Unreasonable Searches In Public Schools

This paper will discuss the various ethical dilemmas facing school resource officers (SRO). This will include problems with 4th amendment protections of students, interviews and interrogations of juveniles, as well as, privacy issues expected by students and faculty. Other issues to be will also address two sociological theories, the Self Efficacy and the Modeling theory. I will also discuss how school discipline is being reclassified in to criminal behavior resulting in many children being classified as criminals due to minor behavior problems. Finally this paper will discuss the SROs role, should it be public servant, or crime fighter.

The Fourth Amendment is the first line protection against the government and their officials from violating our privacy. The Fourth Amendment provides safeguards to individuals during searches and detentions, and prevents unlawfully seized items from being used as evidence in criminal cases. The degree of protection available in a particular case depends on the nature of the detention or arrest, the characteristics of the place searched, and the circumstances under which the search takes place. This Amendment protects us in the following situations such as being questioned while walking down the street, being pulled over while driving, entering individual’s homes for arrest and searching of evidence while there. In most scenarios, police officer may not search or seize an individual or his or her property unless the officer has a valid search warrant, a valid arrest warrant, or a belief rising to the

Search and seizure is a vital and controversial part of criminal justice, from the streets to the police station to court. It is guided by the Fourth Amendment, which states that people have the right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure of their bodies, homes, papers, and possessions and that warrants describing what and where will be searched and/or seized are required to be able to search the above things (“Fourth Amendment,” n.d.). Interpretations of the Fourth Amendment by the U.S. Supreme Court and the establishment of case law by many state and federal courts have expanded upon the circumstances under which search and seizure is legal. Several doctrines and exceptions have also emerged from the Supreme Court and other case law that guide law enforcement officers on the job and aid lawyers in court.

There have been recent surveys taken by School Recourse officers. Just over fifty-five percent of officers are responsible for only one school, another seventeen percent for two schools, and five percent for three or four schools. Thirty-eight percent of the officers are assigned to cover high schools; twenty-three percent cover middle schools, three percent cover elementary schools, and thirty-six percent cover combinations of schools. Seventy-nine percent of officers are working in open-ended assignments with nine percent working in schools as

The Fourth amendment of the bill of rights prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures any warrant to be judicially sanction and to support to probable cause.

The Fourth Amendment protects citizens from unreasonable search and seizures. (People v. Williams 20 Cal.4th 125.) A defendant may move to suppress as evidence any tangible or intangible thing obtained as a result of an unreasonable search and seizure without a warrant. (Penal Code §1538.5(a)(1)(A).) Warrantless searches and seizures are presumptively unreasonable. (Williams, supra, 20 Cal.4th 119; see also Minnesota v. Dickerson (1993) 508 U.S. 366 (stating searches and seizures conducted outside the judicial process are per se unreasonable unless subject to an established exception).) While the defendant has the initial burden of raising the warrantless search issue before the court, this burden is satisfied when the defendant asserts the absence of a warrant and makes a prima facie case in support. (Williams, supra, 20 Cal.4th 130.) Accordingly, when the prosecution seeks to introduce evidence seized during a warrantless search, they also bear the burden in showing that an exception to the warrant applies. (Mincey v. Arizona (1978) 98 S.Ct. 2408; see also People v. James (1977) 19 Cal.3d 99.) Evidence obtained as a result of an unlawful search and seizure is considered “fruit of the poisonous tree” and should be suppressed. (Wong Sun v. United States (1963) 371 U.S. 471; see also Minnesota v. Dickerson (1993) 508 U.S. 372 (stating unreasonable searches are invalid under Terry and should be suppressed).)

Some argue that having armed officers can be intimidating to students. Also that they can create a tense environment. That they may also abuse their authority. Students must be made aware of why the officers are present. Although it can be scary to a student to see an armed officer patrolling the halls but with proper training of officers to be in a school environment students will feel safe. Students as well as faculty and staff should also be well informed as to the duties of the officers so that there is an understating of an armed officers purpose in a school.

The purpose for the Fourth Amendment is to protect people from intrusion of the government in areas where they have a reasonable expectation of privacy. It prohibits searches and seizures unless they are conducted with probable cause and under reasonable circumstances. “The Fourth Amendment only protects against searches and seizures conducted by the government or pursuant to governmental direction. Surveillance and investigatory actions taken by strictly private persons, such as private investigators, suspicious spouses, or nosey neighbors, are not governed by the Fourth Amendment” (Criminal.Findlaw.com, 2013).

The purpose of this paper is to discuss public school districts' limits on "hate" speech and

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.

Rule: The Fourth Amendment "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated". In every case the courts consider what is an unreasonable search and seizure under the Fourth Amendment of the constitution.

To fully understand the role and related responsibilities of search and seizure in the public schools, the Constitutional rights of the students and case law must be examined.

When conducting possible searches and seizers, the Fourth Amendment is made to protect unreasonable conduct. Due to

Search and seizure is an act that the police and or other authorities conduct to search your home, car and other property. To do this however they must have a warrant approved by a judge before searching and taking anything from the suspect. Lately, many questions have been brought up about this, many people believe that the police and government authorities are taking advantage of citizens to check them if they seem suspicious. The government may be violating the rights of people, therefore many are claiming to have something done before it worsens. I personally believe that any sort of authority should have the right to take action if the suspect is putting the lives of other people at risk however it is not okay to proceed to use scanning

The lone piece of good news, while 75 percent of the schools surveyed had at least a part-time SRO, 57 percent of those schools did not have any student arrests. Thus, the "results don't support the notion that all police in schools are bad."