DAKGER [2020-01-30 05:40:03 +0000 UTC]

Yay! Happy Birthday !!Wuff wuff!
I hope you have an pawesome day today, and an amazing year of your life as well. I also hope that you are happy, healthy, that you smile a lot

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

DAKGER [2019-01-30 03:17:04 +0000 UTC]

Yay! Happy birthday! Wuff wuff!

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

scarlet09876 [2017-02-22 16:45:57 +0000 UTC]

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

scarlet09876 [2017-02-19 23:33:36 +0000 UTC]

DID YOU GO SKATING TODAY CUZ I SAW SOME ONE THAT LOOKED LIKE YOU

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

scarlet09876 [2017-01-26 03:18:59 +0000 UTC]

did you like the art i made for you

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Exhausted-Witch [2017-01-24 05:03:01 +0000 UTC]

Thanks for the watch! ^^
It's appreciated.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

scarlet09876 [2017-01-23 18:41:30 +0000 UTC]

hi dibdibdib

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

2FreeSaphire [2016-09-11 19:17:05 +0000 UTC]

loaf me
I make arts for chu

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

ruby0reed [2016-05-19 17:17:32 +0000 UTC]

Thank you for the donation ^^ <3

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

sweets-n-sins [2016-03-30 03:51:15 +0000 UTC]

Hidden by Owner

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

FlashlightOfRoses [2016-03-21 17:57:17 +0000 UTC]

Thanks for the wath <3

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

zimzimzim1235 [2016-02-20 20:21:16 +0000 UTC]

 I got 17 llama badges in less than 3 hours... im so confused  

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Bella-Marinelli [2016-02-10 22:13:22 +0000 UTC]

 Thank you very much for the watch! I really appreciate the support and I hope you will enjoy my artwork to come in the future as well! Thanks again and have a lovely day.

If you like my artwork, and you're interested in free commissions please check out my raffle: fav.me/d9p279j

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

purikins [2016-02-09 10:39:39 +0000 UTC]

omfg ty for the watch!!!

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

purikins [2016-02-05 23:34:22 +0000 UTC]

ahhhh ty for the fave!!!!

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

zimzimzim1235 [2016-02-03 18:38:05 +0000 UTC]

By: Kristin Chappell

SEARCHING STUDENTS LOCKERS WITHOUT PERMISSION!

School staff should not be allowed to search students’ lockers without permission. Searching the lockers without permission violates the fourth amendment “The right to privacy”. I know it says that students don’t have the comfort and privacy at school that they have at home, at school, but I think the students should be allowed to refuse a locker search unless staff has reason to believe the student is in danger or is putting others in harm’s way. The staff should only be allowed to search a student or they’re locker/ bags, are if the guardians of the student tell them to or agree to it. Otherwise staff shouldn’t search lockers.

“Students have rights to be protected from an “unreasonable search or seizure” or from being questioned in a “custodial” setting when they are:

In school, at a school event, or on school property.”

“There is usually no “expectation of privacy” when it comes to school property your child uses, like a locker or desk.   This means school staff can look at what is in a student’s locker or desk.   School staff may also be able to give permission to the police to look in a locker or desk.  This is true even though your child is the one who uses it.  The school district may have a policy about this.  You can call your school administrative office or check out your school’s website to see if there is a policy on this.  You have a right to ask for a copy of that policy.”

It’s not illegal for a search, but it should at least have a reason. If there is no reason for a search they should not search. For example, I was reading an article and it said they made all the kids place their cell phones on the teacher’s desk. When it was time to get the phones back, some where missing.  The teacher made the students strip down and get searched. This is a “good reason” for a search. Bad example; they just want to search the lockers, they have no reason to search, they just want to.

“If you're in a school environment, teachers and administrators can search without either permission or a warrant.” I don’t agree with this rule. I think they should have permission from either the student or the student’s guardian to have a locker search, but I’m just a kid, so it’s not like anyone with listen to what I think about it.

“California's own state Supreme Court has expanded upon the ruling by stating that "reasonable grounds" must be supported by "articulable facts." Random searches and searches based on hunches or rumors are not justified.” Source:

“The US Supreme Court has also stated that the manner in which the search is conducted must be "reasonably related to the objectives of the search and not excessively intrusive in light of the age and sex of the student and the nature of the infraction."” Like I said, I think it should be a reasonable search; they should have reason to believe the student is carrying something that is putting them and or others in danger. They should not search just to search.

“The following is a list of some questions the courts consider to determine whether or not a search of a student or school locker is reasonable:

    ·         Is the search based on an anonymous tip? In general, courts don't place a lot of confidence in people who report crimes anonymously. However, if a student walks up to a teacher and reports a crime and then walks away, the tip isn't anonymous, even if the teacher doesn't know the student and doesn't remember the student later.

    ·         Who reported the crime or violation? A teacher or parent is more reliable than another student. In one case, a search was upheld when a concerned parent notified the vice-principal that a specific student was seen with a gun. The court specifically stated that concerned parents are a trusted source for information.

    ·         Where and when did the violation occur? If a teacher is told that a student was seen with a gun one year ago, then that doesn't justify a search of the student's locker. Likewise, if a teacher is told that a student was smoking marijuana at a friend's house that may not justify a search of his locker at school.

    ·         Was a specific student or a group of students identified? If one student is named, then the information is more reliable and the search is more likely to be justified. On the other hand, if the informant points to a group of students without naming a particular person, the information is less reliable.

    ·         What was the nature of the violation? A lot of the previous factors depend on each other and especially depend what type of violation is suspected. Possession of a gun on school campus is taken much more seriously than possession of cigarettes. In one case, a student that was being accused of fighting pointed to another group of students and claimed that one of them had a gun. Although this student's motives were suspect (he was trying to avoid trouble himself) and although he couldn't identify which particular person had the gun, the court justified the search of the entire group because the threat of a gun on campus was of paramount importance.”

There are some rules in some countries about locker searches. They must have a reason to be searching a student and or their property. In other states and countries the rules might not be the same. For example; in my school they bring in a search dog all the time and search the backpacks. That is allowed, but they are not allowed to search through or open the backpacks without the student being there or without the permission of the student. The student must know they are going to be searched before the staff opens the bag.

I still think that locker searches violate the fourth amendment. The reason I think that is because it is violating a person’s privacy, but the fourth amendment does say that students don’t have the right to privacy at school which I think is stupid.

“The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides that "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." This provision is made applicable to the states through the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.”

“Drugs are not the only items that are subject to searches by schools, and searches are not limited to high-school students. In Jenkins v. Talladega City Board of Education, 115 F.3d 821 (11th Cir. 1997), the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals held that two eight-year-old girls who were subject to two strip searches could not recover under theories that the teachers who had conducted the searches had violated state and federal law. Both teachers, along with the superintendent of the school district, were protected by qualified Immunity, which applies when a state actor's conduct does not violate "clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known."”

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

maikeru-mia [2015-12-23 11:25:09 +0000 UTC]

thanks for the fav!

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

WinterImperfect [2015-12-23 04:45:49 +0000 UTC]

thanks for the watch. also, nice avatar. s'like talking to my twin

👍: 0 ⏩: 1