School Related Law School Related Law School Safety Officer Training Course

School Related LawSchool Related Law

School Safety Officer

Training Course

Copyright WarningCopyright Warning

The material contained herein is the sole property of the National Association of School Resource Officers Inc. a non-for-profit corporation.

No part of this presentation may be reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from:

NASRO, 14301 FM 315 N., Chandler, Texas 75758.

Legal Issues for the SSOLegal Issues for the SSO

• Due Process

• School Searches and Seizures

• Interviews/Interrrogations in Schools

• Risk of Civil Liability

.

PROCEEDINGSPROCEEDINGSAdultAdult JuvenileJuvenile

1. Criminal in nature

2. Arrested

3. Charged

4. Accused of Crime under penal code

5. Given a public trail – formal

6. Found guilty of criminal offense by impartial judge or jury

1. Civil in nature

2. Taken into custody

3. Prosecutor petitions court for juvenile adjudication

4. Alleged violation comes under juvenile or family code

5. Private hearing – more informal

6. Adjudicated delinquent by judge acting as a kindly parent

PROCEEDINGSAdult Juvenile

7. Sentenced8. Might get probation9. May sent to jail, prison or

other incarceration10. If incarcerated, serves

sentence11. Judge/jury determines length

of stay12. Purpose is punishment and

deterrence13. Released on parole

7. Disposition8. Might get probation9. May be committed to juvenile

facility10. If committed, most likely

indeterminate –longest possible is age of majority

11. Release determined by when rehabilitated

12. Purpose is rehabilitation & salvation

13. Released on aftercare

Juvenile Due Process:Juvenile Due Process:Three(3) U.S. Supreme Court CasesThree(3) U.S. Supreme Court Cases

I. In re Gault, 387 U.S. 1(1967)

II. Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, 393 U.S. 503(1969)

III. Goss v. Lopez, 419 U.S. 565 (1975)

In re Gault, 387 U.S. 1(1967)In re Gault, 387 U.S. 1(1967)

FACTS: On June 8, 1964, a 15 year-old Gerald Francis Gault and a friend were parents were never shown the complaint that was filed against their son, The complainant did not appear at any hearing and no written record was made of the hearings. Gault was committed to the State Industrial School as a delinquent until he reached majority, a total of six years from the date of the hearing. The maximum punishment for an adult found guilty of the same offense was a fine from $5 to $50 or imprisonment for a maximum of two months.

ISSUE: Is a juvenile entitled to procedural due process rights during the adjudication stage of a juvenile proceeding? YES.

In re Gault, 387 U.S. 1(1967)In re Gault, 387 U.S. 1(1967)

DECISION: Juveniles are entitled to procedural rights in proceedings (such as adjudication of delinquency) that might result in commitment to an institution in which there freedom would be curtailed. These rights are:

1. Right to reasonable notice of charges;2. Right to counsel, his or her own, appointed by court if indigent;3. Right to confront and cross examine witnesses; and4. Privilege against self-incrimination, including right to remain silent.

CASE SIGNIFICANCE: This is the most important case ever to be decided by the Supreme Court in juvenile justice and is the most widely known case on the rights of juveniles. Essentially stating, albeit juvenile proceedings are civil in nature, require many of the due process protections afforded adults in criminal proceedings.

Tinker v. Des Moines School District, Tinker v. Des Moines School District, 393 U.S. 503(1969) *393 U.S. 503(1969) *

This is a free speech case involving the question of whether school officials could prohibit students from wearing armbands to protest the Vietnam War.

The Supreme Court held:1) that students “do not shed their First Amendment rights at the

schoolhouse gate.” ;2) Accordingly, schools may not prohibit a student from engaging in

symbolic speech such as wearing armbands unless school officials can establish that the symbolic speech materially and substantially interferes with the requirement of appropriate discipline in the operation of the institution; and

3) School officials may not prohibit symbolic speech merely because of their desire to avoid discomfort and unpleasantness that accompanies an unpopular viewpoint.

* by virtue of Tinker , schools could no longer limit substantive protections of the Constitution in the school setting.

Goss v. Lopez, 419 U.S. 565 (1975)Goss v. Lopez, 419 U.S. 565 (1975)

This case involves the short-term suspension of a student. Up until this time, the courts had not required that any due process rights be afforded for short-term suspensions. With Goss, however, the Supreme Court ruled that although schools require flexibility in student discipline, the rules of due process must apply even if a suspension is 10 days or less.

DUE PROCESS IN SHORT- TERM SUSPENSIONSIn these cases at a minimum: The school must tell the student what the charges are; If the student denies the charges, the school must present it’s evidence; and The school must give the student an opportunity present his/her side of the story.

Why Learn About School Why Learn About School Searches?Searches?

• SSO’s have an interest in kids– Your position is based on impacting kids

• SSO’s have an interest in schools– Your position was sold as a benefit to the school

• SSO’s have an interest in prosecution– Establish a working relationship with your

School’s Attorney and Local Prosecutor

Why Learn About School Why Learn About School Searches?Searches?

• SSO’s have an interest in training others– Train the staff, train the students about the law

• LIABILITY– When lawyers sue, they sue everyone, including

the SSO– “The SSO should have known and been trained ”– Between 80’s and 90’s, lawsuits against the

schools rose tenfold

FOURTH AMENDMENTFOURTH 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, 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."

Warrant ExceptionsWarrant Exceptions

Searches without warrants are presumed unreasonable by the courts; and

If no warrant, the search must fit into these recognized exceptions:

Automobile: Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132 (1925) Exigent Circumstances: Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S.757 (1966) Plain View: Texas v. Brown, 460 U.S. 730 (1983) Consent: Illinois v. Rodriguez, 497 U.S. 177(1990)Abandoned Property: California V. Greenwood, 496 U.S. 35 (1988) Incident to Arrest: Illinois v. LaFayette, 462 U.S. 640 (1982) Inventory: Colorado v. Bertine, 479 U.S. 367 (1987) Open Fields: Oliver v. United States, 466 U.S. 170 (1984)Stop and Frisk: Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968)Inevitable Discovery: Nix v. Williams, 467 U.S. 431 (1984)

Warrant ExceptionsWarrant Exceptions

• Administrative Searches– School Searches– Employee drug testing or searches– Health inspections– DUI checkpoints– Border searches– Probation orders

Which of the previously described Which of the previously described search warrant exceptions apply in search warrant exceptions apply in

the school environment?the school environment?

Application of 4th Application of 4th AmendmentAmendment

• 4th Ammend. applies only to Government actors– Security– School searches

• Exclusionary Rule– Unlawfully seized evidence cannot be used

• Civil Liability

Standards for SearchesStandards for Searches

• Reasonable Suspicion vs. Probable Cause

• Role of the SSO vs. Law Enforcement Officer

• Role of the Administrator

• Role of the Teacher

• Role of Security

Balancing: Privacy v. Balancing: Privacy v. Government InterestGovernment Interest

• What’s the Expectation of Privacy?– Low: Lockers, desks, automobiles– Medium: purses, book bags– High: clothing, body

• Government Interest ?– Low: school rules– Medium: criminal laws, student safety– High: immediate safety

Is the Search Justified at It’s Is the Search Justified at It’s Inception ?Inception ? (object of the search) (object of the search)

• Lockers, desks– joint ownership, give notice in handbook,

policies

• Automobiles– student owned, give notice of intent to regulate

• Pockets, coats– student owned, reasonable suspicion required


• Book bags, purses, wallets– student owned, reasonable suspicion required

• Canine searches– limited to lockers, autos, classrooms?

• Metal detectors– document need, have written policies, advanced notice


• Drug testing– document need, written policies, advanced notice,

safeguard privacy, directed at group with reduced expectation of privacy

• Strip searches– Greatest threat for civil liability, no group search,

Individualized only under exigent circumstances

– Many civil liability cases involve the search for money

4th Amendment Analysis4th Amendment Analysis

• Does the 4th amendment apply?

• What is the Nature of the Intrusion?

• What is the Standard for the Search?

• Was the search limited to the reasons for justification? (Scope of Search)

• What is the remedy should the search be unlawful?

• What other points should be considered?

