Safford Unified School District #1 V. Redding

The District Court dismissed the case, upholding the constitutionality of the school board’s decision to prohibit the students from wearing the armbands. The case later moved onto the US Court of Appeals, where a 4-4 vote upheld the lower court’s decision. They then took their case to the Supreme Court.

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 concurring opinion by Justices O'Connor and Powell was not quite as nice. In Powell's words "I agree with the Court's decision, and generally with its opinion. I would place greater emphasis, however, on the special characteristics of elementary and secondary schools that make it unnecessary to afford students the same constitutional protections granted adults and juveniles in a nonschool setting." This is clearly a detraction from the rest of the justice's opinions and against the nature of the amendment and previous school precedents.

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 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.

In the Supreme Court case “Vernonia School District 47J v. Acton, 1995,” the question before the court was whether or not “...random drug testing of high school athletes violates the reasonable search and seizure clause of the Fourth Amendment.”(“Vernonia School District.” [Oyez]). The case concerned the Fourth Amendment, which protects a person’s right to privacy and protects them from unreasonable searches and seizures. In this case, a seventh-grade student, James Acton, claimed that the situation regarding a mandatory drug test in his school was an unreasonable search. Without doing the test, he was not allowed to join an athletic team. Although the court case changed its name order, the plaintiff in the Supreme Court trial was the Vernonia

I stand before you, in this court, to try and sway the majority decision regarding Safford United School District v. Redding (June 5, 2009). With agreeance of Justice Clarence Thomas, the act of searching Ms. Redding for drugs that violated the school’s policy, was not a direct violation of her fourth amendment right. It is no secret that maintaining order in any school environment can be a challenging task. It is more evident in today’s society school officials must take an even more proactive stance, when it does come down to maintaining order. With the recent surge of violent crimes and drug abuse that plague our schools, officials should have the right to try to prevent these actions from perpetuating into an epidemic.

The official need to get a warrant to do searches of a student personal belongings like cell phone, unless there are urgent situations such as immediate, assumed threat to student safety. For example student caught by the teacher for using the cell phone inside the classroom. Teacher took the cell phone and handover it to principle office, they are supposed to keep it with till evening i.e. end of the day. Principal found that the student has connections with drug suppliers through his history of text messages, then they caught drug supplier and submitted in the court. Court found that the search was illegal and the case was

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 case of Safford Unified School District v. Redding regards a 13 year old student, Savana Redding, who was accused by others of alleged drug dealing (prescription strength ibuprofen & over the counter naproxen) in school. After Redding was confronted by principal, Kerry Wilson, she denied any wrong doing and agreed to let Wilson and school administrator, Helen Romero, search her bag and outer clothing where nothing was found. Nevertheless, Redding was instructed by Wilson to the nurse’s office, and was striped searched by Romero and nurse, Peggy Schwallier. Wilson’s decision to strip search Redding was without reasonable cause (Scotusblog, 2017). The school officials clearly violated Redding’s fourth amendment right by conducting a strip

T.L.O is a 14 year old female who was caught smoking by a teacher. When she was confronted by the teacher, she denied what she was doing. The teacher took her to the administration and they searched her purse. They found money,a pipe, and a paper of names who they suspected owed her money. They also suspected her of smoking marijuana.

The case of Horton v. Goose Creek I.S.D. held that the use of canines to sniff lockers and cars did not constitute a search. This court also ruled, however, that the use of canines to search students must only be done if there is individualized suspicion. Due to many other issues which could complicate the search, such as allergies,

In the scenario, a reasonable purpose for the search is not stated. Without a reasonable purpose personal belongings should not be searched. The search was of a student’s personal

As stated in the textbook, “The Fourth Amendment clearly applies to searches and seizures conducted on the campuses of public colleges and universities” (Ferdico, Fradella, & Totten, 2015). Stating that public university officials must obtain a search warrant before searching student’s dorm rooms. Contrary to private universities where “the Fourth Amendment does not protect students at private colleges and universities from searches conducted by school officials” (Ferdico, Fradella, & Totten, 2015). Although in public universities school officials have freedom to enforce campus disciplinary regulations. However, officials cannot act as a tool of law enforcement.