You can invoke the 5th amendment in proceedings that are not currently, but could become, criminal proceedings, on the grounds that your answers may be used against you criminally. For instance, you can refuse to answer questions in a civil case deposition relating to potentially criminal activities. The only way to remove the right against self-incrimination is to grant immunity, which for drug-related offenses means, to be safe, both state and federal government would have to agree.

What's even more sad is that a brief word from a civics teacher got a significant number of students to think twice about taking the survey. Why didn't the students' parents talk to their own kids about the survey? It's a parent's responsibility, as much as it is a civics teacher's responsibility, to discuss civics issues like this with their children. Most of the parents would probably do well to audit Mr. Dryden's class.

Maybe the parents weren't told that the survey was asking about potentially illegal behavior and wasn't anonymous.

Maybe the survey's true nature was buried in ambiguous terms or lengthy legalese.

Maybe the survey was opt-out instead of opt-in, and most people took the path of least resistance and didn't bother to do anything with it (if their kids even remembered to give them information that was sent home).

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...

It is no longer necessary for criminal proceedings to be in progress; it is now sufficient that the testimony could give rise to criminal proceedings. See, for example, Lois Lerner, the IRS official who took the 5th Amendment at a Congressional (i.e., non-criminal) proceeding because the testimony given could have led to criminal proceedings.

No, you have the right not to testify information that would incriminate you in a proceeding. It's a narrower right than you're making it out to be.

But it is a useful protection when you don't know if you are required to testify -- knowing that you have the 5th means you no longer need to know if you are being compelled or not.

That's neither here nor there. I'm just saying I doubt it's the case that the 5th amendment prevents the school administration from making a student fill out that survey in the absence of any police involvement or review of the results.

The likelihood that a survey in which an American public school student admitted drug use would not find its way into the grubby clutches of law enforcement is approximately nil.

I'm not American, but I'm pretty sure the fifth amendment applies to any and all self incriminating statements that can be used to support a criminal charge against you. This is the entire reason police advise you of these exact same rights at the moment of arrest.

By your explanation, anything you say to a police officer or other figure of authority (in this case the school) that leads to criminal prosecution is fair game. That simply isn't the case.

Entire context:

nor shall (a person) be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;

Witness is in reference to the general action; not just sitting on a stand.

The core of the rule is narrower than that: http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/fifth_amendment ("The Fifth Amendment protects criminal defendants from having to testify if they may incriminate themselves through the testimony.")

It has been broadened beyond that, ("In the landmark Miranda v. Arizona ruling, the United States Supreme Court extended the Fifth Amendment protections to encompass any situation outside of the courtroom that involves the curtailment of personal freedom"), but note that Miranda itself is inapplicable because the "custody" element is missing.

I can't find any case law on the subject, but there is an old law review article that discusses some of the issues: http://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=20....

Even within the framework of the article, which argues in favor of students having 5th amendment rights in general, it's hard to see how a survey aimed at gathering information for psychological evaluation would implicate the 5th amendment. The most likely answer seems to be that it's permissible so long as the student retains the right to invoke the 5th in any criminal action against him.

The term "coercion" is an elastic word that may mean different things in different settings. In the public school context, for example, an administrator may suspect a student of wrongdoing" and threaten to impose a penalty unless the student makes a statement. The administrator may threaten to suspend or expel the student, to call the police, or to impose a less "severe" penalty such as keeping the student after school. At some point, these threats become coercion, thereby implicating the fifth amendment

Considering what is happening to the teacher, I'm sure any reasonably skilled lawyer would be able to make the case that such an atmosphere of coercion does in fact exist in this particular district.

The objection here is to "fishing expeditions" wherein evidence is gathered en masse under an innocent pretext, and later (whether planned or not) an authority could gain access to that information and use it against the coerced students. Example: survey occurs, police find evidence of drug crimes with tenuous connection to a particular student, survey results are demanded via warrant by police, confession by student in question is revealed and a whole lotta other students' confessions are found and subsequently acted on.

That the evidence was elicited prior to development of a criminal case does not excuse compelling students to confess, whoever to, to otherwise unidentified crimes. If the evidence exists at the onset of criminal investigation, it cannot be recalled by the suspect under 5th Amendment grounds. That the confession is elicited by the state, to wit the public school, compounds the issue: the government is not allowed to demand evidence of criminal culpability without warranted cause, which is exactly what the school in question was doing.

Broad-based gathering of information about potential psychological issues, without anonymity and with viable consequences of expulsion or prosecution, is nothing more than a "fishing expedition"/"witch hunt" - exactly the kind of thing the 4th and 5th Amendments are intended to protect against.

Well, if a student tells school officials he's been breaking the law, that could trigger a "proceeding of a disciplinary nature", couldn't it? I believe there is case law on this sort of thing.

So, the teacher was correct to treat the students about their basic, God-given rights.

So the amendment is necessary not because of the general case (in any circumstances, it is obvious that nobody has the right to expect a self-incriminating answer to a question) but because of the specific case of a witness.

However, nowadays, people seem to need to be recalled that they are not expected to speak against themselves anywhere. Except if they willingly want to do so.

"Did you insult your classmate?" is usually not a legal proceeding. However, answering it one way or the other will help you or not. You do not need to answer that question. But quoting the Fifth for not doing so is ridiculuous: it is way before the Fifth amendment.