Maintaining A Safe Environment At School

Savana sued her school district, claiming unreasonable search and seizure, and her case went all the way to the Supreme Court(Amy E. Feldman).”School Officers claimed that Ms.Redding was holding Ibuprofen on school grounds. She was called to the office following another student who confessed that she was receiving pills from Ms.Redding. Another student’s confession is not reliable enough for a search or a seizure. The student who was called down has had previous records of drug usage, therefore the probability of her telling a lie was very high at this point.”In the case of Safford Unified School District v. Redding—25 years after the T.L.O. case—the Supreme Court found that Savana’s rights had, in fact, been violated and stated that a search by a school must not be "excessively intrusive in light of the age and sex of the student and the nature of the infraction.(Amy E. Feldman).” The officers at the school claimed Ms.Reddings to be possessing IBuprofen.A probable cause would be to search her purse or backpack, which was the initial search. Nevertheless, subsequently, the school nurse checked her body from her head to her toe, till the only thing covering her, was her underwear.After finding

In Safford Arizona school on October 8th, officials strip-searched a 13-year-old girl after they received information from another student that the girl possessed "prescription strength" 400 mg ibuprofen and 200mg naproxen. While attending math, assistant principle Kerry Wilson entered the classroom and instructed Savanna Redding's to his office. Upon entering, she immediately noticed her planner placed on his desk. However, what she didn't recognize was the knife, cigarette and lighter that was contained inside it. Admitting the planner was hers, she explained to the assistant principle that she had lent the planner prior to her classmate, Marissa and had NO knowledge of what

By now, four years had passed since the issue had first started. In the end, the court had ruled six to three in favor of the district. The court answered the question of whether or not the student athletes’ Fourth Amendment rights were violated with a strong no. The court claimed that student athletes already subject themselves to more exposure than most other students, and that these drug tests had just as much of a reasonable cause behind them as a vaccine requirement or scoliosis check done in-school. Moreover, the court also stated that the results would only be shared with limited personal, which made the tests arguably more private than what athletes were exposing in their open locker rooms. In their opinion, stated by Antonin Scalia, “We find that the privacy...by the process of obtaining the urine samples (is) negligible, since samples are collected under conditions nearly identical to those routinely encountered in public restrooms. Furthermore, the test looks only for standard drugs not private medical conditions and the results of the test are released only to a limited group of school officials who have a need to know the information. The nature and the immediacy of the government's interest and the efficacy of this means for meeting it, also contribute to our conclusion that the policy is reasonable. The importance of deterring drug use by public school children

People generally think that it is wrong to go through someone else’s stuff without their permission. This usually continues when you are in high school and the school administrator goes through your purse. This is what happened for T.L.O. when she was a freshman caught smoking marijuana in the bathroom and the vice principle thought that it was okay to look through her purse for proof of what she had done. They both obviously did something that was going to be seen as wrong to different people. Today we will discuss how the T.L.O. V. New Jersey court case was created, the steps that it went through and the final decision and how it still impacts lives today. The T.L.O. court case made an impact on schools especially students and their administrators.

In the case of New Jersey VS TLO, a high school student was held for violating school rules, with possession of smoking and having other illegal belongings on school campus property, and with an argued statement about violating her fourth amendment rights against unreasonable searches. Two Piscataway Township high school freshmen girls were smoking cigarettes in the bathroom, where they were caught by a teacher who had seen them. The teacher walked up with the two girls to the principals office, in which they met with the assistant vice principal. They were both questioned individually about violating a school rule by smoking in the bathroom. One of the girls admitted to smoking, whom surely was disciplined under school

In response to the issues, the school district made an effort to quell the issue by inviting speakers, and several different presentations to limit the drug use of students help the comprehend it’s dangers and negative impacts. However, this did not stop the problem. To solve this issue, a policy of drug testing had been adopted. One student in particular, James Acton-- had refused to participate in these random testing. Upon his refusal, he was then denied participation in his school’s American Football Program. After this case was taken to the Supreme Court, an argument for James Acton was that the random drug testing policy violated the clauses in the 4th amendment that protected for unreasonable searching. The Supreme Court decided that the search was in fact reasonable due to the schools attempt to quell the issue of drug use and keep students safe. The majority opinion stated that the search was reasonable. There was hard evidence that there was definitely a drug problem in the school. To quote an excerpt from acclaimed author Johnson Scott F “Fourth Amendment rights, no less than First and Fourteenth Amendment rights, are different in public schools than elsewhere; the "reasonableness" inquiry cannot disregard the schools ' custodial and tutelary responsibility for children. For their own good and that of their classmates, public school children are routinely required to submit to various physical examinations and to be vaccinated

