Today's outing was attendance at a discussion group of current events. I don't usually go to these things, because I'm not inclined to do group things, but a good friend of mine needed a ride, so....

The topic today was on the right to privacy by children and teens, especially teens who are on the cusp of adult rights, privileges and responsibilities.

The most vehement responses were to an article reporting about a mother who had noticed that her daughter's grades were slipping and that she was hanging out--for hours--with friends who were known to do drugs.

When she asked her daughter about it, her daughter blew her off, denying everything and becoming all offended and angry.

So the mother hired a drug-sniffing dog which, with its handler, found a drug stash in the family garage. The question for the discussion group was about the mother's right to monitor her child's behavior versus the child's right to privacy.

I took the "reasonable search and seizure" position. If the parent had a reasonable cause to suspect drugs, and if the parent is responsible for the child's welfare, then, after attempting to discuss it and getting a refusal, she had the right--maybe even the responsibility--to search the house and grounds.

Since the mother doesn't have the kind of nose necessary to sniff out drugs, which are easy to hide, I see no problem with hiring a professional (in this case a dog).

What do you think?