Assignment 2 Student Freedoms Annette Lester Professor, Dr. Sonya S Shepherd Education and The Law July 29, 2012 Your Belongings Can Be Searched, But Not Arbitrarily When a student is under school supervision it is not required for school officials to obtain a search warrant before searching a student and no police have to be involve either for the search or seizure of a student or property. When safety is involve of the student or personnel it is the duty of the school to search a student. A warrant may protect the student and staff but as long as the school officials conduct themselves in a manner viewed reasonable, they don’t have to prove probably causes before searching a student. Searches can be justified if an …show more content…
A search must be reasonable at its inception, i. e., there must be "reasonable grounds for suspecting that the search will turn up evidence that the student has violated or is violating either the law or the rules of the school. School searches must also be reasonably related in scope to the circumstances justifying the interference, and "not excessively intrusive in light of the age and sex of the student and the nature of the infraction. In applying these rules, the Court upheld as reasonable the search of a student's purse to determine whether the student, accused of violating a school rule by smoking in the lavatory, possessed cigarettes. The search for cigarettes uncovered evidence of drug activity held admissible in a prosecution under the juvenile law. General searches of students in the absence of reasonable suspicion generally are vulnerable to legal challenge. However, based on a lower expectation of privacy, the legal barrier is lower for searches of lockers and desks, the use of metal detectors and depending on their placement, surveillance cameras in schools and now on school buses. Metal detector searches are clearly permissible security measures. Although individualized suspicion in normally required for a search, general searches are permissible where the search is minimally intrusive and the individual has a lower reasonable expectation of
Such actions that may violate a student’s constitutional rights as a citizen would be an administrator or school law enforcement searching a student or their personal belongings for unjustified reasons while in school. The boundaries of the fourth amendment are very complicated when dealing with the rights of students being that the school systems have
In today's school system, there have been uproars about the student's privacy and safety at the schoolhouse. Some parents feel that their child's safety is more important because of the rules that the school has set forth to maintain a safe environment. Others feel that their child's privacy should be taken seriously because they should be treated more like an adult. In recent news, there has been concerns about the student's safety that cause some to get injured or killed; while, student's privacy has cause the police to get involved. The school system should be concerned as well as, aware about the student’s privacy and safety at their prospective school.
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).
With the use of proper search and seizure guidelines, schools are allowed to search students lockers without a warrant. Lockers and backpacks are subject to search with reasonable suspicion. To search a locker, a school staff member or police officer would have to have reasonable suspicion, probable cause, and student consent in some cases (Ehlenberger). For reasonable suspicion to occur, “ the search would be justified at its inception, meaning that there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that the search will reveal evidence that the student has violated or is violating the law or school rules, and the search is reasonably related in scope to the circumstances that justified the search, meaning that the measures used to conduct the search are reasonably related to the objectives of the search and that the search is not excessively intrusive in light of the student 's age and sex and the nature of the offense” (Ehlenberger). Probable cause to search is when” "known facts and circumstances are sufficient to warrant a man of reasonable prudence in the belief that contraband will be found" (Ornelas v. United States, 1996, at 696)”
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
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
Although there are many, loving and caring students all around the world.Many students in school could have firearms and drugs on school grounds at anytime around during school hours and after. There are also bad things about searching there lockers you could maybe go through their privacy and personal belongings.
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
There is a serious sociological advantage that comes with the searching of school property. First, these searches will immediately improve the atmosphere of the school, turning it into a drug, alcohol, or weapon free zone. It’s a fact that students perform better in a safe environment and if said hazards are removed from school grounds, there will be a noticeable improvement among students. The removal of these hazards will also improve the community in which the school and students reside in. Say you live in a town like Fargo,
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
1. Reasonable cause to believe the student violated a school rule or broke a law
The intent of the Fourth Amendment is to guarantee security against unreasonable governmental searches. Because school officials are actually
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.
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: