Against School Searches

Explain how the legal standard of reasonable suspicion applied to the site administrator’s search of the student’s private property.

T.L.O. case “...school officials do not have to meet the same standards as police officers when conducting searches” (New Jersey v. T.L.O.). The T.L.O. case was just one of the cases concerning schools and there were many others, including the Safford Unified School District v. Redding case. This case specifically concerned searching for drugs in schools. The Court ruled in this case, “...no indication of danger to the students from the power of the drugs or their quantity or any reason to suppose that Savana was carrying these pills in her underwear. Given these deficiencies, we conclude that the search was unreasonable. T.L.O. directed school officials to limit the intrusiveness of a search in light of the age and sex of the student and the nature of the infraction” (Safford Unified School District v. Redding). Basically, if there is no disturbance in the school day, then there should be a search procedure with a warrant. However, if there is a disturbance in the school day, the school should not be required to get a search

should be punished for breaking the law and school rules. The school needs to maintain its authority over students; search and seizure is part of maintaining order.

They stated that search measures used by school officials to "root out" contraband must be "reasonably related to the objectives of the search and not excessively intrusive in light of the age and sex of the student and the nature of the infraction."

Unreasonable searches are to be prohibited in middle schools. Since the reasons for Redding being search was at the request of the principal. Wilson, he was the main person discussed. The nurse and secretary were acting as agents for Wilson in order to perform the search that he was unable to do because he was male. The school’s rules for the suspicions of illicit drugs were modified to adjust to how it should be handled by school officials. The reasonable standard of suspicion and probable cause has an implicit bearing on the reliable knowledge of what is known and discovered. The rules of the school do strictly prohibited the use of nonmedical use, possession, or sale of any drug on the school grounds. The majority feels that the manner in which she was searched was unjust and that it should have been more proof before they proceeded to perform a strip search of the student. The search of the backpack and outer clothes could be expected because of reasonable suspicion of concealing drugs, but the strip search was unnecessary because her clothes did not have pockets and they did not have the right or enough proof to proceed with the strip search in the manner that they did. The Court has adopted a different standard for searches involving an intrusion into the human

The upshot was reversal of summary judgment as to Wilson, while affirming the judgments in favor of Schwallier, the school nurse, and Romero, the administrative assistant, since they had not acted as independent decision makers. It is noted and recognized that the school setting requires some modification of the level of suspicion of illicit activity needed to justify a search, and held that for searches by school officials. The standard of reasonable suspicion has been declared on the school and the legality of a school administrator's search of a student. Cases that are on probable cause have an implicit bearing on the reliable knowledge element of reasonable suspicion, as we have attempted to flesh out the knowledge component by looking to the degree to which known facts imply prohibited conduct, the specificity of the information received. The lesser standard for school searches could as readily be described as a moderate chance of finding evidence of wrongdoing. In this case, the school's policies strictly prohibit the nonmedical use, possession, or sale of any drug on school grounds, including any prescription or over-the-counter drug, except those for which permission to use in school has been granted pursuant to board policy. The majority finds that subjective and reasonable societal expectations of personal privacy support this type of search, which it labels a strip search, as categorically distinct, requiring distinct elements of justification on the part of school authorities for going beyond a search of outer clothing and belongings., in the majority's view, although the school officials had reasonable suspicion to believe that Redding had the pills on her person, they needed some greater level of particularized suspicion to

The purpose of this paper is to discuss public school districts' limits on "hate" speech and

The fourth amendment to the constitution of the United States of America protect individuals from illegal search and seizure. Nonetheless, students are protected under the fourth amendment in school; however, the standard for the courts have applied a different standard for what constitute a legal search. In New Jersey v. T.L.O the courts ruled that the, “unique need to maintain a safe learning environment requires a lessening of the restrictions normally imposed for public officials to conduct searches.” Thus, the requirement for schools to search a student is reasonable suspicion and not probable cause. There are some factors that must exist raise reasonable suspicion. For example, reasonable suspicion may include: a call from a concern

In recent years, schools have been increasingly subjected to weaponry, drugs, and violence. School officials are seeking ways to help maintain a safe environment for their students. The increase of violence has led to many cases of controversy over students’ Fourth Amendment rights. The Fourth Amendment prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures and requires a warrant to be presented and supported by probable cause. The problem with this is that requiring school officials to bring in police and for them to obtain a warrant takes time, time that these people do not have. If there is a threat that a student may possess drugs, the administration of the school needs to take immediate action in order to maintain a safe environment. Schools should be able to take any necessary action in order to keep other students safe, but should also have guidelines they must follow in extreme cases, such as strip searches.

The official need to get a warrant to do searches of a student personal belongings like cell phone, unless there are urgent situations such as immediate, assumed threat to student safety. For example student caught by the teacher for using the cell phone inside the classroom. Teacher took the cell phone and handover it to principle office, they are supposed to keep it with till evening i.e. end of the day. Principal found that the student has connections with drug suppliers through his history of text messages, then they caught drug supplier and submitted in the court. Court found that the search was illegal and the case was

The reason is schools should be able to search students belongings to make sure they do not contain contraband items such as marijuana, guns, knives ,...etc. But schools should never have the right to search your person even if you are carrying contraband because schools should not have enough jurisdiction. School officials should have to call law enforcement to the school to conduct a proper search on a student that is believed to be carrying contraband. Schools just want a safe environment for teaching and learning so that student can know that they are safe in school and not have to worry about getting in harm's

that you have a right to a copy of the record of the search. If it is

1. The issue is whether public school officials have the authority to perform strip searches of students in suspicion of hiding illegal drugs.

The case of Horton v. Goose Creek I.S.D. held that the use of canines to sniff lockers and cars did not constitute a search. This court also ruled, however, that the use of canines to search students must only be done if there is individualized suspicion. Due to many other issues which could complicate the search, such as allergies,

“A search is an examination of a person, place, or vehicle for contraband or evidence of a crime (p.481)”. There are instances where a third party could give valid consent over a premise of items to be searched. However, I personally believe that my roommate should not be able to give consent to search my apartment or dorm room. I have exclusively sectioned off my room, furnished it with my own furniture, pay rent, and have established an expectation of privacy, so my roommate should have no authority to give consent. I have the right to my privacy, just like my roommate has the right to his or her own