1
Todd v. Rush (1998) and Miller v. Wilkes (1999) upheld drug testing for students participating in any extracurricular activity.
1
Willis v. Anderson (1998) struck down drug testing for students suspended for certain disciplinary infractions such as fighting
1
Joy et al. v. Penn-Harris Madison School Corporation (2000) upheld a drug testing program for students who drive to school or engage in extracurricular activities
1
Earls v. Board of Education of Tecumseh Public School District (2001) struck down a drug-testing policy for students participating in extracurricular activities because no special need existed other than for athletes. The opinion notes, however, that schools need not wait until drug use is epidemic before implementing a testing program.
1
Tannahill v. Lockney Independent School District (2001) struck down a drug-testing policy for all middle and high school students for lack of a compelling state interest (there was no documented drug abuse program for students in this locality).
1
Can a principal or teacher search me? :Yes, if they have "reasonable suspicion". violating the law or a school rule. . Police need "probable cause" and must have a warrant.school official hearing, seeing, or smelling something first-hand, or on a tip from a reliable source, that you are breaking a school rule or the law.
...2
Can school officials search the entire student body or an entire class just because they suspect one student of wrongdoing? No., it would not justify a search of all students in a class or at a game. However, if the issue is the safety and security of the entire school, then it may be OK.
...2
. Can school officials search my locker?: officials have the right to search them at any time.
...4
Can the school turn evidence they seize over to police? Can that evidence be used against me in a criminal proceeding?The evidence gathered by school officials can be turned over to police, ("reasonable suspicion") for school officials is not good enough for court
...4
Can a school bring in drug-sniffing dogs for searches? :Generally, yes. The Supreme Court has held that a sniff of unattended personal belongings is not a search, and thus there is no need for reasonable suspicion. However, some courts have held that when a dog is used to sniff an individual student, it is a search and must be reasonable under the circumstances.
...3
Can I say "no" to a search? :Yes. Always remember that you can say "no" to a search (unless you're presented with a valid search warrant).. If you say "yes," a search that otherwise might have been illegal (say, the principal didn't have reasonable suspicion) becomes legal.The important point to remember, though, is that the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution protects you from having to testify against yourself. "Taking the Fifth" means you are asserting your right against "self-incrimination."
5...
What limits are there on police in school? :Police officers need more justification to search students in school than school officials do, even if the officers are there because school authorities call them. Generally, police must have "probable cause" and a warrant to search a student at school (just as with any adult on the street) unless there is an emergency. A police officer may "stop and frisk" a student in school
4...
Can the school make me take blood, urine, or Breathalyzer tests for drugs and alcohol? :Generally, the Fourth Amendment protects us from "suspicionless" searches. A "suspicionless" search is one conducted without any reason to suspect evidence of a crime.
...5
Preventive Search: As school practitioners navigate the murky waters of school searches, two practices may help successfully avoid legal challenge: debriefing and policy. Debriefing. After a search, administrators should meet with those individuals who are involved. Record and reflect on the crucial areas of the search and learn from the reflection. This exercise may be invaluable if the search is subsequently challenged.Policy. The best search policies are developed by school boards who work collaboratively with local law enforcement officials, local judges and attorneys, school staff, and community members. A sound policy can make the difference between a legal or illegal search. Sound school search policies should have a mission statement: to maintain a safe learning environment. They should outline techniques for searching students, from the least intrusive to the most intrusive means (metal detectors, canines, breath tests, urine tests, pat downs, strip searches), and they should describe the types of searches students may be subjected to while on school property or at a school function (locker searches, automobile searches, personal belongings, and personal searches).
...2
New Jersey v. T.L.O: A teacher in a New Jersey high school discovered two girls smoking in the school lavatory. The students were taken to the vice-principal's office. The vice-principal took a purse from one of the girls to examine it for cigarettes. In addition to the cigarettes, the purse also contained cigarette-rolling papers. Suspecting that the girl might have marijuana, the vice-principal emptied the contents of the purse. In it he found a pipe, a small amount of marijuana, a large amount of money in small bills, a list of people owing TLO money, and two letters implicating her in marijuana dealing.
...3
New Jersey v. T.L.O: The girl's parents were called, and the evidence was turned over to police. Charges were brought by the police, and based on the evidence collected by the vice-principal and TLO's confession, a juvenile court in New Jersey declared TLO delinquent.
...3
New Jersey v. T.L.O: illegal under the Fourth Amendment. Because the search was conducted illegally, the parents argued, the evidence was inadmissible. The case went to the New Jersey Supreme Court, which reversed the decision of the juvenile court and ordered the evidence obtained during the vice-principal's search suppressed on the grounds that the warrantless search was unconstitutional.
...3
New Jersey vs TLO: The Court ruled that schools did not need to obtain a search warrant before searching a student. The two parts of this test that must be satisfied are that the search must be (a) justified at inception and (b) related to violations of school rules or policies. it reversed the judgment of the New Jersey Supreme Court and ruled that the marijuana was admissible as evidence.