T.L.O. and The New Jersey State School system.T.L.O.was found in the lavatory smoking by a teacher and was brought to the Vice Principal's office. The vice principal searched her purse and found illegal substances and turned them into the legal authority after contacting them and her mother. The student claimed that it goes against the fourth amendment because it was an illegal search and seizure. Their dispute was whether the school had the right to search and take illegal substances found when they do search the students.The case got to the supreme court by appeals through the lower court systems because it dealt with the interpretation of the fourth amendment.

Drug Searches are recently being questioned by students, teachers, parents, and administrators. The use of Dogs sniffing out drugs, in schools across America. Questions rise through the cracks asking if it is a violation of American rights. The fourth amendment guarantees “the right of the people to secure to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures (Ehlenberger, 31-35).” Administration has no justifiable reason to conduct random searches, thus breaking the fourth amendment. A myriad of court cases has concluded that there are questions about what constitutes reasonable suspicion. Cases brought to court, for example, two students told a teacher about another student will be bringing

The Court ruled that it did not violate students' federal or state constitutional rights to be free from unreasonable searches. The Court reasoned that the state, as schoolmaster of children, must exercise a degree of supervision and control greater than it could exercise over adults. They also said that public school children have lesser privacy expectations with regard to medical examinations and procedures than the general population, and student athletes have even less legitimate privacy expectation. The school district had immediate and legitimate concern in preventing student athletes from using drugs.

They cited the Vernonia School District 47J v. Action case , where the Supreme Court ruled that suspicionless drug testing of student athletes was constitutional , the federal district court supported the policy, granting the board’s motion for summary judgment. The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals , however, they agreed in favour of Earls and James , deciding that the policy did violate the Fourth Amendment . They found that schools “must demonstrate that there is some identifiable drug abuse problem among a reasonable number of those subject to the testing , such that testing a group of students will actually solve their drug problem.” The Tenth Circuit agreed that the school district had failed to meet this requirement. Then the Court agreed that the policy should be kept confidential . Then the Court came to the agreement that the student’s privacy was not important

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

Many high schools across the country have brought much attention to the idea of giving random drug tests to students in high school. The newfound interest in student drug testing may be as a result of recent polls, which have shown an increase in drug use among high school students. Many teachers, parents, and members of school comities are for the drug testing, while most students and some parents feel that this would be a violation of students rights as Americans, which is true.

Urine lab positives 1988-highest 13% 2006-4% 2014-4% 3x more people admit to illegal drugs than test positive 10 to 20 percent of us workers involved in fatal on the job accidents tested positive for illicit drug and alcohol james willis was suspended on december 1997 he had fought with another student when james refuses to provide urine for a drug test he was suspended again. Evidence led to a student arrest on marijuana a charge the pennsylvania supreme court said that locker searches were lawful kids caom high all the time to school do you think it's fair for the students who work hard in school. People should stop drug abuse parents who think their kids won't ever do drugs will try it at least once

There is an arising problem in school communities; The problem is increasing student drug abuse. In order to combat these rising statistics, drug testing is being implemented, however, some may argue that this invades the students’ privacy. Drug testing in schools are completely randomized, where students are picked at random and given a urine test. The urine test tell whether there are any drugs such as marijuana, cocaine, amphetamines, or opioids, are in the student's system. Those in favor of drug testing, believe that it will dissuade students from doing drugs by giving students a reason to fear doing them. The consequences of getting caught scare kids so they won’t do drugs. However, some believe that random drug tests infringe upon student rights and cause more harm than good, and dissuading kids from interacting in extracurricular activities why?

Some students believe that random drug testing is against their right to privacy; thus leading students to feel violated when they are asked to urinate on command in the presence of another person (Evans 452; Russell 168). Even more concerns are evident with student’s relationships with their teachers and school officials when they feel like they have to be drug tested (Russell 169). Most students could be embarrassed to give a drug test at school if a school faculty member administers the test. Parents and teachers should be able to trust their students (Barrington 51). The students in public high schools should feel like they can talk to their teachers about their issues at home, in relationships, and in friendships. In the modern world not all students can trust their elders; students have lost respect for their elders and teachers. Today’s society compared to 100 years ago is like night and day (Barrington 50).