Legal Memorandum Essay

Many years ago, the United States Constitution was created as a guideline for the newly formed government to run this country as well as secure protection rights of all citizens. Since then, there have been many incidents that question the violation of citizens’ rights under the Constitution, such as the violation of the fourth amendment which protects citizens from unreasonable searches and seizures especially in the school system and on college campuses. The fourth amendment states, “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized” (O’Brien, 2014). As this pertains to those citizens who are students, whether it be in the primary, secondary, or post-secondary setting, the question that unveils itself is whether or not students are entitled to their constitutional rights, in this case, the fourth amendment’s rights, while in the school environment.

The Fourth amendment of the bill of rights prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures any warrant to be judicially sanction and to support to probable cause.

The Fourth Amendment to the constitution protects United States citizens from unreasonable searches and seizures. Our forefathers recognized the harm and abuses that occurred in the colonies to innocent people by the British, and they made sure to write protections into the U.S. Constitution. Fearing the police state that any nation has the potential to become and recognizing that freedom and liberty is meaningless when victimization by the police is a real and foreboding threat the Fourth Amendment was created. The Fourth Amendment has gone through many challenges and controversies in the past, and currently the issue of how the Fourth Amendment applies to students in public schools has come to be contended in the courts. While it is

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.

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.

On account of lockers being the school’s property it is legal for them to search them at any time under the right circumstances.

“Ultimately, the Supreme Court held 6-3 that the school’s search of T.L.O.’s purse was constitutional.” (Lannacci 2016). This essay will briefly examine the up till today open question that can never really be given a definite answer until applied in each case- “the applicability of the exclusionary rule in juvenile delinquency or criminal proceedings when the evidence has been seized in a school, by a school official, in violation of the Fourth Amendment.” (Stoddard 2011).

Citizens in America are born with a various amount of rights. One of these rights include the freedom of speech and expression. However, school administrators have the ability to restrict a student’s expression. The Supreme Court Cases ‘Bethel School District v. Fraser’ and ‘Frederick V. Morse’ gave schools the right for the administrators to discipline children when they see fit. Students should be able to express themselves in any way without fearing that their school administrators will discipline

The case was argued to the U.S. Supreme Court on March 28, 1995. The court noted that the Fourth Amendment, which forbids unreasonable searches and seizures, was extended via the Fourteenth Amendment to cover searches and seizures by state officers, including those at public schools. Since the collection and testing of urine under the school policy was a search and thus subject to the Fourth Amendment, the Court decided a reasonableness test would be required. As a result, the court stated that while school officials are technically agents of the state, because of their custodial relationship with their students, the school faculty have authority to act in-loco-parentis to make sure the children they are responsible for are kept safe. The court

To avoid disturbance and disruption and to create and maintain a safe learning environment, public schools often adopt policies that forbid certain acts on the part of students. Included in many of these policies are prohibitions on hate speech. The opinion of the court in Tinker v. Des Moines (1969) broadly stated that students retain their first amendment rights when they enter the school, but the breadth of that statement is not without limit. Schools may narrowly curtail free speech rights to the extent necessary to maintain good

In writing the majority opinion, Chief Justice Roberts took note that the Tinker v. Des Moines (1969) ruling decided that students do not "shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate." However, the Chief Justice also relied upon the precedent set forth in Bethel v. Fraser, 478 U.S. 675, 682 (1986) which explained how "the constitutional rights of students at public school are not automatically, coextensive with the rights of adults." Additionally, the rights of students are applied "in light of the special characteristics of the school environment," according to the U.S. Supreme Court in Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, 484 U.S. 260, 266 (1988). The special circumstances in Morse v. Frederick were first that the school has a policy that specifically forbids advocating illegal drug use due to the risks it imposes on other students, and second that principal Morse was forced to decide in the moment whether or not she should act.

Justice Thomas had a dissenting opinion and stated that the fourth amendment right does protect us against unreasonable search and seizures (as did most of the judges). But it is the context of were it takes place he says students have the fourth amendment right just not on school property. The reason is the responsibility the school and the officials have is to ensure the safety of the students. Thomas concurred in the

To fully understand the role and related responsibilities of search and seizure in the public schools, the Constitutional rights of the students and case law must be examined.

“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable search and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things seized.”

Slowly pushing students to become addicts, drug testing high school student athletes may or may not be to blame. In Facts & Statistics on Random Drug Testing of High School Students, Dr. M.H. Davis stated, “In the early 1990s, many school districts began to look into drug testing as a way to curb student drug use, which led to two U.S. Supreme Court cases involving student privacy. The court upheld the constitutionality of drug testing student athletes in 1995, and in 2002, the court expanded high school drug testing policies to include all students who participate in a competitive extracurricular activity. In those rulings, the court stated deterring student drug use was more important than privacy” (Davis). Drug testing high school athletes