Dorm room searched by campus police just now

Parents Forum
461

<p>Yes, we may all have some difference of opinion about how a situation like this should be handled but the reality is that our opinions do not matter. The school has some set of rules and students deviate from them at their own risk. If you disagree with the rules, don’t send your child to that school. Good luck finding a school that encourages pot-smoking (particularly in public) and the use of fake IDs. Just not the world we live in anymore.</p>

<p>And I also have to say that I did my share of partying when younger but I guess I thought that most adults eventually grew out of the pot-smoking habit. I have tried to set a good example for my kids - I am not completely sober-minded but neither of my Ds has ever seen me drunk. And I certainly wouldn’t have smoked pot around them.</p>

462

<p>^^^exactly!</p>

463

<p>

</p>

<p>It is my understanding the OP’s son was not searched. The entire room was, but the person was not…</p>

464

<p>oldfort

It is only presumptuous if you insert your imagined reasoning into it. I never said she was a pushover, nor do I think that. I also never said she doesn’t exert any discipline over her child, and I don’t think that either. I said that two of the three specific things she did not think were good to do were being done by those who have a lot of experience with a lot more kids than we do (which means that doing those things might not be a bad idea). I previously stated myself that school administrators may favor the interests of the institution over the individual student, but that responses in situations like these are usually standard and best practice-based.</p>

465

<p>MizzBee -</p>

<p>That Time article was very compelling, and there is so much to say and debate about it that it really deserves its own thread. I hope you will do that. In brief, we really know so pitifully little about the disease of addiction, in youth in particular (early onset), because so little money has been thrown at it. It is frightening and sad to think that kids are being put into programs which may make them worse. We are losing a lot of these kids every year, and getting better research and medicine for those who really need it cannot happen soon enough.</p>

466

<p>hop-scout, it is true that the S was not searched, but I question why HIS things were searched if he was not suspected. I question why the campus police felt they had the right to search his room, and what would have happened if the S hadn’t iven consent to search his things as well.</p>

467

<p>Mizzbee, I would suggest that DSs stuff was searched because the campus police did not exercise judgement. Which is why the dean apolgized.</p>

468

<p>I’ve read this thread from the beginning and it seems to me that much of the disagreement stems from two different styles of parenting. One group of parents feel the students are victims and that the dean, the campus police and the college were unreasonable and that the problem is a result of bad liquor laws, unfinished brain development and an unreasonable search and seizure. The other group places the blame with the students for using or possessing items against school policy and local, state and federal laws and they believe reasonable consequences are a rational response of the college administration. These two styles of parenting have been a source of disagreements since pre-school play dates. I wonder how this thread would have progressed if the OP had been the father (misterdad post #370) instead of the mother? The mom and dad don’t seem to be in agreement either.</p>

469

<p>At my son’s high school, a lawyer would talk to parents and kids each year before the prom. He said carefully read the rules of the college as often they are stricter than what the police would do.</p>

<p>But I wouldn’t worry too much in this case yet, as deferred suspension from the dorms for the first fake ID offense sounds like he wouldn’t have to leave.</p>

<p>What I find confusing is that all colleges say they follow the state rules, don’t they? But then I guess some are more lenient than others.</p>

470

<p>“…. A study from Brigham Young University observed the drinking behavior of about 5,000 12- to 17-year-olds and also assessed their relationship with their parents. It found that parental style did not affect whether or not the teens drank, but it did affect whether they engaged in dangerous, heavy drinking (defined as having five or more drinks in a row).
The teens whose parents were described as “authoritarian,” meaning they are strict and lacking in warmth and support, were more likely to drink heavily or to have close friends who used alcohol than the teens whose parents were “authoritative” (demanding and strict but also warm and supportive). Also more apt to binge: teens whose parents were “indulgent” (warm but not very disciplinary).”</p>

<p>For full story:
[Parenting</a> Style Plays Key Role In Teen Drinking : NPR](<a href=“Parenting Style Plays Key Role In Teen Drinking : NPR”>Parenting Style Plays Key Role In Teen Drinking : NPR)</p>

471

<p>It’s always parents’ fault.</p>

472

<p>Huh, I guess I missed the part where the mom and the dad disagreed. I also dont think anyone was blaming the dean for anything more than not responding quicker.</p>

473

<p>Come ON Old Fort, it’s always THE MOTHER’S fault. :p</p>

<p>csfmap-- I think the binary division of parents, as if all of us see kids as a victim OR see them as guilty, is maybe a little simplistic compared to the issue. Spidey is an addiction’s specialist and sees through those lenses. (If you have a hammer, everything looks like a nail.) I am a recovering alcoholic, and know enough to know that drinking isn’t the actual cause of alcoholism…it’s a combination of genetics…etc…and it is a disease like diabetes. Just as not everyone who indulges in ice cream is going to end up a diabetic, not everyone who drinks in moderation is going to end up addicted to or in trouble because of alcohol…I"m not going to get into the pot issue, which is more complicated and illegal…</p>

<p>So, people are conflating addiction, with drinking, with driving, with having a fake ID, with living with someone who smokes pot, who was assigned to your room, with getting your scholarship taken away if you can’t move out of the room, and whether or not you can “tell” the authorities…</p>

<p>So, yeah. Moderate drinking does not cause alcoholism. Those who have psychotic breaks because of pot smoking can unequivicolly be shown to have had mental illness to begin with, and no amount of keeping kids from drinking will keep the type I alcoholic, the one who is born that way, from becoming an alcoholic. As for the type II alcoholic, the one who drinks himself into it? That type shows up in recovery much, much later, like 40’s or 50’s, and drinking age laws aren’t going to effect that.</p>

<p>So…good luck pulling this argument apart. All I can say is that the drinking age being slightly lower and more progressive would be a rational response to a very ineffective law and the problem of binge drinking, which, in fact, causes death, even in these non alcoholic drinkers, who would be much better off with a glass of wine or a couple of beers. I think, personally, it is an ineffective law.</p>

<p>If anyone finds themselves in possession of a kid who cannot stop drinking once they start, or has no control over their behavior once they ingest a mood altering substance? There are many places which treat this disease, and many places to get help. A fake id, or the desire to have a beer or a glass of wine, socially, with friends, is not an alcohol problem, though we are making it one, for some reason.</p>

474

<p>OP - please keep us up to date on how all of this winds up.</p>

475

<p>Poetgirl, are you saying that Spidey is an addiction specialist? As in she makes her living when people go to counseling, either mandated or on their own? Well that adds color to the discussion.</p>

476

<p>A reasonable question, Mizzbee post 466. The answer is in post 25, the school rules as posted by the OP. I won’t quote the whole thing, but if you read it, you’ll see this spot inspection was right in line with their policy.
Some may or may not agree with the appropriateness of the policy, but thats a different issue.</p>

477

<p>

</p>

<p>The campus authorities did not feel they had the right to search the parts of the room that were under the sole control of OP’s son–that’s why they asked for consent. They had the right under university regulations to search parts of the room under the reasonable control of the RM–his part of the room, his stuff and the common areas.</p>

<p>Why did the campus police want to search through OP’s stuff? Obvious–they hoped to find more drugs! Their mindset is that if you find drugs on one side of the room, the other roommate is often, at worst, dealing to the other roomie or at least doing drugs with him. Turned out NOT to be the case in this situation, thank goodness.</p>

<p>If the cops tore my house apart looking for drugs or contraband or whatever (even with a valid warrant) and didn’t find anything because I really am a law abiding citizen, I would hope that they would at least say that they were sorry for the disruption they caused. An apology goes at least some way to assuage bad feelings.</p>

478

<p>

Good luck. There was a celebrated case here where the police searched a house, and killed the owner’s dogs, and it turned out to be a mistake. I think they may have eventually apologized, but it was a big hooha.</p>

479

<p>Probably right about that, Hunt…</p>

480

<p>Kayf

Kayf, what I do for a living is none of your business. Strange, I have no interest whatsoever in what you do for a living, so I cannot reciprocate the curiosity. Your guess is completely incorrect, btw, but the fact that you are focused so much on me is creepy. </p>

<p>Why not just zero in on the discussion at hand and leave the participants alone (how many times have I asked you to do that before)? </p>

<p>Have you ever heard of a schoolyard bully? You are capable of participating in a debate without attacking the participants, no?</p>