Noteworthy School Search Noteworthy School Search Cases for the SSOCases for the SSO

“ “ Yes, we are under the constitution, but Yes, we are under the constitution, but the constitution is what we say it is. ”the constitution is what we say it is. ”

Chief Justice Charles Hughes

Analysis of Evidence/Officer ConductAnalysis of Evidence/Officer Conduct

Mere Whim

Reasonable Suspicion

Probable Cause

Beyond ReasonableDoubt

Leading Appeals Court Cases re: Leading Appeals Court Cases re: 44thth Amendment Issues in Schools Amendment Issues in Schools

New Jersey v. TLO (New Jersey v. TLO (19851985 THETHE bright line case) bright line case) Veronia School Dist. v. Acton Veronia School Dist. v. Acton (1995)(1995)

Pottawatomie ISD #92 v. Earls, et al Pottawatomie ISD #92 v. Earls, et al (2002)(2002) Illinois v. Dillworth Illinois v. Dillworth (1996)(1996)

Wisconsin v. Angelia D.B. Wisconsin v. Angelia D.B. (1997)(1997)

New Mexico v. Josue T. New Mexico v. Josue T. (1999)(1999)

In re: William V v. CaliforniaIn re: William V v. California (2003)(2003)

New Jersey v. T.L.O. New Jersey v. T.L.O. (1985)(1985)

• Teacher found two girls smoking in the restroom

• One girl admitted, TLO denied it

• Principal searched her purse and found cigarettes and rolling papers

• Searched further and found marijuana, and large quantity of money


• Does the 4th Amendment apply to school officials?

• Was the search justified at it’s inception?

• Was the search reasonable?

• What is the expectation of privacy for students?

• What is required before the search is valid?


• Court found the Principal was justified

• Had reasonable suspicion that TLO was smoking

• Once finding evidence of drug use, the principal was justified in looking further

• Search was limited to each suspected violation


• Balancing expectation of privacy vs. government interest

• “A search of a student is justified at it’s inception, by a teacher or school official when there are reasonable grounds for suspecting the search will turn up evidence the student has violated the law or school rules.”

Veronia School Dist. v. ActonVeronia School Dist. v. Acton (1995)(1995)

• Acton was refused participation on the football team for refusing consent

• Student athletes subjected to random (urinalysis) drug testing

• History of student drug use at the school

• Athletes were “leaders”, and subject to injury and thus subject to this new policy

• Policy unanimously approved by parents

Veronia School Dist. v. Acton Veronia School Dist. v. Acton (1995)(1995)

• US Supreme Court ruled a public school system may randomly drug test student athletes

• Court said “athletes have a reduced expectation of privacy”

• Drug problem of the school could be addressed by the testing of athletes

• Protect student athletes against drug related injury

Pottawatomie ISD v. Earls, et al Pottawatomie ISD v. Earls, et al (2002(2002))

U.S. Supreme Court case Similar to Veronia analysis, but this school policy,

“… requires all middle and high school students to consent to urinalysis testing for drugs in order to participate in any extracurricular activity.” The court held:

”… policy is reasonable means of furthering the School District’s important interest in preventing and deterring drug use among its school children and does not violate the fourth amendment.”

Pottawatomie ISD v. Earls, et al Pottawatomie ISD v. Earls, et al (continued)(continued)

“ …Court must review the policy for

‘reasonableness’, the touchstone of constitutionality.” “ …In contrast to the criminal context, a probable-

cause finding is unnecessary in the public school context because it would unduly interfere with maintenance of the swift and informal disciplinary procedures that are needed.”

“… Because the ‘reasonableness’ inquiry cannot disregard the schools’ custodial and tutelary

responsibility for children.”

Illinois v. Dillworth Illinois v. Dillworth (1996)(1996)

• Officer searched a student for drugs based on information provided by two teachers

• SRO searched based on Reasonable Suspicion

• The search was negative, but based on the suspects actions, the officer searched a flashlight in the suspect’s hand

• Officer recovered cocaine from the flashlight

Illinois v. Dillworth Illinois v. Dillworth (1996)(1996)

• Illinois Supreme court upheld the search• Ruled Dillworth had diminished privacy in school• Search was “minimally intrusive”• State had an interest in keeping drugs out of

school• Information supplied to SRO, and his

observations• SRO was a member of the school staff• TLO’s reasonable suspicion standard should

apply to the SRO

Wisconsin v. Angelia D.B Wisconsin v. Angelia D.B (1997)(1997)

