"For example, during the 1970s the Court also decided that juveniles did not have three of the procedural rights that adults take for granted: the right to a trial by jury,' the right to bail prior to adjudication,14 and the right to be protected from corporal punishment.' The only additional good news for advocates of children's rights during this period consisted of rulings in two cases that extended the right to privacy in abortion cases to unmarried minor females.'
PART 1
Had it occurred to you that adults equally have their rights diminished in similar or identical settings as those you quoted?
You cite to an article discussing a reduction in the applicability of some right for kids in a specific setting as evidence kids do not have “the same rights as adults.” Of course, your use of the article, specifically what you referenced in your post, presumes adults do not similarly have diminished rights in similar or identical settings as the kids.
Which is another way of saying the examples used need to be parallel to properly assess whether a juvenile has the “same rights” as adults or no rights, or the rights are reduced for the juveniles. This means there is to be an examination of the setting involving kids with reduced rights to a similar or identical setting involving kids.
So, let’s begin with free speech rights of kids in school. It is important to remember schools are a specific kind government property, with a specific function, and it is this contextual setting free speech rights of kids are reduced when in school.
Do adults have a reduced free speech right when on some specific kind of government property and acting in the capacity of a government official? Yes. What about the adults, such as teachers, enaged in speech while at school? The adult teachers’ free speech rights are diminished as well and subject to the Pickering balancing test. In fact, government employees free speech rights are diminished while they are acting in their official capacity of their governmental employment or on government property as part of their employment and subject to the Pickering balancing test.
So, the fact students in school have reduced free speech rights isn’t an example where adults enjoy free speech differently than kids. Adults suffer a reduction in their free speech rights as well when they are government employees and speaking as an employee or on government property as part of their employment.
Sticking with the context of schools, juveniles have a reduced expectation of privacy in school, especially the school lockers and other school property they are allowed to use, as with their personal property and their body. Hence, the requirement to search without a warrant is relaxed and the TLO standard of reasonableness based on the totality of the circumstances.
Adults also have a reduced expectation of privacy in the setting of government property. To gain admission into a government building the court can require of adults to submit to an electronic scan of any bags or containers they have, including wallets, and be asked to empty everything out of their pockets, be subject to a search by a wand, and walk through a metal detector, with no suspicion at all.
In addition, government employees have a reduced expectation of privacy in the desks furnished to them by the government, along with other furnishings, such as file cabinets, laptops, cell phones, briefcases, cars, etcetera. Probable cause isn’t required to search, the search need only be justified as reasonable under the totality of the circumstances and that is the same test for juveniles in school. Some government employees are subjected to not only a reduced expectation in the ways noted above, but some are also subject to no suspicion searches of their personal property they bring to work as part of a contractual agreement or the specific nature of their employment justifies suspicionless searches of the private property they bring to work.
What about drug testing? Schools may require suspicionless drug testing of juveniles who participate in extracurricular activities provided by the school. Adults are also subject to suspicionless drug testing by the government as government employees where their specific employment justifies it, such as carrying a firearm as part of the government job, working as a government employee in illegal drug investigations, etcetera.
So, the snippet of the article you specifically refer to in your post doesn’t present a strong argument for your view kids lack the same rights as adults. Those instances where juveniles have reduced rights, adults do as well in similar contexts.
