officerfriendly
*
Even though it's completely off topic, I'll oblige you with a response. President-Elect Obama was born in Hawaii. Regardless of what Michael Savage spewed, he was there visiting his dying grandmother, not getting a birth certificate. If you're so against DNA testing of suspects/persons of interest, that must mean you disapprove of illegal wiretapping and data mining that happened during the Bush Administration. Or, how about the Patriot Act robbing citizens of their rights? Did you speak out against that, also?

I vaguely remember a funeral for a popular teacher when I was younger, but for the life of me I can't remember his name. I've had no luck searching the net for records of an overdose. If I remember right, I was about 12-ish. That would've been around '89. I think there was a big ceremony at the high school for him. My memory is so poor on this, though, that I could be thinking of a different situation.

Wow officer friendly...way to mess with the facts. Don't you realize you throw your entire credibility out the window when you regurgitate lies to suit your own personal agenda? Barack Obama was born in Hawaii, which, last I checked, was in the United States of America and it was in 1961 when he was born too.

At least the Cocaine wasn't discovered in the Trick or Treaters halloween bags.

ok woody I get what you're saying in that specific case, but I think you see my point. What if instead of your child I had said a child in your classroom or a child you babysit. It has nothing to do with rights being infringed upon. I'm saying you should help the police instead of hindering them in their investigation. Remember, just because you have the right to do something doesn't always mean it's the right thing to do.

teacher2b: CSI would not need your DNA in the case of your child until the testing showed the crime was commited by a blood relative. Then they would only have to test the family.
Joeflint: Good for you...I bet you just love that lovely Patriot Act that Bush pushed through. We went backwards 100 years on peoples rights because of that gem.

Hear, Hear, Joeflint

rubrabbitrun: Do you happen to have a link to the overdose story of the high school teacher? I've searched for this and can't seem to find it.

joeflint...I understand what you are saying in one respect. All I'm trying to say is that if your choices are to help the police catch the perpetrator by giving them one less suspect to look at or hinder them by causing them to have to to the work to rule you out instead of clearing yourself...why choose to be a hinderance? Why not choose to help the police catch the responsible party as quickly as possible?

We the People are guilty and must always prove our own innocence.
... or...
We the People are innocent and free to live our lives (life, liberty, pursuit of happiness...) UNLESS we are proven to be guilty.
.
Thankfully, so far you are wrong; sadly, I am starting to fear that you are in the majority.

Sigh.
.
teacher2b and others... in this (rather typical) "what about the children" scenario, you have forgotten to ponder why the parent would be suspected of the crime? The United States Constitution is quite clear: if there is enough evidence with which to charge the parent, then do so and let the courts do their job of weighing said evidence OR issuing a warrant to LEGALLY collect such evidence. Without reasonable suspicion (e.g. prior evidence of neglect or abuse in this thought experiment), the police have no constitutional reason to continue to suspect the parent. Why "volunteering" evidence of any kind (particularly DNA) *whether* *or* *not* you are innocent is COMPLETELY UNAMERICAN. Why weak-minded people are so willing to cling to this rediculous "if you have nothing to hide..." worldview is utterly beyond me. The forefathers of this country fought and died for our rights; two very important ones that are quite a propos of this discussion:
.
Fourth Amendment: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
.
Fifth Amendment: No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
.
Care to rethink /your/ position?
.
I will always side with the wisdom of the framers, who had direct experience with abuses of power and sought to rectify those in the system of government that they created, than with some emotional, knee-jerk, "think of the children", "I have nothing to hide" worldview.
.
P.S. Since it's election day :D ... I am what many of you would consider a liberal but I consider myself an Eisenhower Republican: from the Eisenhower Doctrine in SE Asia to 91% top marginal tax rates (to finish paying off WWII) to social liberalism to his warning about the military-industrial complex, he may have been one of our best presidents. May the best man win today!

I could never figure out why we don't random drug test teachers,law enfocement, or all employeed people.
This would eliminate alot of dought or confussion. This is a very cost effective idea. Let's get real people!!!

Officerfriendly...i'm not talking about giving up any rights at all and I don't think it's "liberal B.S."

Let me ask you this....and I know it's not exactly the same thing but I think you should see my point. If somebody sexually assaulted your kid, and they wanted your DNA to rule you out, wouldn't you want them to be able to rule you out and focus their resources on finding the actual assailant instead of spending the time and money to rule you out?

Like a said before, random drug testing should be required for all!!
It's a triple play !!! The customer, employer and the one "using" Possibly the insurance company. A grand-slam !!!! Really, to not random drug test any employee is outrageous!!!!!!!

Very strange incident.

I know it's a thin line (no pun intended) but I would think if every innocent person stepped forward for the voluntary left, it would make it easier to identify the perpetrator. And I would think every innocent person would want to do this not to clear their own name, but to identify the person who should be removed immediately from his or her position as an educator, if that is indeed who did it. I would think at the very least it would give the police one less name to question and follow up on to help ensure that all of their resources go toward identifying the culprit. Don't do it for yourself, do it for the kids, for the future of America.

biggest problem is Milton police is doing the investigating.

Now, I'm sure there is a good explanation for a teacher having some coke. Let's see....they were conducting experiments in the chemistry lab...yea...that's it...it was an experiment to educate the kids! See, problem solved!

There are a lot of adults other than teachers that use the building on a regular basis, I would imagine. Custodians and food service workers, as well as outside groups are a few examples. Yet so many here are quick to pass judgment on a teacher.

---

The presence of Cocaine in the school is a disturbing development. I understand the importance of getting to the source when possible, but let's not go on a "witch hunt", people. Let the police do their job and get the facts. If you have concrete information to offer, call the Milton Police Department. School officials need to be vigilant, but not draconian. This will be solved.

Amen sannio x2

Okay Parker wana be

It is a drug that anyone can use many professionals have so why not a teacher? It is not not like only low lifes use it. Not to long ago in walworth co, a teacher was arrested for having it. I moved into my apt. and found 12 packets of heroin in the broiler when I went to use it. Now do you think they misplaced it or forgot? They were out a good chunk of change lol. I reported it and flushed it.

runrabbitrun: It was a high school teacher who died from an overdose.

Let's not forget people, TEACHERS are people too, and are just as much at risk to abuse drugs as your average civillian. Just because you are a teacher, parent, president of a company or a student doesn't mean you aren't immune to the fact that sometimes these things happen. I hope this person gets help, because with that much coke, either they were selling or have a very HUGE HABIT.

Gotta love the idiots who indite a teacher with absolutely no evidence presented. Many are the same dolts who had trouble with teachers themselves as kids. And I can only imagine the attitudes that many of their kids have now in school.

On the other hand Sannio, we're talking about someone who works with kids as an employee. The evidence found may not be admissible in criminal court as the burden of proof rests with the state and they do need probable cause to collect that kind of evidence, but do we have to wait until something terrible happens to a child to search out this drug abusing person who holds a position of trust and responsibility for these children before we can relive him of same? Can you imagine the outrage of a grieving parent when they learn that the district knew of this person but did nothing? Will the citizens of Milton be able to afford to lose the inevitable lawsuit?

PabloGannador is right. You don't have to prove your innocence in this country, and having the police offer "voluntary" testing should be resisted by everyone who believes in this country's ideals. I'm sick of hearing the "if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to worry about" argument. If you think I'm guilty, you prove it. I don't have anything to prove. Innocence until proven guilty is one of those core beliefs we have that people all over the world want, and would risk death trying to get here. Here's something that explains it very well, and there many more where this came from:

The essence of Government is power; and power, lodged as it must be in human hands, will ever be liable to abuse. — James Madison

And:

It is weakness rather than wickedness which renders men unfit to be trusted with unlimited power. — John Adams

Lastly:

Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms (of government) those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny. — Thomas Jefferson

Well, if you're wired up on Coke... its not hard to believe that they freaked and stashed it somewhere then couldn't get back to it, before it was discovered. 2 grams is a lot of coke....

If it is a teacher, I want this person removed from the district and prosecuted. How are we supposed to teach our children about the dangers of drugs, if teachers are getting caught with it? Ridiculous!

Get a spine Nikolay, and demand drug testing just as most companies do. These are our children, for crying out loud!!!!

Rocky, ignore such immature comments, and chalk it up to ignorance and being uninformed.

Drastery - Hefty pay increase? Care to specify what merits the term "hefty"? The article I read in the Gazette said they received package increases of around 4% each year. That means insurance increases come off the top and whatever, if any, is left goes to pay. Hardly "hefty" in my book.

What "rights" am I giving up if I were to voluntarily submit to testing to clear my name? I doubt the "founding fathers" that you inject would have any problem with me choosing to do so. These are "voluntary" tests they are proposing. "Voluntary" anything has nothing to do with me "giving up" any rights, but rather has EVERYTHING to do with me "exercising" those rights to exonerate myself.

Thinkbeforeyouspeak, I understand your good intentions but, we live in a country founded on the principle that you are innocent until proven guilty. You are readily offering to prove your innocence, not what the founding fathers had in mind. You Jainesville folks really have a lot to learn about the rights of the accused, you seem willing to sell your rights down the road without thinking about the ramifications.

Ya, it's compeltely unheard of that somebody abusing drugs may actually "forget" something, or perhaps get "interrupted" and mistakenly leave something behind. Right. Are you serious?

Has anyone thought of the possiblity that a student placed it where they felt it would not be confiscated by another student (it's not like a teachers lounge is locked) - instead of turning themselves or a friend in? I definately think that anyone who beleives that an educated staff member (teachers are educated) would leave a bag of cocaine laying around is not all there. My opinion - a student wanted to turn it in without getting caught or questioned - period. Oh - and I once was a teacher and I can tell you that they are not overpaid - regardless of the new contract.

If I were a teacher in that school I would get a drug test with my own money to clear my name and reputation...not a problem to me.

iwouldnt want my kids being taught by someonehigh on drugs. it should be made mandatory. if they dont find the teacher check them all.

If I was a teacher...I'd probably be snorting in the teachers' lounge too.

How can you be "subjected" to something that is "voluntary"? Sign me up. If I worked there, I'd glady give the sample. Just from the standpoint of clearing my name.

The details seem sketchy. I would imagine this is because there are details only the perpetrator would know that are not being released. Voluntary DNA samples may or may not give away anyone by process of elimination. It never sits well with me when individuals have to be subjected to searches and seizures without probable cause even if they are voluntary.

I guess they can afford it now that they have a new contract and hefty pay increase.

So they asked for voluntary samples. You think the person who left it there will give a sample? How many others who had nothing to do with it will also refuse to give a DNA sample on the principle of the matter? Not giving a sample will not mean a thing as far as guilt. I think the DNA testing will be a waste of time and money.

Sorry, but this does not surprise me. Cocaine is used by a lot of various "professional" people. Sickening!!

Cocaine clears the system in 72 hours, thus making a standard drug test worthless. A hair sample would need to be taken to find this person.

Why waste the money on dna testing when a drug test would work?

Nice