The Courts and the Constitution

1
The Courts and the Constitution
TM
2

• If you were responsible for selecting all of the
  judges in Florida, what would you look for?
• Knowledge
• Skills
• Disposition/Qualities

TM
3

• How are judges different from other elected
  officials such as legislators?

TM
4

• Should judges be influenced by political
  pressures when deciding a case?
• Would you want a judge to make a decision based
  on the law or how the public might react to the
  decision?
• Should judges do what is legally right or should
  they do what is popular?

TM
5
CHECKS ON JUDGES

• MUST FOLLOW
• CONSTITUTION
• STATUTES
• RULES
• HIGHER COURT DECISIONS
• ACTIONS REVIEWABLE

TM
6

• So, a judge cannot decide a case based on how
  he/she feels about an issue

TM
7

• Today, you will be a justice on the U.S. Supreme
  Court and decide a real case.

TM
8

• But first
• You need to know the Fourth Amendment to the
  U.S. Constitution.

TM
9
FOURTH AMENDMENT UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION

• 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 persons or things to be seized.

TM
10
The School Strip Search

• NOW THE CASE
• Read and highlight or circle the important facts.

TM
11
The School Strip Search

• Were the Fourth Amendment rights of S.R. violated?

TM
12
The Trial Court

• Redding, the school district, and Asst.
  Principal Wilson will appear in a federal
  district court before a judge.

TM
13

• In addition to the Fourth Amendment, what else
  might a judge need to know?

TM
14

• Other similar cases and how they were decided
• Case precedent New Jersey v. T.L.O., 469 U.S.
  325 (1985).
• Students caught smoking in the school restroom

TM
15
New Jersey v. T.L.O

• When T.L.O. denied that she had been smoking,
  asst. principal searched her purse.
• Cigarettes and rolling papers consistent with
  marijuana use found.
• Deeper search of purse revealed trace of
  marijuana, a pipe, empty plastic baggies, a large
  amount of money, a list of students who owed
  T.L.O. money, and two letters that implicated
  T.L.O. in marijuana dealing.

TM
16
New Jersey v. T.L.O.

• United States Supreme Court upheld the search of
  T.L.O.s purse.
• Court articulated that standard for school
  search is reasonable suspicion, not the higher
  standard of probable cause.
• Legality of a student search is to be based
  on reasonableness of the search under all the
  circumstances.

TM
17
New Jersey v. T.L.O.

• A search of a student will be upheld if it is
  justified at its inception (i.e., at the
  beginning of the search).
• A search is justified at its inception when there
  are reasonable grounds to believe that the search
  will reveal evidence that the student has
  violated or is violating school rules or the law.

TM
18
New Jersey v. T.L.O.

• A search of a student will be upheld if it is
  also permissible in scope. It must be
• reasonably related to the objectives of the
  search and
• not excessively intrusive in light of the age and
  sex of the student and the nature of the
  infraction.

TM
19

• How are the facts in New Jersey v. T.L.O. similar
  or different from the Redding case?
• How have other courts applied the T.L.O. decision
  in the context of school searches?

TM
20
Cornfield v. Consol. High School District, 991 F.
2d 1316 (7th Cir. 1993)

• Teachers and their aides suspected that
  Cornfield, a student in a behavioral disorder
  program, was concealing drugs in his underwear.
• A teacher and the school dean took Cornfield to
  the school restroom where they ordered him to
  completely remove his clothes and change into a
  gym uniform.
• Cornfields body and clothes were inspected but
  no drugs were found.

TM
21
Cornfield v. Consol. High School District, 991 F.
2d 1316 (7th Cir. 1993)

• Cornfield filed a federal civil rights action
  against the school district, the teacher, and the
  dean alleging that the search violated his Fourth
  Amendment rights.
• The federal trial court dismissed the case
  against the defendants, concluding that the
  search was consistent with the Fourth Amendment.
• The appellate circuit court affirmed applying the
  two-part test from New Jersey v. T.L.O.

