View
288
Download
1
Category
Preview:
DESCRIPTION
William H. Parker Leadership Academy Hall of Honor In 2008, Dr. Kritsonis was inducted into the William H. Parker Leadership Academy Hall of Honor, Graduate School, Prairie View A&M University – The Texas A&M University System. He was nominated by doctoral and master’s degree students.
Citation preview
Search and Seizure
in Public Schools
William Allan Kritsonis, PhD
Basis
• Fourth Amendment to the 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 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 (www.centerforpubliceducation.org).”
School Specific Situations
• 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
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).”
Ruling
• 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 authorities
• “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. (1985)
• “Today’s 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
children’s lives. The aim here is not to punish
children, but to send this this message: We love you,
and don’t 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 school’s
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
public
• 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 coach’s
rules, among other things.
• 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 athlete’s private life.
Supreme Court Ruling
on the Character of Intrusion
• 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 government’s scientific examination of a citizen’s 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 government’s 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
References
• 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.
www.caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment04/
• Search and seizure, due process, and public schools. The center for
public education, retrieved 9/30/08. www.centerforpubliceducation.org
Recommended