They have 20 days to respond to the initial request. If they don't respond, the first step should be to submit an administrative appeal to the FOIA contact for the agency. They have 20 days to respond to your appeal. If that appeal is denied or you still don't get a response, you can file a lawsuit in your nearest US District Court (the statue of limitations is 6 years). The agency will respond to the complaint, and you'll know whether it's worth your time to pursue it.
The specific information required for a request varies by agency, as do any fees. Most of them now provide online forms on their sites.
While I was the FOIA/Privacy Act coordinator/liaison for one of the commands I was attached to while in the Navy, we generally accepted any form of written request, provided the person included their full name, postal address, phone number and a detailed enough description of the information they were requesting.
Use of the privilege is not based on the type of proceeding (ie, it applies to more than just criminal cases), but upon the nature of the statement or admission and the exposure that would invite. Precedent has shown self-incrimination is enforceable in non-disciplinary public school "proceedings".
If the students were "coerced" or "compelled" to take a survey that may self-incriminate them, then it could probably be shown the privilege did apply.
> If the students were "coerced" or "compelled" to take a survey that may self-incriminate them, then it could probably be shown the privilege did apply.
This is actually a gray area. My understanding is that this isn't true until the school administrators call the police in. Before that, they are not agents of the police and they don't have to mirandize you. It's also cloudy because the administrators are seen as in loco parentis (in place of the parents). Here is the wikipedia article that details the changing case law around what public school administrators can do w/r/t the bill of rights. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_loco_parentis#Primary_and_se...
There was a case a couple of years ago out of SCOTUS applying the 5th to questioning in the presence of a police officer on school grounds. I'm not aware of anything applying without the potential for disciplinary action.
I clicked on the link, and am now likely going to count as an active user because I was logged into gmail. In other words, I am NOT a g+ user, but google probably counts me as one because of my gmail account. So, scottbartell may have a valid point.
You clicked the link to plus.Google.com, meaning you just acively used the site. Are you suggesting that referrals should not be counted as active uses?
Now, Direct visits would be interesting to get some counts for.
I haven't met any fellow USians that _constantly_ do this. Then again, I guess that's the problem with making wide generalizations about an entire group of people.
Agreed. It's essentially design by committee, which may work well when there's only a handful of you, but consensus of several individuals is difficult to reach, and the obvious or safe choice is accepted with little insight or vision. Committees create divisiveness and perpetuate a loss of vision. They exist only because individuals are taught that consensus is more important than making the right decision.
