Police Conduct A Search And Seizure At A Public School Initiated By School Officials

In the first trial she was given, the prosecution did not provide the search warrant that was used. The prosecution also failed to state why the warrant was not submitted, In fact the prosecution avoided the subject almost entirely. There was a reasonable belief that there was never a search warrant made in the first place, However the courts convicted her guilty anyways, on the grounds that she had broken the law whether the evidence was legally seized or illegally seized. The court also determined that the evidence had not been taken from the defendant’s person by use of brutal force against the defendant. They also stated that there was no law in the state of Ohio that prevented the use of illegally seized evidence, which was also stated in wolf v Colorado, In which the court held that in a prosecution in a state for a state crime the fourteenth amendment doesn’t prevent the use of evidence obtained by an illegal search and seizure. She was then sentenced to a women’s reformatory for a year, where she began to make her appeal to the Supreme Court.

(Horwitz,2). Now 547 tribes have to wait around to be able to protect those around them. “Can you imagine responding to call where there is clear evidence of a crime committed by an individual and you cannot arrest them? I think the community felt cheated,” Michael Valenzuela, the police chief of the Pascua Yaqui Tribe (Culp-Ressler,1). The quote shows how hopeless those who would normally have power to help can not, and though Native Americans are suppose to have sovereignty it seems to not be a true sovereign nation. If it is a claimed sovereign nation, then congress has to let them deal with all issues on tribal land no matter what the race and right now that is not happening. Once it does, maybe they can be better off and not have to worry as much.

" These lands were taken away barely 50 years after they were assessed. The United States government played a cruel game when it relocated its Indian population (some could argue this as survival of the fittest, evolution). They turned a blind and mostly bias eye when it came to Indian politics and treaties they had made twenty years prior. They made promised that were going to be broken, and which there were no way of avoiding. In short, the government in a way did the same thing to the Indians that Jackson did to the Bank:

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.

A warrant is not needed for school officials to search a student who is under their authority. New Jersey v. TLO, 469 U.S. 325 (1985).

As time went on and European and eventually American influence spread across the country, Tribes began to feel their sovereignty threatned as they could no longer deal with wrongdoers on their land the same way they did in the past. The Federal Government began intrude onto Indian Land. In 1817 the U.S passed the General Crimes Act1, whcih gave the Federal Government jurisdiction in Indian Country when a crime was commited if either the victim or derfendent was a non-Native. Then, in 1885, the U.S passed the Major Crimes Act2 which gave the Federal Government jurisdiction in Indian Country over major crimes, such as murder, when the defendent was a Native.

The Native Americans have faced tremendous discrimination in the early 1900s, and with the enactment of the Indian Termination policies in the 1940s-1950s, the coercion grew stronger (CITE). However, as the beat downs increased, so did the resistance.

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

There are two legal terms “search” and “seizure”. The legal term search means to examine another's premises to look for evidence of criminal activity. Under the 4th and 14th Amendments it is unconstitutional for law enforcement officers to conduct a search without a "search warrant" issued by a judge or without facts which give the officer "probable cause" to believe evidence of a specific crime is on the premises if there is not enough time to obtain a search warrant. The legal term seizure means the taking by law enforcement officers of potential evidence in a criminal case. The constitutional limitations on seizure are the same as for search. Thus, evidence

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

“What the Removal Bill did not do was as significant as what it did. It did not define precisely the constitutional rights of any tribe that had been removed. It did not make mandatory the allocation of funds for tribal assistance if Congress wanted the money for anything else. It specified no machinery for carrying out the removal. Also, it made no mention that in 1828 gold had been discovered on Cherokee land at Dahlonega, Georgia, and it drew no lines between state or federal rights” (Jahoda 41).

Just like other Indian kids on reservation, Crow Dog’s childhood was poor in everyway; didn’t have enough food, clothes, education, and parents’ love. She was

The Fourth Amendment has two basic premises. One focuses on the reasonableness of a search and seizure, and the other on warrants. One view is that the two are distinct, while another view is that the second helps explain the first. However, which interpretation is correct is unclear. In addition, law enforcement today differs sharply from the period in which the Constitution 's framers lived. During that period, no organized police forces existed that were even remotely like those of today. In contrast, today 's law enforcement officials seem to have broad authority to search and seize. These powers are not generally subject to either statutory or regulatory control, and common law limitations are generally ill defined and

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

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: