Public High School Students Have The First Amendment Right Of Free Expression And The Fourth Amendment Protection Against Unreasonable

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.

Should law officials and school staff members be allowed to search students. This is an important topic because many kids are having their privacy violated or getting hurt in school. A variety of arguments have been started because of this issue. This essay will consider arguments about the Fourth Amendment and the problems of people that follow and do not follow this law. Proving that searching kids can either be a good or bad.

T.L.O, (1999), the cases of Terry v. Ohio, Hudson v. Palmer, and Rawlings v. Kentucky examined that a search of a person is an invasion of privacy especially when searches are conduced on closed items. However, the Fourth Amendment commands that searches and seizures be reasonable, and what is reasonable depends on the situation in which the search takes place. Regardless of the child’s privacy, it is the administrators and teachers jobs to maintain discipline within schools. Several cases such as, Terry v. Ohio, United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, Delaware v. Prouse, United States v. Martinez-Fuerte, and Camara v. Municipal Court, that recognized the legality of searches and seizures based on reasonable suspicion and not probable cause. Therefore, the Court decided that the legality of a search of a student should depend simply on the reasonableness of the search and “justified at its inception” (“New Jersey v. T.L.O,”

The court decided that the facts do not simply support the conclusion that the School District could have forecasted a substantial disruption of or material interference with the school as a result of J.S.'s, the perpetrator, profile. Under Tinker, therefore, the School District violated J.S.’s First Amendment free speech rights when they suspended her for creating the profile.

v. Berkeley County Schools (Document C). K.K., who formed a discussion group online that accused a classmate of being sexually promiscuous and was joined by more than 20 other classmates, was suspended from school for 10 days and issued a 90-day “social suspension.” On July 27, 2011, the US Court of Appeals ruled that the punishment was just, stating that the “[connection] of K.K’s speech to [the high school’s teaching] interests was sufficiently strong,” and that school officials are “trustees of the student body’s well-being.” When a speech disrupts the interests of the school – that is, teaching and protecting its students, it is then not protected by the First Amendment, and schools should punish its speaker. Even though the speech was off-campus, the sufficient connection of the speech to the interests of the school means that the school has the right to punish the

Some schools have used their authorities to discipline students and teachers over things they posted on the internet from the privacy of their homes and on their private time. In America, students are not supposed to lose their constitutional rights “at the schoolhouse gate.” The protection of students’ rights to free speech and privacy in and out of school is essential for ensuring that schools provide both valuable education and training in our democratic values. Unfortunately, schools continue to demonstrate a troubling willingness to cut back on students’ rights. In recent years, educators have repeatedly disciplined students for speech critical of teachers and administrators.

“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).

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.

The First Amendment gives the citizens of the United States their most important rights: the right to freedom of speech, freedom of press, freedom of religion, and the freedom of assembly. Over time these rights have worked themselves into the everyday lives of United States citizens. However, there are still places where our First Amendment rights may be compromised. In the school system, finding a balance of respect and freedom of speech and press is as difficult as learning out to tightrope walk. One wrong step and you could be compromising the learning environment of the entire student body.

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.

Facts: In a New Jersey high school, two freshman girls were caught smoking in a bathroom. When taken to the Assistant Vice Principal, the first student admitted to smoking while the second, designated T.L.O due to her age, denied smoking in a restricted area. The VP proceeded to take student into his private office and searched her purse and discovered a pack of cigarettes. However, as he was searching, he also identified a stack of rolling papers, which led to a more thorough search of the purse which produced a small amount of marijuana, a pipe, a number of empty plastic bags, a significant amount of money, as wells an index card with names of various people who owed T.L.O money. This evidence implicated that the student was dealing, and T.L.O admitted to selling marijuana. The authorities were called and T.L.O was arrested.

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

should be punished for breaking the law and school rules. The school needs to maintain its authority over students; search and seizure is part of maintaining order.

Students don't have the same First Amendment rights they have in the public compared to school. Four major cases were brought to the Supreme Court concerning students' First Amendment, Tinker , Fraser, Hazelwood, and Morse. The First Amendment states that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.” Only one ruled in favor of the student that being the first one, Tinker which set the stage for the rest. Students' First Amendment rights have changed since Tinker expanded upon students' right to being constricted because

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: