Drug dogs sniffing out loss of personal liberty

Jay B. Litvak

The following is a circuitous commentary on the recent discussions

regarding drug-sniffing dogs on school campuses.

When I attended Van Nuys High School in the mid-1970s, there were

random student and locker searches: There was no need for probable

cause.

Van Nuys High not only had the usual problems with drugs, although

nearby schools were known to have more significant drug issues, but

it was well known for its violence.

These searches were meant to protect the greater percentage of

students at the expense of constitutional ideals. I say ideals

because constitutional principles are more easily subverted in

schools than in the general population. But examples of authorities

usurping personal liberties become more prevalent, and more

widespread, as the problems become more intractable.

In the 1950s we went from the post-World War II (i.e. Cold War),

covert “investigation” of U. S. citizens to the displacement of these

citizens within their own country. In Vietnam we esca- lated from

search-and-rescue to search- and-destroy missions as our political

and military goals became ineffective: These escalated into free-fire

zones.

Today, the USA Patriot Act, or, at least portions of it, is

removing individual rights for the “greater good.” To use a

Vietnam-era oxymoron, we have to destroy it in order to save it. All

of these examples have something in common: They are all reactions to

situations in which we have lost control of something.

Drug- and, perhaps, explosives- sniffing dogs in public schools

are just another response to additional failed endeavors: the War on

Drugs and the War on (Violent) Crime. Now, these, especially the

latter, are the ultimate oxymorons.

When I was in high school, I wasn’t paying much attention to these

ideas. It is interesting that, when I may have had something to hide,

I cared less than I do today when I have nothing to fear from an

unethical search.

In conclusion, I wish to emphasize two points. First, whether I

have anything to hide ought not to influence my willingness to give

up any of my rights as a U. S. citizen. Second, we ought to remember

that when we are asked to relinquish some of our rights, it is a sign

of failed policy, and it sets a dangerous precedent.

* JAY B. LITVAK is a Costa Mesa resident.