...3
New Jersey vs TLO: (Terry), a 14-year-old freshman at Piscataway High School in New Jersey, was caught smoking in a school bathroom by a teacher
...5
Vernonia School District v. Acton, 515 U.S. 646 (1995): The school district required student athletes to submit to drug testing, for which the student's parents had to sign consent forms. The parents of a seventh grade student athlete refused to sign the testing consent forms and filed suit seeking declaratory and injunctive relief from enforcement of the policy on the grounds that it violated the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments and the Oregon Constitution.The U.S. Supreme Court held that the school district's policy was reasonable and thus constitutional because (1) students were not entitled to full Fourth Amendment protections where the state's interest in preventing drug addiction among students was compelling, (2) student athletes had a decreased expectation of privacy and (3) the urinalysis and accompanying disclosure requirements were not significant invasions of privacy.
4...
Board of Education v. Earls, 536 U.S. 822 (2002): Students sued the Board of Education, alleging that the Board's policy requiring all students participating in extracurricular activities to submit to drug testing violated the students' constitutional right to be free from unreasonable searches. The students contended that the board's drug testing policy was unconstitutional because the board failed to identify a special need for testing students who participate in extracurricular activities, and the policy neither addressed a proven problem nor required a showing of individualized suspicion of drug use
...4
Wisconsin School Wins Case On Random Locker Searches:the Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled, 5 to 2, that officials at Madison High School in Milwaukee had acted legally in 1990 when they searched lockers for guns after the principal had heard rumors that a shootout was planned at the school. A security aide, Nathan Shoate, opened nearly 100 lockers before he lifted a heavy coat and found a loaded revolver. Other school officials found cocaine in the coat, and the 15-year-old boy who owned the coat was found criminally delinquent. The boy was defended by Mark Lukoff, an assistant public defender, who argued that the evidence should be thrown out because the search had been unreasonable.
...4
New Jersey v. T.L.O: A teacher in a New Jersey high school discovered two girls smoking in the school lavatory. The students were taken to the vice-principal's office. The vice-principal took a purse from one of the girls to examine it for cigarettes. In addition to the cigarettes, the purse also contained cigarette-rolling papers. Suspecting that the girl might have marijuana, the vice-principal emptied the contents of the purse. In it he found a pipe, a small amount of marijuana, a large amount of money in small bills, a list of people owing TLO money, and two letters implicating her in marijuana dealing.
5
Fourth Amendment: The Fourth Amendment prevents unjustified government intrusion into private places, such as clothes, lockers, and one's body. In cases outside the school setting, the overriding question is whether someone has a reasonable expectation of privacy.The reason the U. S. Supreme Court has recognized the need for a different standard for public schools is to take into account the age and vulnerability of the student population and the need of school officials to look out for their health and safety. In 1999, when two students gunned down classmates at Columbine High School in Littleton, Colo., school officials across the country saw a need to impose more stringent disciplinary measures. In the wake of the incident, which drew nationwide horror and attention, schools became more vigilant about investigating potential violations. Most significantly, perhaps, many passed "zero-tolerance" policies that specified strict punishments for certain offenses. The circumstances behind the infraction didn't matter. A zero tolerance policy is unflinching, faithfully mandating punishment if certain offenses have been committed. For example, when a student is found on campus with a knife, the policy might provide for immediate placement in an alternative high school.
5
The Future: Issues of privacy, search and seizure, and due process rights can be highly charged and emotional. Because it calls for balancing school safety and discipline versus student rights, many of these cases never get to court, but are settled by discussions with school officials. The collision between the need to keep students safe and give them due process and the desire to let them learn and grow will continue to be a central question for schools for years to come.
5
Situations where the Fourth Amendment (and depending on the results, the Fifth Amendment) might apply:
• Drug testing students in extracurricular activities.
• Drug-sniffing dogs on campus
• Locker searches and metal detectors.
• Backpacks, wallet, and personal computer searches.
• Searching a student's car in the parking lot.
6
Alternate titles: The unauthorized confiscation of physical evidence (such as guns, drugs, documents, and stolen property), the interception of oral communications by electronic eavesdropping, and matters observed through an unauthorized invasion of privacy are now embraced by the concept of an illegal search and seizure. If a search is made with the consent of the person searched, even though the consent may have been effected by police deception, the search is deemed reasonable.
6
A. Background: Police discovered that an armed robbery suspect was staying in a hotel and, without a warrant, searched the suspect's room in his absence by obtaining access from a hotel clerk. They found evidence linking the suspect to the crime. The suspect was arrested two days later in another state and following a jury trial in which the articles were used as evidence, the suspect was convicted of armed robbery in the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, California. At the trial several articles which had been found by police officers in a search of the petitioner's hotel room during his absence were admitted into evidence over his objection. A District Court of Appeal of California affirmed the conviction, and the Supreme Court of California denied further review. The US Supreme Court granted certiorari, limiting review "to the question of whether evidence was admitted which had been obtained by an unlawful search and seizure."
6
B. DECISION "[T]he argument is made that the search of the hotel room, although conducted without the petitioner's consent, was lawful because it was conducted with the consent of the hotel clerk. We find this argument unpersuasive. Even if it be assumed that a state law which gave a hotel proprietor blanket authority to authorize the police to search the rooms of the hotel's guests could survive constitutional challenge, there is no intimation in the California cases cited by the respondent that California has any such law.
6
B. DECISION: 1. A search without a warrant can be justified as incident to arrest only if substantially contemporaneous and confined to the immediate vicinity of arrest.
2. A hotel guest is entitled to the constitutional protection against unreasonable searches and seizures. The hotel clerk had no authority to permit the room search and the police had no basis to believe that petitioner had authorized the clerk to permit the search
