SPRINGFIELD, Mo.?The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri has declared that school officials at a Missouri high school did not violate students' constitutional rights when they imposed a "lockdown" of the school for the purpose of allowing the local sheriff's department, aided by drug-sniffing dogs, to perform mass inspections of students' belongings. Attorneys for The Rutherford Institute had filed a lawsuit in Burlison v. Springfield Public Schools, et al., asking to court to declare that officials at Central High School in Springfield violated their students' Fourth Amendment right to privacy. Institute attorneys plan to appeal the ruling to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals.

The Rutherford Institute's complaint in Burlison v. Springfield Public Schools is available at www.rutherford.org.

"We have moved into a new paradigm in America where young people are increasingly viewed as suspects and treated as criminals by school officials and law enforcement alike. To then be denied justice by the courts only adds to the wrongs being perpetrated against young people today," said John W. Whitehead, president of The Rutherford Institute. "Such random, suspicionless lockdown raids against children teach our children a horrific lesson?one that goes against every fundamental principle this country was founded upon?that we have no rights at all against the police state."

According to the complaint filed by attorneys for The Rutherford Institute, on April 22, 2010, the principal of Central High School announced over the public address system that the school was going into "lockdown" and that students were prohibited from leaving their classrooms.  Deputies and agents of the Greene County Sheriff's Department thereafter ordered students and teachers to leave all personal belongings behind and exit the classrooms. Dogs were also brought in to assist in the raid. Upon re-entering the classrooms, students allegedly discovered that their belongings had been rummaged through. Mellony and Doug Burlison, who have two children at Central High School, complained to school officials that the lockdown and search were a violation of their children's rights. According to the complaint, school officials responded that this was a "standard drill" and policy of the school district which would continue.

The lawsuit, filed by Rutherford Institute attorneys on behalf of the Burlisons and their two children, asked the court to declare that the practice of effecting a lockdown of the school and conducting random, suspicionless seizures and searches violates the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and the similar provision of the Missouri Constitution. The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri rejected the Institute's argument, finding that the students' belongings were not subject to an illegal seizure when ushered away from their classroom and told to leave their possessions behind before police entered to conduct a search. Affiliate attorney Jason T. Umbarger of Springfield, Mo., assisted the Institute with its defense of the Burlisons.

Click here to read online.

Cafe d'Marie, located at 614 West 5th Street where downtown Davenport meets the Gold Coast neighborhood, has expanded their hours.  They are now serving guests from 8:30am until 4pm seven days a week. 

Support a local business! The charming Cafe d'Marie is serving up breakfast, lunch, gourmet coffees, salads & more in a gorgeous historic building. Located on 5th Street behind the Scott County Admin building at the foot of the Gold Coast. Recently voted one of the Best New Restaurants in the Reader's Best of the Quad Cities readers' poll.

Call 563-323-3293 or visit them on Facebook® for more information.

Statement of Sen. Chuck Grassley

Senate Committee on Finance Hearing

"Extenders and Tax Reform: Seeking Long-Term Solutions"

Tuesday, Jan. 31, 2012

There are almost 60 provisions that expired at the end of 2011, and there are even more that expire at the end of 2012. There is general agreement that all of these extenders need to be reviewed in the context of comprehensive tax reform. As we begin to consider what such reform would look like, it is important to discuss what, if any, goals and objectives, other than revenue collection, the tax code should accomplish.

The provisions that expired at the end of last year have various objectives. The non-revenue policy objectives vary from energy independence to job creation, from encouraging donations to charity to incentivizing capital investments and research.

This Committee has held numerous tax reform hearings the past two years.  Yet, we have not discussed what we should do about the numerous non-revenue policy objectives included in the current tax code.  This has also been ignored by the various witnesses who have come before the committee, including those here today.

In his written testimony, Mr. Johnson whimsically picks winners and losers by focusing on the revenue impact but fails to address the non-revenue reasons for many of the expired provisions.  He says they should remain dead. However, he does appear to support a movement to alternative fuels "because we import oil from trouble spots in the world and because fossil fuels pollute and lead to global warming".

However, he believes the existing regime of tax incentives should be eliminated because movement to alternative fuels is better accomplished through a carbon tax.  He also states that the oil industry is undertaxed.  While I appreciate his support for alternative energy, his statements ignore the need to consider whether tax provisions should be part of a domestic energy policy that includes oil drilling.

Ms. Sherlock, a witness at the December 14, 2011, hearing on energy tax extenders, noted in her written testimony, "the income tax code has long been used as a policy tool for promoting U.S. energy priorities".

The oil and gas industries have received massive, permanent tax breaks for over a hundred years.

In contrast, tax incentives for alternative energy have existed only for a few decades and have always been temporary. These incentives first appeared in the 1970s, in direct response to the oil crisis and they help to incentivize renewable resources.

Yet, discussions on incentives for the oil industry and for alternative energy often fail to consider that a key reason to support renewable energy sources should be energy independence.

The United States sends more than $400 billion each year overseas to buy foreign oil.  Now more than ever, the United States needs to ramp up domestic production of traditional energy -- including oil, natural gas, and coal -- and expand alternative fuels and renewable energy -- including wind, solar, hydropower, biomass and geothermal.

The U.S. Treasury pays out an average $84 billion a year to defend the shipping lanes by which foreign oil reaches the United States.  I do not see these costs in discussions of cost effectiveness of energy tax incentives.

Aside from energy independence, it is also important to consider the number of domestic jobs supported by the energy sector.

Clearly, in the short-term, Congress should extend tax incentives for alternative energy sources.  With the economy still sputtering, we cannot afford the job losses that occur from pulling the rug out from under industries like biodiesel and wind that are still developing.

In the long-term, however, we need to consider whether a permanent and comprehensive energy tax policy is appropriate and, such a policy should be developed in the context of comprehensive tax reform.

For sure, we need a tax system that is less complicated, fairer, and will make us more competitive in the global economy.  However, we need to consider whether and how to balance these principles against non-revenue policy objectives of priorities.  Energy independence is only one such objective.

-30-