High School Students Should Not Be Granted Greater Privacy On School Property

. In Pros and Cons of School Locker Searches, it states that, " Misplaced Focus: searching lockers can imply to students that they aren't trustworthy. It can ruin the school's attempt to build school community trust and respect." In Article 3 ( Pros and Cons of School Locker Searches- Synonym), it states, " School locker searches also consume valuable time for administrators, security guards, and teacher who conduct them. Student also lose their learning time because of this issue." In addition, Article 3 states, " Because students may keep personal items in their lockers, such as photographs and personal letters, even a search with the best intentions can appear to be a major breach of trust by teachers and administrators, causing a rift between the student body and faculty." Some people may argue that locker searches can keep children safe. It "protects them." But how can locker searches protect the children unless they think something's up. If the children act normal and they have a gun in their backpack, then how does this help keep them safe- if no one's suspicious of

If schools didn’t have to ability to perform random searches, those who bring banded objects to school will know that they could just hide it in their lockers without having to worry. Although when random searches are be conducted it will make students think twice about bring such things to school. When students are given a locker, most schools will have the students sign a policy, which will include something notifying that random searches may be conducted. Schools are not conducting the searches to just go through student belongings but to show they are doing them, which they are hoping will deter the students from bring contrabands to school. For the students who still bring things to school, and get caught make an example for others. That if you bring things that don’t belong, eventually you will be caught. Though by doing the searches, schools also hope eventually students will give up trying and just stop bringing things, which will also save everybody

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

In the case New Jersey v. T.L.O., the student’s purse was searched after the principal had reasonable suspicion that she had cigarettes in her purse since she was caught smoking in the bathroom. The court decision in this case concluded that teachers are acting as agents for the state and are therefore allowed to search if they have reasonable suspicion. Students do have the Fourth Amendment right as all people in America have. However, student’s expectation of privacy has to be balanced with the needs of the school to maintain the educational environment. Schools do not have to obtain a warrant to search, but must have reasonable suspicion in order to search a student’s person or property.

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.

A. Rule: The court case of T.L.O. also establishes a more compassionate standard of what they review as a “reasonable suspicion”, in what goes on to determine whether or not the lawfulness of the search was in the school policy or follows district policy too. To lead reasonable suspicion can sum up and equalized,when it leans toward a lessen of any chance of finding evidence of wrongful behavior in a student or individual. Of all the information Wilson acquired from the Faculty and other questionable sources from students, Marissa’s statement of the pills came from Savannah that lead was sufficient in justification of a search upon Savannah’s backpack. In addition the Savannah’s outer clothing. Savannah reasoning could be possibly was reckoning of carrying the tylenol. The disgraceful strip search and seizure that ultimately exposed her private areas to some degree.The content of this belief failed to match the degree of intrusiveness she was getting from the school. Nothing was led to suggested the amount and quantity of the drugs, could appeal to pose a real danger to any of the students or to that of Savannah in carrying pills in her underwear or in bra.School officials are allowed and can search any students belongings and lockers. They are entitled to qualified immunity where it clearly states and establishes as qualified immunity and established

In conclusion, even though there are many different pros and cons about searching school lockers humans today need to search them if need when needed.Although school locker searches can be bad in some legal

There is a serious sociological advantage that comes with the searching of school property. First, these searches will immediately improve the atmosphere of the school, turning it into a drug, alcohol, or weapon free zone. It’s a fact that students perform better in a safe environment and if said hazards are removed from school grounds, there will be a noticeable improvement among students. The removal of these hazards will also improve the community in which the school and students reside in. Say you live in a town like Fargo,

Have you ever felt like it was against your rights to be searched in school, that it is a violation to your fourth amendment, well it's not. According to what the Supreme Court, New Jersey v T.L.O case, school officials can search students if they believe a student has committed a crime or if the student violated a rule or policy. The only thing officials are prohibited from doing is a strip search, they have all the right to search all of your belongings and your person as long as you are on school grounds, there is nothing you can say or do.

The intent of the Fourth Amendment is to guarantee security against unreasonable governmental searches. Because school officials are actually

Now addressing the complete disrespect and breach of privacy when it comes to school lockers. Lockers aren’t ever really safe, it’s true. If wanted/required a security guard can easily unlock your locker at any point in time during a school day. And you might be thinking: “Okay? So what, they’re just kids” well newsflash, kids have rights too. K-12, the upper echelons of the education system sometimes out right accuse these poor students of harboring drugs and other unlawful paraphernalia within their lockers, and takes upon themselves to undergo what they call “a locker search”, or in other words. “Breach of privacy example number 3”.

Ever since the first school shooting, a lot of people have changed their beliefs on this subject. I was in eighth grade when the shooting at Columbine High School took place. Before that shooting, I never would have considered something like that happening. Now, it is seventeen years later and school shootings almost seem like an everyday thing. That is sad, but it is true. This is why I believe a student should not have a high expectation of privacy while at school. The law used to be more lenient, but these circumstances have changed that. Right after Columbine, a lot of states had a zero tolerance law. According to the Center for Public Education site, this law said that if a student was caught with contraband they were given a strict punishment, no matter what the circumstance was. The laws have changed some over the last few years, and are not quite as strict as that. The schools still have to ensure that every student is safe, though. It is common for schools to have metal detectors or bring in dogs on a regular basis. Once they have a reason to suspect a student, they have the right to search their belongings. I believe this is well within their rights as administrators who are trying to protect the school as a whole. I realize that students may feel violated, I have been there. It was always an inconvenience to have to sit outside the hallways while the dogs searched each room. I never felt like it was wrong when they did find something though. So many students would bring large amounts of drugs, guns and knives to school. If it weren’t for the measures that the school took they would just be walking around with these items. I hope these laws never change, and my kids have the same protection that I did. I would hate to imagine my child going to school with guns and drugs within an arm’s reach. I believe the issue of student’s privacy is one that many people can agree with each other on.

Prior to the landmark ruling by the United States Supreme Court, New Jersey v. T.L.O., 469 U.S. 325, 105 S. Ct. 733, 83 L. Ed. 2d 720 (1985), the clarity on how search and seizures applied to students in public schools were unclear. A particular case from 1969 can shed some light regarding on how the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution defines student rights in public schools. In Tinker v. Des Moines, 393 U.S. 503, 89 S. Ct. 733; 21 L. Ed. 2d 731 (1969), the court found that:

Have you ever had a locker in school or maybe one now? If so, then you will understand that you don’t want the school to do random searches of your personal items. Many school boards of education may think that random locker inspections are good for schools, but I disagree. Schools make it so items stay private by giving us lockers, so why do they do search through our personal items that we store away in our lockers. This essay has information on why these searches should come to a stop.

The primary advantage of locker searches is their effectiveness. Finding contraband material such as stolen property, drugs or weapons in a student's locker is an easy way to establish guilt and