Savana Redding Case

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 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

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.

Arizona case has created a more strict interpretation of the Fifth Amendment when it comes to the police enforcement and their work in the interrogations on individuals. Police now take more into consideration and follow the following three steps when they apprehend someone and want to question them,

Moreover, the school should have been justified for the search because, the school is not only responsible for Savannah, and Marisa but, the other who attended the school as well. With that being said, principle Wilson had probable cause to take the action in the manner in which he did. Principle Wilson has to maintain safety and security for all staff and students.

One day in New Jersey, 1985, a teacher smelled smoke emitting from a school girls’ bathroom. After finding two girls smoking in the bathroom, the teacher brought the students to the principal’s office to decide the punishment. One girl admitted to smoking in the bathroom, but the other girl denied ever smoking on school premises. Since the second girl was a minor, she was referred to as T.L.O. (her initials) to keep her identity secret. The principal, skeptical of T.L.O., ordered to search her purse, and found evidence that T.L.O. was in possession of illegal drugs. The principal found cigarette rolling papers, a small amount of marijuana, a pipe, and several plastic bags. These findings led the principal to believe that T.L.O. was selling illegal substances to students on school premises. The school immediately took T.L.O. to the police and notified her parents about the circumstances. Only at police headquarters did

The Essential Question surrounding this case is, “May school administrators search a student or their belongings absent of probable cause?”

On September 8, 2015, I was assigned this case to follow up. This case involved Mr. Oswaldo Javier Flores a fifteen year old Francis Hammond Middle School student. I contacted Milagro Estela Flores (mother) and asked her permission to speak to her son at school. Mrs. Flores gave her permission to speak to her son. Mrs. Flores expressed her frustration as Oswaldo refuses to follow rules at home and has been caught with marijuana in the past.

In the trial, “State of New York V. New York” we found the defendant not guilty. There were many reasons why this was our verdict. Kris Weaver, a teacher at the school did not attend the training made to help teachers identify the symptoms of being high. Sandy Swanson, a guidance counselor at the identified the search as violation to the school locker policy. These reasons helped us classify the defendant not guilty.

In March 1985, a school official at a High School in Middlesex County, N. J., found underage T. L. O and friend smoking in a restroom in the freshman/sophomore building of the school. Smoking is prohibited in this particular area. On the grounds that this action violated a school rule, the teacher brought the girls to the principal's office. Here they were introduced to Assistant Principal, Theodore Choplick. When questioned by Choplick T. L. O.’s co-inhabitant admitted to smoking and to breaking the school rule. T. L. O. however would not admit that she was smoking and denied she even smoked at all. Mr. Choplick, asked T. L. O. to follow him into his office where he required T. L. O to hand him her purse. When he opened the purse, he immediately noticed a pack of cigarettes. When he grabbed the cigarettes, Mr. Choplick saw some rolling papers as well. Knowing from experience that rolling papers in a high school setting, may mean drug use, and in turn additional violations of school rules, Mr. Choplick decided to continue his search. Upon further investigation, Mr Choplick’s extensive

Pursuant to Rule 56(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Defendant Jordan School District (“the District”) hereby moves for an order granting summary judgment regarding Plaintiff Susan Clark’s (“Clark”) claim she was illegally searched in violation of her Fourth Amendment rights. This court is authorized to grant summary judgment where “there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). Summary judgment in favor of the District is appropriate in this case. First, there is no dispute of material facts as demonstrated in Section II of this memorandum. Second, Fourth Amendment cases may be decided as a matter of law. 19 Solid Waste Dep 't Mechs. v. City of Albuquerque, 156 F.3d 1068, 1071 (10th Cir. 1998). Third, the evidence requires a rational trier of fact to find for the District as supported in the argument below.

We affirm. Resolved: In United States public K-12 schools, the probable cause standard ought to apply to searches of students. If we prove that it is unsafe for students to learn in an environment where they can be subject to search at any time, we win.

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

In regards to the recent incident that involved student, K. Harris, bellow are details that lead to his arrest of drug possession on school property:

Upon arrival I contacted the school social worker, Monica Cervantes, who advised me she was concerned for the safety of 12 y/o Carter Lopez, who had disclosed to her that he was afraid of his father, Manuel Lopez. Cervantes advised me the teacher had called Manuel to inform him Carter had failed an exam. Manuel then requested Carter be sent to the office so he could pick him up. Carter told Cervantes he was afraid because he believed Manuel would be mad at him and hit him or call him names as he’s done in the past. Cervantes further added Carter had reported Marijuana and alcohol use by Manuel. Cervantes provided me with Carter’s information sheet, which was attached to this report. Cervantes also informed me his current and previous teacher