wife said yes. At that point, the Doctor told me I needed to leave their home, which I did and immediately and called the police. The police came and the Doctor and his family changed their tune and the Doctor and his family were wrong in knowing the location of my son.

OK, the question here is: Did the Doctor have some sort of legal right to keep that information from me? Morally I know he should have told me, but now ethics are a part of this question as well. What if my son had been laying hurt somewhere? Or worse found dead? Thank God he was found OK... But at what point does the Doctor have a "duty" to tell me where my son was? Everyone I have spoken too, have all agreed the Doctor was wrong in keeping that information from me.

Yes, the doctor was wrong. The only time info can be withheld is in doctor-patient privilege. If the doctor learned the information during a doctor's visit then the doctor can keep it private. But if it is not part of your son's medical record then the doctor does not have doctor-patient privilege as your son was not a patient at the time of disclosure.

**EDIT** However, it also was not his legal obligation to tell you either. It was his choice not to tell you. Maybe your son told him and his family some half-truths, or bold faced lies, about you and they thought they were protecting him from harm. So, legally he could not hold the information from you for the reasons set forth above, however, morally he may have felt he was acting in the best interest of your son.

Did the Doctor have some sort of legal right to keep that information from me?

Everyone I have spoken too, have all agreed the Doctor was wrong in keeping that information from me.

Hello tk:

Not surprising that I should disagree with "everyone".

It doesn't matter that he's a doctor. He wasn't acting in that capacity. He was acting in the capacity as a parent. As a parent, he has NO obligation to tell you ANYTHING. What would make you think that because he's a doctor, he must tell you anything you want to know? Where did you ever get that? All doctors must tell the truth?? To ANYONE who asks?? Nope.

Apparently, he does have ethics as a parent. He was demonstrating them.

In summation; he has NO obligation to tell you anything, ever!

excon

I would just about guess that the good doctor and his wife were quickly educated by the police about the laws governing the illegal sheltering of minors. I don't think any adult is legally permitted to keep the whereabouts of a minor child from a custodial parent without some kind of legal beagle process. How I know this has to do with the education I got when a minor (without permission from the parents-- who knows where they were) demanded to be picked up from a park (where the whole family was apparently squatting) and taken to a local AA meeting. I instinctively refused to send help until further research. The police went there instead. Adults need to be mindful of the laws concerning "helping" kids that aren't their own, at least in the state of Florida.

He has not right to not tell you by any medcial oath.

And have you ever considered he told them a lie about where he was at, that they knew but lied to the police after you called them.

If he knew and was part of the child running away, there may be civil damages you can sue them for.

I would just about guess that the good doctor and his wife were quickly educated by the police about the laws governing the illegal sheltering of minors. I don't think any adult is legally permitted to keep the whereabouts of a minor child from a custodial parent without some kind of legal beagle process.

Hello val:

NOT speaking with the family, is not the same thing as "illegal sheltering of minors". Yes, the cops want information. They'll ask. But, nobody is required to give it. Let me say that again - in these United States, nobody is required to speak to the police or anybody, about anything - ever. I don't care how much you know, even it you know who done it.

excon

PS> Of course, under oath is a different matter altogether.

Hey, I think I best check the law books Excon... let's start with terms like aiding and abetting/accessory (http://criminal.findlaw.com/crimes/a-z/aiding_abetting_accessory.html). I agree that there are many circumstances where you don't have to speak to the police but I know there are also quite a few circumstances where if you withhold information there are legal repercussions long before you'll be under any oath. But don't take my word for it, ask your lawyer.

Such as in the welfare of a minor?

Hello again, val:

We need to be clear about our terms.

Aiding and abetting is a separate crime. It takes an "overt" act to be guilty of aiding someone in the commission of a crime. Conspiracy? Same thing.

NOT talking to the police is not an overt act, and isn't even close to being criminal. It's your right, under the Constitution, NOT to talk to the police.

However, if someone decides to talk to the police and lies to them, that is ANOTHER separate crime. NOT talking to the police isn't lying. It's your right, under the Constitution.

If you have information that the police want, you are NOT guilty of anything if you withhold it. It's your right to withhold anything you want from anybody you want. Withholding information, in and of itself, is NOT a crime.

excon

If I am not mistaken, the withholding as a crime might go like this: (bold print edited after the fact)
The Doctor's son hides his friend, tells his dad.
The police undoubtedly told him the son is committing a crime (albeit a minor one LOL no pun intended - hiding a runaway minor is against the law or are we going to start debating that one too excon LOL) and Dad's withholding information of that crime makes him an accessory to it, which is also a real crime, not something made up for TV. Come on... why else would the good doctor blab so fast to the police?

There are also other aspects to consider, legal ones that I don't know much about so I wasn't going to raise it, but it has to do with the sovereignty of relationships (like the one between a child and a custodial parent) and how interference with them is not tolerated by the law too. Which is partly why its so hard to take a kid from a parent...

Are you even aware that a minor is involved here excon?

If I am not mistaken, it goes like this:
The Doctor's son hides his friend, tells his dad.

Hello val:

You are mistaken, val. I didn't read that. The boy is hiding. I don't know who is hiding him. I don't know if ANYBODY is hiding him. The doctors son isn't, or at least tk doesn't say so. The doctors family just KNOWS where the boy is hiding.

I think there's a big difference between the father KNOWING his son is COMPLICIT in an act, and knowing that an act (that might not, in and of itself, be illegal) has been committed by someone. Indeed, maybe there is no criminal activity here at all. Maybe the boy himself committed the act. Maybe NOBODY is hiding him. Maybe he's just hiding, and the doctors family just happens to know where.

Nope. The doctor owe's NOBODY a word - not the cops - not the mother.


Are you even aware that a minor is involved here Excon?

Yup. I read that part.

excon

Oy vey

I didn't say the OP read like that.
I was simply laying out an example of where withholding information is illegal to counter your claim that it is never illegal.

That was all. I have edited my earlier post to emphasize that.

Who knows how it really went with for the missing kid, the doctor and the police!

I'm with excon here. First, I think there is some info missing here. Im for one, would like to know WHY the boy ran away.

Second, and I'm not sure of my legal ground here, but I don't know that a crime has been committed here. Is running away a crime? I'm not sure that it is. And unless the doctor and his family actively participated in the son's running away, I don't know that they were a party to any crime. Ergo, they have the right to not provide information to the police. Remember the 5th Amendment.

I'm with excon here. First, I think there is some info missing here. Im for one, would like to know WHY the boy ran away.

Second, and I'm not sure of my legal ground here, but I don't know that a crime has been committed here. Is running away a crime? I'm not sure that it is. And unless the doctor and his family actively participated in the son's running away, I don't know that they were a party to any crime. Ergo, they have the right to not provide information to the police. Remember the 5th Amendment.
Actually, I totally agree with both you Scott and Excon about the actual events: very little is factually known.

Just in case the point was missed again: where I don't agree is that withholding information from the police is completely free of any legal ramifications in any and all circumstances. I can only hope that if you two ever find yourself in situations concerning a minor who isn't your legal responsibility that you know the laws of your land well or have a decently priced attorney, whichever suits you. LOL I can only state what I learned from my firsthand experiences dealing with minors and laws the govern what is permissible concerning their whereabouts... need I say more? I wish you both well and at this point won't be debating further with you since that is not factually required of me and obviously bears no legal ramifications whatsoever. :p

Now you are talking two different issues. Legal ramifications? No one is saying there may not be legal ramifications to witholding information from the police. Of course there may be. But doesn't change the fact that no one is required to do so.

Hello again:

Yes, val, you are required to continue the debate, according to rule #23.4.

My answer was in regard to whether a doctor is "required" to give information. Of course, he isn't. That doesn't mean that I don't think he should, or that I wouldn't in the same situation.

Too many times, the police aren't interested in finding missing children. They, instead, are interested in finding someone to bust (the Ramsay's). One must measure ones cooperation with the police against that possibility. When and if one gets a sense that THEY are being targeted, the cooperation must STOP.

In college I drove a cab. Some junkies used me to drive them around so they could shoplift. I didn't know that's what they were doing. They went into a store and came out with stuff. That's what all my customers did when they went shopping.

They got caught. The cops wanted me to talk to them. I said that I would come in after my shift. They didn't like that. When I went in, they kept on insisting that I had to know what they were doing. I told them that I don't pay attention too much to what my passengers did. They didn't like that. They thought I should have been watching them more closely. I told them I don't watch my customers. They didn't like that. I helped until they accused me of being an accomplice, which of course, I knew they would.

I still cannot think of a single scenario where the law requires anyone to divulge anything to anybody.

excon

I am sorry for your poor treatment by those police, excon. I mean that. I am sorry its allowed you to hold onto a view that may or may not mesh with a wider reality too. Please think about that. I am sorry if you can't think of a single situation where withholding information might be an actual crime. But that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Am I supposed to feel sorry that I can think up one and did? But most of all I am sorry I responded to this thread. Well, embarrassed mostly and I apologise for participating in what looks like a nit picking membership discussion all over someone else's thread. I am sorry Tyklmyfnz, for highjacking your thread. Thanks for posting.

Hello again:

No problem, val. They treated me much worse later on, but that's another story.

I don't think you need to be embarrassed. You raise excellent points that I'm still considering. Most people don't get me to thinking like that. I don't believe we hijacked anything. I think it was a good discussion right ON the legal point raised by the OP.

I'll shuddup now too.

excon

I also don't think we highjacked the thread. The original question was basically whether the doctor had a right not to tell where the son was or a duty to tell. The OP seemed to think the doctor was "morally" obligated to tell.

To sum up, I think the fact that he is a doctor has no bearing on the situation since he was not acting in a doctor/patient relation. I also think the doctor was under no legal obligation to reveal what he knew. And I don't think we know enough to determine whether he was under a moral obligation. We would have to know why the son ran away and whether he was in any danger to determine that.

The doctor was apparentally acting on what he felt was a higher ethical obligation. That was to his son to protect what the son told him in confidence.

Whether there might have been legal ramifications to the doctor's actions we can't know since we don't know more about why the son ran away and where he was.

All the people the OP talked to who said the docotor was wrong may have been talking with more knowledge then we have. But based on what we do know, I would have to say the docotor wasn't wrong.

The doctor was apparentally acting on what he felt was a higher ethical obligation. That was to his son to protect what the son told him in confidence.
Hmm, that conveniently only tells half the story as I read it. The rest of the story is: The doctor folds on his higher obligation the minute the police show up. I don't think we can do more than some Sherlock-style deductive reasoning here BUT even that has value.

If I am may, the doctor's aboutface suggests at first glance three things which I list in what I list in an order of least probably to most probable, in my guess of human nature and the few facts presented.

1. Either the doctor was so intimidated by the police.

2. He saw his mistake about the higher obligation at this time, either with or without direct involvement of the police and changed his tactics.

3. There are legal grounds to compell him to talk.

Forgive me if I moved too fast back there, but I voted for number three and gave plausible examples of it.

This is more like what the OP was asking, I believe. Am I correct Tyklmyfnz?

Hmmm, went back to reread the OP and I think we are reading things differently, though on rereading, I can see how.

The OP said; "The police came and the Doctor and his family changed their tune and the Doctor and his family were wrong in knowing the location of my son."

I took this to mean that the doctor and his family denied knowing where the runaway was to the police. I was basing my comments on that interpretation.
If the family did, in fact, tell the police then there is a different scenario. But if my interpretion is correct, then I stand by my position here. I really can't see the doctor standing by his son to the parents and immediately caving to the police. A doctor, well-known in the community, would be more likely to know his obligations and assume he would have to deal with the police.

I hope the OP comes back here and fills in the blanks.

Forgive me, I am not factoring in whether he told the police where the kid is for real. That is a non-factoring element to me. I only meant by "blab so fast to the police"... his haste in making a statement to the police, claim of non involvement withstanding as the OP stated. It was an example that I made. That is all.

Here is the deal. IF you believe the OP heard him say the doctor knew where the child was (and I do)...
AND IF you believe the OP knows for a fact the doctor lied to the police (and I do)...
Then there is not much argument about what would have very likely taken place had the good doctor admitting to knowing where the child is. That is the point any debate began for me...

The question becomes: what would make a doctor lie like that? Surely not malice to the missing boy's family. Its either VERY LIKELY withholding knowledge of the boy's whereabouts is illegal with repurcussions for the doctor and/or son, or the doctor routinely takes enormous risks lying to the police, which seems I think really off the ritcher scale to both of us Scott.

In other words its like that riddle about being locked up in a room with two robots, one lies and one tells the truth, but that's already a whole n'other thread.

Whether the doctor tells the truth or lies, it still reasonably indicates what I suggested. Okay?

1. Either the doctor was so intimidated by the police.

2. He saw his mistake about the higher obligation at this time, either with or without direct involvement of the police and changed his tactics.

3. There are legal grounds to compell him to talk.


Hello again:

I vote for number one. I don't see where he lied to the police.

Number #3 would indicate the police, in a calm and reasonable manner, explained the legal principals of their position, vs the legal principals of his. Bwa ha ha ha.

Uhhhh, cops don't do that! Cops INTIMIDATE!

excon

Dear All,
Thank you very much for your opinions and responses. My son is home safe and we have agreed to ALL get counseling as a family unit. First let me say, that I am in no way a PERFECT parent, however my son is not a perfect child either. As I have said before he is 15 and I do believe his testosterone is overriding his common sense. My son has been in the past a great kid. This was the first time he ran away. The point being here was/is, was it legal to have the Doctor withhold the whereabouts of my son? No one knows for sure at this point. However, the pen is mightier than the sword. Once word gets out in the small community that we live in, his patients may think differently about his behavior. Yes, I agree he should stand by his son's promise not to tell where my son was... but what promise did he make to my son? None. As it turned out, my son NEVER contacted their son. His son found out through another mutual friend that he had ran away. And they never knew for SURE where my son was... So not only did the " Good Doctor " ASSUME he knew where my son was, putting me on a roller coaster of emotions, he has proven to be a professional that relies on assumptions than fact. Plus he created a mistrust issue with some or many of his neighbors, patients, and possibly peers. Fact here is; Should'nt we as parents work TOGETHER to protect OUR kids from dangers as much as HUMANELY possible? To ensure a safe networking system to INVOLVE each other and not alienate each other? Morally, he should have said, what I know is this, etc. At which point I could have been on my way. But he admitted to me without a doubt, said he knew. Which leads me to believe that this Doctor shouldn't be in the field that helps people. He obviously isn't in it for the care of humanity!

To EXCON: May I ask, why were you in jail?

The Doctor said to me and I quote " I know where your son is. We all do. (Meaning his family) I am not going to tell you where he is and my son does not have to either." But when the police came, I was standing outside the door and heard the whole conversation. It went like this:
Police: We have a complaint that you know where her son is?
Doctor: Yes, we were told that he is at Ethan's house.
Police: Who told you that?
Doctor: A friend of my son's.
Police: When did hear this?
Doctor: About an hour or so ago.
Police: Have you or your son talked to the missing boy?
Doctor: No.
Police: Did you tell the boy's mother you knew, but wouldn't tell her?
Doctor: Yes, because I didn't want my son to break a confidence with her son.
Police: OK, thanks for your time and we will contact you if we need anymore information on this.

So, as I heard the whole converstaion, I can say there was NO intimidation by the police here. And the Doctor and his family were basing their information purely on second hand knowledge. Which, makes me believe once again that the Doctor here is wrong for with holding that information from me. There would have been no breech in confidentiality as it was second hand information.

I vote for number one. I don't see where he lied to the police.
Then you must think the OP either lied to by the doctor when he claimed to know the location of her missing child or the OP was lied to by the police when they told her the doctor didn't know the location. Care to explain this?


Number #3 would indicate the police, in a calm and reasonable manner, explained the legal principals of their position, vs the legal principals of his. Bwa ha ha ha. Uhhhh, cops don't do that! Cops INTIMIDATE!
I am not naïve or unaware about cops, either good or bad and the range of their actions, excon. It was meant more of a statement on how well any intimidation worked or failed to on the doctor.


The Doctor said to me and I quote " I know where your son is. We all do. (Meaning his family) I am not going to tell you where he is and my son does not have to either." But when the police came, I was standing outside the door and heard the whole conversation. It went like this:
Police: We have a complaint that you know where her son is?
Doctor: Yes, we were told that he is at Ethan's house.
Police: Who told you that?
Doctor: A friend of my son's.
Police: When did hear this?
Doctor: About an hour or so ago.
Police: Have you or your son talked to the missing boy?
Doctor: No.
Police: Did you tell the boy's mother you knew, but wouldn't tell her?
Doctor: Yes, because I didn't want my son to break a confidence with her son.
Police: OK, thanks for your time and we will contact you if we need anymore information on this.

So, as I heard the whole converstaion, I can say there was NO intimidation by the police here. And the Doctor and his family were basing their information purely on second hand knowledge. Which, makes me believe once again that the Doctor here is wrong for with holding that information from me. There would have been no breech in confidentiality as it was second hand information.
Thank you for the enlightment, and I bet you my last wooden nickel the smart doctor called his attorney between your visit and the cops and the attorney advised him to sing like a canary because of what was at risk not to. While its possible he changed his own mind about his ethics when the police arrived, I still call that less probable knowing doctors as I do. Can we please end this debate now? Thank you.

I am really pleased to hear your son is home safe, you see a bigger picture from this and are seeking help with the solutions -- bravo! Far far more important than the validity of withholding information being a legally protected position in all circumstances with the police. The only way to know for certain is ask a legal professional-- attorney, judge, etc.

Ok, almost all the blanks are filled in except the most important one, why the son ran away in the first place.

Let me put it this way. Lets say the doctor was told the son ran away because he was being abused (whether or not it was true). Lets also assume the doctor was being told he was safe at the home of someone he knew. In that scenario, I think the doctor was correct in not telling the parent but telling the police. The police would then get children's services involved.

That's why I think the reason for running away is the key piece of info here.

Frankly, I think tyklmyfnz is focusing too much on the doctor and seems to be trying to ruin the doctor out of anger. From what we have now been told, the son was presumed to be in a safe location. So there wasn't an issue of the son being in danger. The doctor then performed his civic duty by telling the police where the son was.

So I still don't see where the doctor did anything really bad here. And I would caution tyklmyfnz that you may be giving the doctor cause for a slander suit if you persist in badmouthing him.

I agree with everyone else that you've spoken to. That doctor had no right to hide the whereabouts of your son from you. He was in the wrong, certainly morally and ethically and probably legally as well.


I also don't think we highjacked the thread. The original question was basically whether the doctor had a right not to tell where the son was or a duty to tell. The OP seemed to think the doctor was "morally" obligated to tell.