TM
22
Cornfield v. Consol. High School District, 991 F.
2d 1316 (7th Cir. 1993)

• The search was reasonable at its inception
  because there were factors indicating that
  Cornfield might be concealing drugs in his
  underwear, including
• Cornfield had previously been discovered with a
  live bullet at the school
• A bus driver had previously reported that
  Cornfield smelled of marijuana.
• One student had previously observed Cornfield
  smoking marijuana.
• A teachers aide informed the teacher that
  Cornfield had admitted to her that he had
  previously hidden drugs in his underwear during a
  police raid at his mother house.
• Cornfield had a suspicious bulge in his clothing
  that had not been observed before.

TM
23
Cornfield v. Consol. High School District, 991 F.
2d 1316 (7th Cir. 1993)

• The search of Cornfield was reasonable in scope
• The search was conducted behind the locked door
  of the boys restroom and both of the school
  officers present were male.
• The school officers did not touch Cornfield, but
  observed from a certain distance away to ensure
  that Cornfield could not conceal any drugs.
• The school officers did not force Cornfield to
  stand naked before them, but allowed him to
  change into a gym uniform.

TM
24
Hedges v. Musco, 204 F.3d 109 (3d Cir. 2000)

• Teacher observed Hedges acting out of character
  and noted physical signs consistent with drug or
  alcohol use (flushed face, eyes glassy, pupils
  dilated).
• Hedges escorted to nurse, who observed that
  Hedges appeared to be under the influence of
  drugs or alcohol. Nurse determined that Hedges
  blood pressure was elevated and her eyes were
  bloodshot.

TM
25
Hedges v. Musco, 204 F.3d 109 (3d Cir. 2000)

• A search of Hedges backpack revealed a plastic
  bottle which contained three white pills and one
  brown pill. Hedges advised that the pills were
  diet pills. Students were prohibited from
  possessing medication of any kind.
• When asked for phone numbers to reach her
  parents, Hedges could not remember them.
• Hedges was required to give blood and urine
  samples to test for drugs or alcohol in her
  system. Both tests ultimately reported negative
  results.

TM
26
Hedges v. Musco, 204 F.3d 109 (3d Cir. 2000)

• Hedges parents filed a federal civil rights
  action against the school principal (Musco) and
  other school officials alleging that Hedges was
  subjected to a search of her bodily fluids in
  violation of the Fourth Amendment.
• The federal district court dismissed the case
  against the defendants and the Hedges appealed.
• The appellate circuit court affirmed the
  dismissal applying the two-part test from New
  Jersey v. T.L.O.

TM
27
Hedges v. Musco, 204 F.3d 109 (3d Cir. 2000)

• Hedges behavior and appearance provided the
  teacher with reasonable suspicion to send Hedges
  to the nurse, and for the nurse to check her
  vital signs.
• These factors coupled with (1) the discovery of
  the prohibited pills in Hedges backpack and (2)
  the fact that Hedges could not remember her
  parents daytime phone numbers provided principal
  Musco with reasonable suspicion to order a
  further search in the form of blood and urine
  samples.

TM
28
Hedges v. Musco, 204 F.3d 109 (3d Cir. 2000)

• The bodily fluids search of Hedges was not
  excessively intrusive given her age, sex, and the
  nature of the infraction.
• The urine sample was produced in an enclosed
  lavatory stall with a female monitor outside
  solely to listen for signs of tampering.
• Blood tests are commonplace and involve nearly no
  risk or trauma.

TM
29
Phaneuf v. Fraikin, 448 F.3d 591 (2d Cir. 2006)

• A student reported to the school gym teacher that
  Phaneuf told her that she (Phaneuf) possessed
  marijuana and planned to hide it in her pants
  during a mandatory bag search that would occur
  before an off-campus school trip.
• The gym teacher reported the tip to the
  principal.
• Phaneuf was taken to the nurses office.

TM
30
Phaneuf v. Fraikin, 448 F.3d 591 (2d Cir. 2006)

• When informed of the tip, Phaneuf denied the
  allegation, but the gym teacher and the principal
  believed that she was lying. Phaneuf had a
  history of discipline problems, though none
  involved drugs.
• The principal ordered the nurse, Fraikin, to
  search Phaneufs underpants. When Fraikin
  hesitated, Phaneufs mother was called to conduct
  the search. While waiting for the mother, the
  principal searched Phaneufs purse and found
  cigarettes and a lighter.

TM
31
Phaneuf v. Fraikin, 448 F.3d 591 (2d Cir. 2006)

• Phaneufs mother was advised that if she did not
  participate in the search, school officials would
  call the police.
• Phaneuf was required to pull down her bra, lower
  her skirt to the floor, and pull her underpants
  away from her body. The search did not reveal
  marijuana.
• Phaneuf subsequently filed a lawsuit in state
  court alleging that Fraikin and other school
  officials violated her Fourth Amendment rights by
  conducting the strip search.

TM
32
Phaneuf v. Fraikin, 448 F.3d 591 (2d Cir. 2006)

• The defendants (the school officers) removed the
  case from state to federal court.
• The federal district court held that the search
  was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment
  pursuant to New Jersey v. T.L.O.
• The federal appellate court reversed and held
  that the strip search of Phaneuf violated the
  Fourth Amendment.

TM
33
Phaneuf v. Fraikin, 448 F.3d 591 (2d Cir. 2006)

• The federal appellate court did not reach the
• second prong of the T.L.O. test because it
  concluded that the strip search was not justified
  at its inception (i.e., the strip search failed
  on the first prong of T.L.O.).
• The tip was insufficient to justify a strip
  search because
• no evidence was offered to demonstrate why the
  principal felt the tipster was trustworthy
• no meaningful inquiry or corroboration of the tip
  occurred

TM
34
Phaneuf v. Fraikin, 448 F.3d 591 (2d Cir. 2006)

• Phaneufs past disciplinary problems were not
  sufficient to justify the strip search because
  none of her prior problems involved the use of
  drugs
• The manner of Phaneufs denial of the
  allegation was not sufficient to justify the
  strip search because the record provided no
  evidence to demonstrate how her manner of denial
  was suspicious or how it led the principal and
  the gym teacher to believe that she was lying.

TM
35
Phaneuf v. Fraikin, 448 F.3d 591 (2d Cir. 2006)

• The cigarettes in Phaneufs purse were not
  sufficient to justify the strip search because
  tobacco use was of limited relevance to whether
  (1) Phaneuf brought marijuana to school and (2)
  whether Phaneuf was smuggling marijuana in her
  clothing.

TM
36
The School Strip Search

• Now, back to our Question
• Were the Fourth Amendment rights of S.R. violated?

TM
37

• Arguments Before the Federal Trial Court
• Did the strip search of S.R. violate the Fourth
  Amendment?
• Yes or No?
• Why?

TM
38

• What did the real trial court decide?
• What happens next?

TM
39

• What is an Appeal?

TM
40
FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURTS OF APPEALS

• 3 judges sit to hear case.
• Decision
• What is next?

TM
41
FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURTS OF APPEALS

• The entire circuit court decides to rehear the
  case (this is known as a rehearing en banc).
• Decision of the entire court
• What happens next?

TM
42
The United States Supreme Court
TM
43
The U.S. Supreme Court

• 9 Justices

TM
44

• Now you are Justices on the U.S. Supreme Court.
• Here is the question before the court

TM
45
The School Strip Search

• Constitutional Question
• Is the Fourth Amendment violated when a school
  official orders a strip search of a student to
  recover over-the-counter pain medication and
  prescription-strength ibuprofen?

TM
46
The School Strip Search

• Individually answer the question
• Yes or No based on the facts of the case, the
  constitution, and case precedent.
• -Give 3 reasons in writing.

TM
47
The School Strip Search

• If you answer Yes you are deciding for April
  Redding, S.R.s mother.
• _____________________________
• If you answer No you are deciding for the
  school district and Assistant Principal Wilson.

TM
48
The School Strip Search

• Constitutional Question
• Is the Fourth Amendment violated when a school
  official orders a strip search of a student to
  recover over-the-counter pain medication and
  prescription-strength ibuprofen?

TM
49
The School Strip Search

• Get into Groups of 5
• Choose a Chief Justice
• Chief Justice Maintains Order
• Poll the Justices. How did each one answer the
  question and why?
• Try to come to a unanimous decision.
• You have 10 minutes to discuss then take a final
  poll

TM
50
The School Strip Search

• After each Court decides
• Bring the Chief Justices to the front of the room
  to report on the decision of each group
• Tally results and announce

TM
51
The School Strip Search

• What did the real U.S. Supreme Court decide and
  why?

TM