Case : Safford Vs. Redding

In the court case SMYTH v. LUBBERS, 398 F.Supp 777 (1975) the plaintiff’s rooms were searched without a warrant or probable cause by campus police officers that were acting as officials of the state. They seized a substance that was alleged to be marijuana and proceeded to arrest the plaintiffs. The court held that the search and seizure was illegal because, that two of the campus police officers were acting as representatives of the county police at the time, and there are rules in the student handbook at that college in place to protect students from illegal search and seizure, and those rule were not followed. Just like in Jones v. Rohward University, Deary Jones was subjected to an illegal search and seizure. This search and seizure is

I stand before you, in this court, to try and sway the majority decision regarding Safford United School District v. Redding (June 5, 2009). With agreeance of Justice Clarence Thomas, the act of searching Ms. Redding for drugs that violated the school’s policy, was not a direct violation of her fourth amendment right. It is no secret that maintaining order in any school environment can be a challenging task. It is more evident in today’s society school officials must take an even more proactive stance, when it does come down to maintaining order. With the recent surge of violent crimes and drug abuse that plague our schools, officials should have the right to try to prevent these actions from perpetuating into an epidemic.

The students spent a lot of time on the newspaper and were upset at the principal for taking the two articles out. They felt that censorship was a violation of their first amendment rights and they took the case to court. The Court disagreed with the students and said that if the school had a good reason to censor

In the case of New Jersey v T.L.O a high school student was suspected of trying to hide cigarettes in her bag. An official searched the bag and found cigarettes,marijuana, and a list of names of students who owed T.L.O. money, she argued that her Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable searches was violated. She was then charged with possession of marijuana and sentenced to one year of probation. Before trial, T.L.O. wanted to suppress the evidence discovered in the search, but the Court denied her motion. The supreme court said school administrators don't need to have a search warrant or probable cause before conducting a search because students already have a reduced expectation of privacy when in

Procedural History: Savana’s mother filed suit against Safford Unified School District #1, Wilson, Romero, Schwallier for conducting a strip search in violation of Savana’s Fourth Amendment rights. The District Court for the District of Arizona granted the motion on ground that there was no fourth violation, and a panel of the Ninth Circuit affirmed. A closely divided Circuit sitting en banc, however, reversed. The ninth circuit held that the strip search was unjustified under the Fourth Amendment test for searches of children by school officials set out in New Jersey v. T.L.O.

The famous Supreme Court case, Tinker vs. Des Moines, was one the swept the nation. It was a highly debatable, controversial, substantial, and captivating case, resulting in it discussion across America. The case pinned two teens from the Tinker family, alongside one of their friends, against the school board of Des Moines, Iowa. The teenagers were suspended from their school for wearing armbands to protest the government’s policy in Vietnam. The case, which started in lower court systems, was ruled in favor in the teenagers in the Supreme Court, however the case was ruled in the opposite direction in the courts that the case passed through before. The stronger argument, the majority opinion, stated the constitutional facts, it stated that the student’s actions were passive and protected under the First Amendment; however the dissent argued that the behavior of the students was disruptive by distracting the other pupils of the classroom.

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

In the scenario, a reasonable purpose for the search is not stated. Without a reasonable purpose personal belongings should not be searched. The search was of a student’s personal

The New Jersey vs TLO case is yet another major case that made a very big impact the rights students have today. This case is about schools not being allowed search your belongings unless there is a cause to search you such as drugs, or weapons. In other words “ The presence of rolling papers in the purse gave rise to reasonable suspicion in the principal's mind that TLO may have been carrying drugs, thus, justifying a thorough search of purse.”

The Essential Question surrounding this case is, “May school administrators search a student or their belongings absent of probable cause?”

v. A.M., 2008 a Sarnia high school principal was concerned about the presence of drugs in his school so he issued an open and standing invitation to the police to bring sniffer dogs into the school, three police officers conducted the search without warrants but with the principal’s consent. One police officer found marijuana, magic mushrooms, and drug-related paraphernalia, the backpack owner was charged. A.M. argued that the evidence seized should be excluded because it was retrieved unreasonably. The judge acquitted A.M. of the charges, it was appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada and was acquitted each time at every trial. Accordingly, if the police officer does not have the full authority to go through someone’s locker for things (or backpack) without a search warrant, how can a principal be excused for this

Searching through a student’s stuff without a reasonable cause is unacceptable. A reasonable cause can’t be something such as

In the trial, “State of New York V. New York” we found the defendant not guilty. There were many reasons why this was our verdict. Kris Weaver, a teacher at the school did not attend the training made to help teachers identify the symptoms of being high. Sandy Swanson, a guidance counselor at the identified the search as violation to the school locker policy. These reasons helped us classify the defendant not guilty.

This court case is an important one as a future educator as well as an administrator. It is important for teachers not to cross the line, but in this day and age it is also very important to ensure students are not endangering themselves or others. In this case the students were caught smoking cigarettes in the bathroom; on most school grounds, cigarettes and alcohol are banned. Along with being a highly addictive and deadly drug, cigarette smoke can cause children with asthma to have an asthma attack. Therefore, harming the welfare of the other students in the school. Today, this particular problem is not as prominent, but it is still important to look out for. However, weapons are now a large cause for concern on school grounds. As a teacher

When the school district was brought through the legal system, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the student for the fact that there was no form of due process taken.