To sum up, I think the fact that he is a doctor has no bearing on the situation since he was not acting in a doctor/patient relation. I also think the doctor was under no legal obligation to reveal what he knew. And I don't think we know enough to determine whether he was under a moral obligation. We would have to know why the son ran away and whether he was in any danger to determine that.

The doctor was apparentally acting on what he felt was a higher ethical obligation. That was to his son to protect what the son told him in confidence.

Whether there might have been legal ramifications to the doctor's actions we can't know since we don't know more about why the son ran away and where he was.

All the people the OP talked to who said the docotor was wrong may have been talking with more knowledge then we have. But based on what we do know, I would have to say the docotor wasn't wrong.

The doctor's profession is totally notwithstanding as the situation did not occur (presumably) within the course of his medical practice. As a parent myself, I believe he was morally obligated to inform the mother of her son's whereabouts. As a citizen, I'm not sure whether he could be criminally liable for withholding such information. I'm inclined to believe he could because the child involved is a minor. Now, if he were adult instead, then I would say absolutely not (unless he were a known criminal and the doctor was deliberately harboring him as a fugitive. But that's getting off topic.) If, instead of a mother looking for her son it were a wife looking for her husband, then legally he'd have no obligation whatsoever to disclose his whereabouts. Also, as a citizen, I know beyond a shadow of a doubt that the doctor could be held civilly liable big-time if anything happened to the boy in question that could have possibly been prevented had the doctor disclosed his whereabouts. Given the litigous society in which we live I can't believe that nobody realizes that. If it could be proven, by a preponderance of the evidence, that any harm that came to the boy could have been prevented had the doctor disclosed what he knew to the mother, then he'd be civilly liable up to his neck. Maybe not guilty of a crime, but responsible for some big-time damages.

So I still don't see where the doctor did anything really bad here. And I would caution tyklmyfnz that you may be giving the doctor cause for a slander suit if you persist in badmouthing him.

Now there's an interesting notion: I say "slander" like that all you like. I know factually that legitimate slander suits, like copyright enfringement suits are complicated, difficult and seldom pursued. By Scott's example here of it, I "slander" all over the place LOL-- its called narrating my truthful experience. Could that cost someone some business? I hope so -- it should! :D

First excon proposed we be concerned about talking to the cops and now Scott suggests we fear the doctor. I am glad to say bah humbug to both ideas and relieved you did too, Mom. I wholeheartedly agree that the doctor shows a sadly-too-typical arrogance favoring his son's word over the concern of a parent with no apparent provocation and only yields when a higher authority gets involved.

Hi All... This topic really brought some interesting comments. First of all the reason my son ran away is quite irrelevant. However the reason was... When I picked him up from school he told me he had been searched for possibly having pot. My son felt like his "rights" were violated. After trying to explain to my son that the school can search any minor any time or place on school grounds, he became very irritated with me. Saying I didn't stand up for him and in turn caused a huge fight between us. By the way they didn't find anything on my son. However, that doesn't mean that my son is innocent of using pot. Hence the counseling. So, the fight between us was caused by me insisting that my son not do drugs of kind. He feels as most teens do and maybe some adults, that "pot" is OK and I do not. Now as far as some of you may feel, I am not slandering the Doctor. I have not said anything that wasn't already made public record. Anytime the police are called, there is a case number issued and a report made. Of course my son's name is not used because of him being a minor. But the Doctor's is. If the police choose to print this particular case in the local paper that is up to them. Not me. What some of you are forgetting is that my son is a minor. Running away is only a crime when he breaks curfew laws. Which he did. At least this is what I am told. Also, another point to ponder here is what if my son was hurt and the Doctor actually did know his exact location? Then he would be up the old proverbial creek so to speak. I just wanted my son back home safe. I wasn't about to press any charges. The Doctor and his family should have complied and told me where they "thought he was." It would have saved a lot of effort, time and emotional stress on everyone. As I stated before. Parents and professionals need to work together as a team to help OUR KIDS learn morals and values. Just because its legal or illegal doesn't mean its right or wrong. I do know that having a kid home safe is a hell of a lot more important that getting a call from the coroner. Once again the Doctor didn't view that as important to him as it was too me. Oh and by the way, the Doctors kid, has been busted for having drugs at school and is a perfect straight "D" student. How ironic. I know his son. His son is not perfect either. But I would never, never withhold any information if the situation was reversed. Any other questions or facts that are needed I will be more than happy to answer. As far as if this site has helped me or not, yes it has. Thanks Again

Sorry but, as I have detailed, the reason for the runaway is VERY relevant. Now that we seem to know most of the relevant facts. I'm still not convinced the doctor acted erroneously. I will say its not the way I would have acted. In his place I would have told my son that he should convince his friend to go home. But I don't see this as a runaway case. I see this (with the info provided) as a teenager getting real angry with a parent and going to a friends house to cool off without telling the parent.

I suspect you live in a fairly small community (they have curfew laws?? ). I'm not sure the police would have responded in a larger community, until the son had been missing overnite, though in today's climate with Amber Alerts, that might have changed. But since there was no evidence of abduction it probably wouldn't have qualified as an Amber Alert.

What I would have done with what the doctor told you is to say alright, if you are sure he's safe, can you just have him call home. I'm not mad at him I just want to know that he's safe. I would have tried to give him some space and cool off time.

In your initial note you spoke about everyone you had spoken to agreed that the doctor was wrong. In a follow-up you said; "Once word gets out in the small community that we live in, his patients may think differently about his behavior.". This seems to indicate that you are speaking out against the doctor. And if you are saying that what he did was illegal or unethical, he might have a case against you.

Bottomline line here is that, while what the doctor did was probably not the smartest thing to do or the best way for a parent to act, it wasn't illegal. I don't think it was even unethical.

I think you need to move forward on this and work at repairing the rift with your son and forget about your anger towards the doctor.

Hello again tk:

Thanks for explaining.

In the very first place, you are mistaken, and your son is correct. His rights WERE violated. The school OWNS his locker. That's why they can look in there. But your son cannot be randomly searched by ANYONE simply because he's on school grounds. He's an American too.

It is a shame that parents have to protect their children, EVEN from the police. That's not to say that cops are ALL enemy's, but they are not your friend either.

I have to chuckle when I see cops interviewed and they say they became a cop because they wanted to “help” people. Actually, what they really want is to “bust” people. That's not a criticism of cops. That's their job. I just wish they'd admit it.

Pot? Big deal. He's right. It's prevalent. You're not going to stop him by being on his case about it. As a matter of fact, YOU'RE not going to stop him at all. HE will, or HE won't.

Maybe if you could find that middle ground…… where you trusted him a little.

excon

I think you need to move forward on this and work at repairing the rift with your son and forget about your anger towards the doctor.

I don't have anger towards the Doctor. If you recall I stated that I was looking into counseling. Which we have our first appointment today. I don't know what you do as a profession, but it sounds like you may not have children of your own.

I suspect you live in a fairly small community (they have curfew laws?? ). Yes, we have curfew laws, as every city does.

In any case, thanks for your opinions.

First, not every city has curfew laws. In fact, most don't. They are more likely in small towns and villages. Second, most curfew laws are not enforced except in case of a civil emergency.

Third, I do have a daughter. As to my profession it is not relevant in this instance, but I will state I am not a professioonal counselor.

Finally, yes you did indicate you were looking into counseling, but that appeared to be to help your relationship with your son. I was only reiterating that this was a good idea. But for you to say you "don't have anger towards the Doctor" is to indicate you are in a state of denial. This whole thread REEKS of your anger towards the doctor.

Oh my Gawd EXCON... You obviously don't have children. And you know absoultely nothing about school laws. The public school system CAN SEARCH at anytime, anywhere on school grounds! Look it up. Once again, my son is a minor! He is 15, not 18. I am 100% responsible for his actions. Lets say he gets his drivers license, gets high, and kills someone? Lets say your mom, dad, or sibling. Are you going to forgive him for getting high?? No! You are going to come after me because he is a minor. He has nothing. But I have million dollar house, five cars, jewlery etc. Are you just going to say, oh well he's a kid? Mom and dad are not responsible? LOL not a chance in hell. You are going to sue me for everything. Get a clue Excon. Read the laws.

As far as protecting my kids, you are right there. I would protect my kids 150%, if they are right. I will not stand up for my kids if they are wrong and are old enough to make the choices themselves, knowing the difference between right and wrong. It's pretty obvious that you got caught doing something wrong. Sounds like you paid in full for your mistake. Bravo! However, what did you learn? Not to do whatever it what you did, or just not to get caught again? That's the difference in learning.

Please cite one law that states a school system can randomly search any student anytime without cause. I think you will find there isn't one since that would violate the constitution. Please note, that lockers are school property so are not personal property. Please note also that searching bags etc before entering school grounds is legal, because the student has the right to refuse such a search, the consequence of which would be not allowed onto school grounds.

Yes, if you son gets high, gets behind the wheel and kills someone you could be held liable IF it can be proven that you were aware he smoked pot and drove while under the influence. Its not a given that you would be help financially responsible. YOU need to read the laws.

This is not to say you should condone your son's use of pot. You should be talking with him, making sure he's aware of the consequences of his actions, etc. But it should be done in a non judgemental and definitely non antagonistic matter.

Hello again, tk:

THIS is very good. I think it's an excellent example of YOU going off on a tangent totally unrelated to the subject matter at hand. I believe it shows your inability to grasp the essence of a problem and deal with it.

Your response to me, is exactly like your response to the doctor. You didn't understand what I was saying, and I doubt you understood what the doctor was saying. All you know is what YOU wanted, from me and the doctor. You didn't get it.

This is legal website. Most of the people who ask questions here don't TELL us what the law is. They're interested in finding OUT what it is. Indeed, some of the people here actually have read the laws and understand them, even if our names happen to be excon or Scott. I DO understand the law. YOU do not. YOU say I should read the law. I'll be happy to. Please, since you have read it, tell me where I might be elucidated.

Of course, you haven't. Somebody told you that's what the law is, and that's cool with you…… I think your son understands you quite well.

The rest of your rant, is nothing but a rant unrelated to anything I said. Maybe you should take a breath………

Frankly, I don't believe you are seeking advice. I believe you wanted to tell us how right you are.

excon

[QUOTE=ScottGem]Please cite one law that states a school system can randomly search any student anytime without cause.

First I never said without cause, but here you go:

In the public school context, courts have upheld searches without individualized suspicion for weapons and for drug use. Courts have upheld metal-detector searches, for instance, and searches for weapons when the presence of a knife or gun has been reported. (In one such case, courts upheld a principal's decision to order all male students to remove their shoes and socks and to empty their pockets.) In such cases, Judge Doumar explained, "the need to protect the safety and welfare of students" overrides the privacy rights of the students to be searched.
1. The Fourth Amendment's prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures applies to searches conducted by public school officials and is not limited to searches carried out by law enforcement officers. Nor are school officials exempt from the Amendment's dictates by virtue of the special nature of their authority over schoolchildren. In carrying out searches and other functions pursuant to disciplinary policies mandated by state statutes, school officials act as representatives of the State, not merely as surrogates for the parents of students, and they cannot claim the parents' immunity from the Fourth Amendment's strictures. Pp. 333-337. [469 U.S. 325, 326]

Hello again tk:

If you're going to quote a Supreme Court Decision, you should not leave out the parts you don't like.

You quoted paragraph #1. Here's the essence of paragraph #2.

“Schoolchildren have legitimate expectations of privacy. They may find it necessary to carry with them a variety of legitimate, non-contraband items, and there is no reason to conclude that they have necessarily waived all rights to privacy in such items by bringing them onto school grounds. ……Rather, the legality of a search of a student should depend simply on the reasonableness, under all the circumstances, of the search”…... Pp. 337-343.

You showed us nothing. Do you forget where you are? This is not your back fense.

excon

What you posted appears contradictory. First, it says the courts have upheld searches for drugs and weapons, but it doesn't say searching what. It then goes on to talk about metal detector searches which is what I referred to as entrance searches. In the example cited ALL students were ordered to remove shoes... and AFTER a weapon report was received. It then goes on to state that 4th Amendment protections DO apply to school officials. This confirms what excon and I said.

You said; "The public school system CAN SEARCH at anytime, anywhere on school grounds!" Anytime could be construed to mean without cause. But even if we don't construe it that way, what you posted still doesn't support random searches. Each instance dealt with either a full search of all or a specific search based on additional information. What you posted SPECIFICALLY does say that the 4th Amendment applies to school officials and the 4th prohibits unreasonable search and seizure.

Edit: Ahh now I see why its contradictory. Because you left something out. Which seems typical.

Hello again, and finally:

The civics lesson here, is this: Should one lay down for the cops? No. Should one teach their children to lay down for the cops? No. Should children be taught what their rights are under the Constitution? Yes. Should they be taught how to exercise those rights? Yes. Should children be taught how to balance their checkbooks? Yes. (I thought I would just throw that last one in).

excon

(edited) PS> And no, tk. That doesn't mean I think they should start packing and when they see the red lights behind them, they should fire off a few rounds. No, that's not what I'm saying at all.

Care to post the whole thing. Here, I will. Then read the bottom:

2. Schoolchildren have legitimate expectations of privacy. They may find it necessary to carry with them a variety of legitimate, non-contraband items, and there is no reason to conclude that they have necessarily waived all rights to privacy in such items by bringing them onto school grounds. But striking the balance between schoolchildren's legitimate expectations of privacy and the school's equally legitimate need to maintain an environment in which learning can take place requirovered, would both corroborate the report that she had been smoking and undermine the credibility of her defense to the charge of smoking. To be sure, the discovery of the cigarettes would not prove that T.L.O. had been smoking in the lavatory; nor would it, strictly speaking, necessarily be inconsistent with her claim that she did not smoke at all. But it is universally recognized that evidence, to be relevant to an inquiry, need not conclusively prove the ultimate fact in issue, but only have "any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence." Fed. Rule Evid. 401. The relevance of T.L.O. 's possession of cigarettes to the question whether she had been smoking and to the credibility of her denial that she smoked supplied the necessary "nexus" between the item searched for and the infraction under investigation. See Warden v. Hayden, 387 U.S. 294, 306-307 (1967). Thus, if Mr. Choplick in fact had a reasonable suspicion that T.L.O. had cigarettes in her purse, the search was justified despite the fact that the cigarettes, if found, would constitute "mere evidence" of a violation. Ibid.

Of course, the New Jersey Supreme Court also held that Mr. Choplick had no reasonable suspicion that the purse would contain cigarettes. This conclusion is puzzling. A teacher had reported that T.L.O. was smoking in the lavatory. Certainly this report gave Mr. Choplick reason to suspect that T.L.O. was carrying cigarettes with her; and [469 U.S. 325, 346] if she did have cigarettes, her purse was the obvious place in which to find them. Mr. Choplick's suspicion that there were cigarettes in the purse was not an "inchoate and unparticularized suspicion or `hunch,'" Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. at 27; rather, it was the sort of "common-sense conclusio[n] about human behavior" upon which "practical people" - including government officials - are entitled to rely. United States v. Cortez, 449 U.S. 411, 418 (1981). Of course, even if the teacher's report were true, T.L.O. might not have had a pack of cigarettes with her; she might have borrowed a cigarette from someone else or have been sharing a cigarette with another student. But the requirement of reasonable suspicion is not a requirement of absolute certainty: "sufficient probability, not certainty, is the touchstone of reasonableness under the Fourth Amendment.. . " Hill v. California, 401 U.S. 797, 804 (1971). Because the hypothesis that T.L.O. was carrying cigarettes in her purse was itself not unreasonable, it is irrelevant that other hypotheses were also consistent with the teacher's accusation. Accordingly, it cannot be said that Mr. Choplick acted unreasonably when he examined T.L.O.'s purse to see if it contained cigarettes.12 [469 U.S. 325, 347]

Our conclusion that Mr. Choplick's decision to open T.L.O.'s purse was reasonable brings us to the question of the further search for marihuana once the pack of cigarettes was located. The suspicion upon which the search for marihuana was founded was provided when Mr. Choplick observed a package of rolling papers in the purse as he removed the pack of cigarettes. Although T.L.O. does not dispute the reasonableness of Mr. Choplick's belief that the rolling papers indicated the presence of marihuana, she does contend that the scope of the search Mr. Choplick conducted exceeded permissible bounds when he seized and read certain letters that implicated T.L.O. in drug dealing. This argument, too, is unpersuasive. The discovery of the rolling papers concededly gave rise to a reasonable suspicion that T.L.O. was carrying marihuana as well as cigarettes in her purse. This suspicion justified further exploration of T.L.O.'s purse, which turned up more evidence of drug-related activities: a pipe, a number of plastic bags of the type commonly used to store marihuana, a small quantity of marihuana, and a fairly substantial amount of money. Under these circumstances, it was not unreasonable to extend the search to a separate zippered compartment of the purse; and when a search of that compartment revealed an index card containing a list of "people who owe me money" as well as two letters, the inference that T.L.O. was involved in marihuana trafficking was substantial enough to justify Mr. Choplick in examining the letters to determine whether they contained any further evidence. In short, we cannot conclude that the search for marihuana was unreasonable in any respect.

Taken from the Library of Congress

SEC. 3. SEARCHES ON COLORABLE SUSPICION.
(a) In General- Each State, local educational agency, and school district shall have in effect throughout the jurisdiction of the State, agency, or district, as the case may be, policies that ensure that a search described in subsection (b) is deemed reasonable and permissible.
(b) Searches Covered- A search referred to in subsection (a) is a search by a full-time teacher or school official, acting on any colorable suspicion based on professional experience and judgment, of any minor student on the grounds of any public school, if the search is conducted to ensure that classrooms, school buildings, and school property remain free of all weapons, dangerous materials, or illegal narcotics.

And as a last note from me:
Any parent who places their minor child in any public school has to sign and read a school policy manual. In every public school that my kids have attended it states the child, backpack's or lockers may be SEARCHED at any time. Or is this a defined procedures and policy manual written to just blow smoke up my rear?

Ugh. Adds another one to my "Don't bother debating" list.

Quietly unsubscribes to this thread.

And as a last note from me:
Any parent who places their minor child in any public school has to sign and read a school policy manual. In every public school that my kids have attended it states the child, backpack's or lockers may be SEARCHED at any time. Or is this a defined procedures and policy manual written to just blow smoke up my rear?

First, the policy to have parents sign that they have read the school manual is not universal. We were never required to do so for my daughter. You need to be more careful about making generalized statements.

Second, there are loads of instances where institutions have stated policies that go against the law. Generally these policies have NOT be upheld by the courts. Examples like ride at your own risk have not proven sufficient to absolve operators of negligence. So, the school's manuals are not worth the paper they are printed on. As the case you cited shows, you cannot sign away your 4th amendment rights.

My kid is in kindergarten and we did not have to sign any such paper. But then again we live in a kinder, gentler area of North America. :)