William Kritsonis, School Law, Ch 9 Search and Seizure - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

View by Category
About This Presentation

William Kritsonis, School Law, Ch 9 Search and Seizure


William Kritsonis, School Law, Ch 9 Search and Seizure – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:623
Slides: 26
Provided by: Will1945
Category: Other


Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: William Kritsonis, School Law, Ch 9 Search and Seizure

Search and Seizure in Public Schools
  • William Allan Kritsonis, PhD

  • Fourth Amendment to the United 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.

Basis cont
  • Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution
    (Due Process) school officials who plan to
    discipline a student or employee must first
    provide the alleged wrong-doer with
  • Specific information about the charges and the
    evidence behind it
  • A chance to tell his or her side of the story

  • The challenge for school districts and the
    courts is to balance students constitutional
    rights with the need for safety and preventing
    violence or disregard for school rules

School Specific Situations
  • Drug testing students in extracurricular
  • Drug-sniffing dogs on campus
  • Locker searches and metal detectors
  • Backpacks, wallet, and personal computer searches
  • Searching a students car in the parking lot

Court Precedents
  • New Jersey v. T.L.O. (1985)
  • The purse of a female high school student was
    searched upon suspect of her smoking in girls
    school restroom. Student denied the incident.
    Her purse was searched by a school administrator
    who uncovered not only cigarettes, but also
    marijuana and writings indicating the student had
    been selling marijuana (Lacroix, 2008).

  • School officials act as representatives of the
    state, not merely as surrogates for parents
  • School setting requires some easing of the
    restrictions to which searches by public
    authorities are ordinarily subject

  • Neither the warrant requirement nor the probable
    cause standard is appropriate (caselaw.lp.findlaw)
  • Simple reasonableness governs all searches of
    students persons and effects by school
  • 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 (caselaw.lp.findlaw)

Supreme Court Ruling in New Jersey v. T.L.O.
  • Todays public school officials do not merely
    exercise authority voluntarily conferred on them
    by individual parents rather they act in
    furtherance of publicly mandated educational and
    disciplinary policies.

  • School searches must 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 (caselaw.lp.findlaw)

Court Precedent Strip Searches
  • Board v. Whitmore Lake School
  • Female student reported 364 missing from her gym
    bag during PE class. In response, teachers
    searched the entire class in their locker rooms.
    Boys were required to undress down to their
    underwear, girls were required to do the same in
    front of each other. No money was found.

Sixth Court of Appeal Ruling The Board v.
Whitmore Lake School
  • Strip Search Unreasonable
  • Recovery of money was primary basis for search,
    which did not pose a threat to health or safety
  • Search involved a large group of students who did
    not consent to the search
  • School personnel had no reason to suspect any of
    the students individually

  • Strip searches should be avoided except under
    extreme circumstances involving health and safety
    of other students (Essex, 2005).

Drug Testing
  • In his 2004 State of the Union Address, President
    Bush stated
  • I propose an additional 23 million dollars for
    schools that want to use drug testing as a tool
    to save childrens lives. The aim here is not to
    punish children, but to send this this message
    We love you, and dont want to lose you.

  • Random, suspicionless drug testing of public
    school students will distance students from
    school personnel as long as it remains in the
    schools arsenal (Lacroix, 2008).

Court Precedent Random Drug Testing
  • Vernonia v. Acton (1995)
  • Vernonia teenagers became noticeably attracted to
    the drug culture and student drug use was on
    the rise. Students boasted there was nothing
    the school could do about it.
  • The Vernonia School District instituted a policy
    requiring all student athletes to submit to
    random drug testing by urinalysis in order to
    play sports

Supreme Court Ruling
  • The privacy expectations of public school
    students were less than those of the general
  • Legitimate privacy expectations are even less
    with regard to student athletes. An element of
    communal undress is inherent in athletic
    participation, with open locker rooms, community
    showers, and even doorless toilet stalls

  • Athletes subject themselves to regulation just by
    signing up for a team. They have to keep their
    grades up, submit to a pre-season physical exam,
    and comply with the coachs rules, among other
  • School sports are not for the bashful.

  • Voluntary nudity in front of peers, a minor
    consequence of athletic participation,
    constitutes implied consent to being observed
    during the very personal process of urination by
    an adult who is present only for that reason, and
    whose ultimate purpose is to perform scientific
    tests on the urine to discover if something very
    major is going on in the athletes private life.

Supreme Court Ruling on the Character of
  • The manner in which the samples were taken was
    typical of the environment of public restrooms,
    and therefore the privacy interests compromised
    were neglible.
  • The governments scientific examination of a
    citizens bodily fluids is not significant
    because the urine is tested only for drugs and
    the results given only to a few people.

Board of Education v. Earls (2002)
  • The right of a school to randomly test for drugs
    in the urine of all students involved in an
    extracurricular activity was upheld.

  • The courts have thus spoken on the issue, and
    the war on drugs lawfully extends to the
    governments collection and scientific inspection
    of the bodily fluids of the hockey-playing,
    trumpet-blowing, debating, cheerleading youth of
    America (Lacroix, 2008).

Ingraham v. Wright (1977) Corporal Punishment
  • The inferior legal status of children thus
    explains why students in schools can be subjected
    to searches, violations of free speech, and
    corporal punishment much more frequently than
    adults are (Lewis, 2006).
  • 27 states currently sanction corporal punishment

  • Essex, N. L. (2005). Student privacy rights
    involving strip searches. Education and the Law,
    17(3), 105-110.
  • Lacroix, T. (2008). Student drug testing the
    blinding appeal of in loco parentis and the
    importance of state protection of student rights.
    2, 251-2790.
  • Lewis, T. E. (2006). The school is an
    exceptional space rethinking education from the
    perspective of the biopedagogical. Educational
    theory, 56(2), 159-176.
  • U.S. constitution fourth amendment, Findlaw for
    legal professionals, retrieved 9/30/08.

  • Search and seizure, due process, and public
    schools. The center for public education,
    retrieved 9/30/08. www.centerforpubliceducation.o
About PowerShow.com