Stop Illegal Searches in Schools

There are lots of different situations where students of a public school are deprived of their right of free expression given in the fourth amendment. One example of this is the case of Engel vs Vitale. This court case took place in 1962 when a parent of a child sued because of a New York State law that required students to recite a nondenominational prayer every morning, "Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon Thee, and beg Thy blessings upon us, our teachers, and our country”. This law goes against the Establishment of Religion clause of the fourth amendment. Another violation of The Bill of Rights is the Tinker v. Des Moines case. This case took place in 1969 when two students, MaryBeth Tinker, and her brother wore black armbands to protest the Vietnam war. However, the result of this action, according to the article, Supreme Court Landmarks from the United States Courts, “ Fearing a disruption, the

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.

I did a survey and 50% of my class said that teachers shouldn’t search kids lockers and the other 50% said that they should be able to search them. I asked them why? Most of my classmates said that they should because they might have drugs or weapons, and i agree with that, but what if they had had a valid reason for the drugs or weapon. Example: A kid is walking and a guy walks up to him and tells him to bring him weed or he will hurt him. Then the next day he brings weapon because he's scared and the teachers search his locker and he gets in

Although some say armed police officers in schools may be a danger to all, armed police officers should be present in schools because their presence alone can give a sense of safety. Having armed police officers on campus can deter bad situations from happening. They can also have an impact of the number of school shootings that occur. They can also help with situations that may occur with students that may have conflict with other students that a teacher or staff member may not be able to handle. In this era that we live in having armed officers in schools is a way to insure the safety of students.

In the case of Vernonia v. Acton the fourth amendment is involved. The fourth amendment states that all people should be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures. The Vernonia School District found that student athletes were participating in drug use after an official investigation, because of this they began requiring random drug testing for the students to participate in school sports. A student at the school, James Acton, and his parents did not consent to the random testing so he was not allowed to participate in football. Because he was not allowed, it was questioned if random drug testing of the student athletes violated the reasonable search and seizure clause of the fourth amendment.

The case was argued to the U.S. Supreme Court on March 28, 1995. The court noted that the Fourth Amendment, which forbids unreasonable searches and seizures, was extended via the Fourteenth Amendment to cover searches and seizures by state officers, including those at public schools. Since the collection and testing of urine under the school policy was a search and thus subject to the Fourth Amendment, the Court decided a reasonableness test would be required. As a result, the court stated that while school officials are technically agents of the state, because of their custodial relationship with their students, the school faculty have authority to act in-loco-parentis to make sure the children they are responsible for are kept safe. The court

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. 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

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

The Fourth Amendment defends people from being neglected by an authoritative and controlling government. Conflicting to popular belief, the right to privacy is not specifically mentioned in the U.S. Constitution. Over the years, the courts have translated the Fourth Amendment, along with other Amendments such as the ninth, to protect privacy in many situations. In question, is there a limitation for those rights to be exercised at school? Is a student protected from unreasonable searches and seizures at school? New Jersey v. T.L.O., (1985), a case where a 14-year old girl female student caught smoking in the bathroom at school was searched at school, and the evidence collected was used by the state in her delinquency trial in juvenile court.

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

Is there recovery for damages against police and prosecuting attorney for the irreplaceable destruction of religious artifacts during an illegal search on tribal property?

Ever since the first school shooting, a lot of people have changed their beliefs on this subject. I was in eighth grade when the shooting at Columbine High School took place. Before that shooting, I never would have considered something like that happening. Now, it is seventeen years later and school shootings almost seem like an everyday thing. That is sad, but it is true. This is why I believe a student should not have a high expectation of privacy while at school. The law used to be more lenient, but these circumstances have changed that. Right after Columbine, a lot of states had a zero tolerance law. According to the Center for Public Education site, this law said that if a student was caught with contraband they were given a strict punishment, no matter what the circumstance was. The laws have changed some over the last few years, and are not quite as strict as that. The schools still have to ensure that every student is safe, though. It is common for schools to have metal detectors or bring in dogs on a regular basis. Once they have a reason to suspect a student, they have the right to search their belongings. I believe this is well within their rights as administrators who are trying to protect the school as a whole. I realize that students may feel violated, I have been there. It was always an inconvenience to have to sit outside the hallways while the dogs searched each room. I never felt like it was wrong when they did find something though. So many students would bring large amounts of drugs, guns and knives to school. If it weren’t for the measures that the school took they would just be walking around with these items. I hope these laws never change, and my kids have the same protection that I did. I would hate to imagine my child going to school with guns and drugs within an arm’s reach. I believe the issue of student’s privacy is one that many people can agree with each other on.

In recent events the United States of America has been in a constant state of flux. It seemsas if the entire nation has lost its mind and has no inclination as to where it should begin looking to find it. The nation has turned into a group of cry baby liberals who doesn’t know whether to riot in the streets because it doesn’t like the way that the police has to do their jobs or whether to protest over the right to invade the privacy of young girls in public restrooms. This is exactly the two main topics I want to discuss the current invasion of privacy issue dealing with public restrooms and public outcry over police actions.To start with the most complex and understandable issue the police. The police have for decades been a point of controversy

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: