Parents Sue Austin School District Over Sex Offender Check System

The beef by the parents, who aren’t listed in the Texas sex offender system, is that they believe having their license scanned and held by a private company, Raptor Systems  violates their constitutional rights.

The Meadowses say the computerized checks violate their constitutional rights, including freedom to associate with their children at school and freedom from unreasonable search and seizure. Neither are listed in the national sex offender database.

Yvonne Meadows said she objected to Bee Cave Elementary School scanning her license because she was concerned about identify theft and a private company collecting her personal information.

So, apparently if you go to one of the schools that uses Raptor and you don’t consent to your license being scanned into the database of Raptor systems, you don’t get to go see your kids. I agree with this, that is, not wanting to have your license info scanned- why isn’t it possible to just look up the person online, which is REALLY EASY to see if that person is in there instead of collecting information on them?

Here’s the website for Raptorware, which has a very loud DO YOU KNOW REALLY KNOW WHO IS COMING IN AND OUT OF YOUR FACILITY? And yup, your license information is uploaded to this private company’s database.

Spring ISD’s technological tools include a system provided by Houston-based Raptor Technologies to screen for sex offenders. A visitor’s driver’s license is scanned and the information is transmitted to Raptor, which maintains a database that includes more than 400,000 records from 48 states. If a match is found, the police are notified. If the visitor is a parent, he or she may be granted limited access, while in other cases an offender might end up under arrest.

Raptor CEO Allan Measom reports the records in the company’s database are updated continually. The cost to districts is $1,500 in the first year and $432 per year afterwards, which “amounts to $36 a month to have us keep these records updated,” according to Measom.

The system also can be used to track “private alerts,” keeping schools informed of who is allowed to pick up a child at school, a frequent issue in custody battles.

As the same article says, it isn’t like putting a whole bunch of these intrusive computer programs in place protects schools 100 percent.

But the effectiveness of that approach is problematic, notes Stephens, because violence has taken place even with preventive measures in place. “We’re seeing a lot of schools looking at things such as proximity readers, student ID cards to control access to different areas of the campus, metal detectors, and cameras. But no system is perfect, and despite all the high technology, the most effective strategy is the physical presence of a responsible adult,” says Stephens.

Other experts also warn that technology isn’t a panacea. Kenneth Trump, president of Cleveland-based National School Safety and Security Services, cautions against an overreliance on technology. “We say there has to be a balance between hardware and heartware,” Trump comments. “Any type of technology is a supplement to, but not a substitute for, a comprehensive school safety program.”

Will be interesting to see what happens in that lawsuit.

– See more at: http://salon.glenrose.net/default.asp?view=plink&id=9307#sthash.dAxzYlw9.dpuf