• Student told Principal that Angelia had a knife

• Principal summoned SRO

• SRO conducted a pat-down (negative results)

• Locker searched by principal (negative results)

• Angelia removed jacket, lifted shirt

• Knife recovered from her waistband


• Defense filed motion to suppress

• Said the search was “highly intrusive” and not supported by “probable cause”

• Defense also said “duties of police and school officials are inherently different”

• State said “school officials need to maintain a safe and proper educational environment”


• Court upheld the search

• Noted the SRO was full time, had an office, worked closely with school officials

• Said “official responsibilities of SRO is to assist school officials in maintaining safe learning environment”

• SRO is qualified to conduct weapon searches, school officials are not


• Josue T. was questioned by Administrator regarding smoking marijuana.

• Josue T. was “evasive” and smelled strongly of burnt marijuana, taken to the office

• Josue T. refused to remove his right hand. Appeared as if he was holding a heavy object.

• Administrator became concerned and considered it a safety issue. SRO asked to search.

• SRO took hand, removed it from the pocket, reached into the pocket and recovered a .38 caliber handgun


• Defense claimed the search was unreasonable

• Court said the “school” was justified under TLO v. New Jersey

• Need to “create a safe and orderly environment for learning”

• State agreed that TLO applies to SRO’s when asked to search at request of School Officials

In re: William V. (2003) 4 Cal Rptr 3d 695In re: William V. (2003) 4 Cal Rptr 3d 695

FACTS: * 6 September 2001 Officer D. Johannes of Hayward (CA) Police Department and works as SRO at HHS. * Officer walking toward admin building notices William V. standing alone w/ school contraband red bandana hanging from back pocket of trousers. Officer inquires as to contraband rag, William V. retorts, “What rag? What red rag?”* Officer decides to escort to office for discipline of school policy. • Prior to escorting to Principal’s Office a “Terry” search was conducted for weapons and finds a 5” knife with serrated metal blade which William admitted he possessed for protection • Alameda County District Attorney filed Juvenile Petition alleging one count of felony possession of a knife on school grounds.

In re: William V. v. CaliforniaIn re: William V. v. California (continued)(continued)

Following subsequent hearing, the juvenile court denied William’s motion to suppress the knife on school grounds. He was adjudicated and found guilty of a misdemeanor and probation imposed. He filed a timely notice of appeal.

APPEALS COURT RULING:“ …trial court properly denied William’s motion to suppress” “ William contends that Officer Johannes was not a school

official and that , even if he was, the search was still unreasonable .”

A. The reasonable suspicion standard applicable to school officials applied to Officer Johannes as a School Resource Officer.

B. The initial detention and subsequent search were reasonable.

In re: William V. v. CaliforniaIn re: William V. v. California (continued)(continued)

B. The initial detention and subsequent search were reasonable.

“ Officer Johannes testified that he saw the colored bandana hanging from William’s pocket. William’s violation of the school rule prohibiting bandanas on school grounds justified the initial detention. Johannes’s additional testimony that the school had experienced a number of incidents of gang violence in the prior weeks, that the color of the bandana indicated a gang affiliation, and the manner in which the bandana was folded indicated to him that a confrontation was imminent justified the limited search for weapons. In light of William’s bulky clothes, Johannes reasonably lifted William’s jacket to search his waistband. Accordingly, the scope of the search was ‘ 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.’ (T.L.O., supra, 469 U.S. at p. 342).”

Safe School Search StrategiesSafe School Search Strategies

Signage: parking lots and entrance/exits Legislation & policy stating lockers, desks are

school property & subject to search Notification in student handbook (sign for book),

at student assemblies, and “take home” or mailed parent literature

Parking and locker permit form/waiver giving notice that are subject to search

Safe School Search Strategies Safe School Search Strategies (continued)(continued)

Build a strong and effective relationship with your juvenile prosecutors and school district lawyers

Lobby & encourage legislation and/or court rulings that state a SRO is a school staff member pursuant to New Jersey v. TLO and our cited state level appeals court cases

Have customs, policies and practices which do not enlist school officials as, “ agents of the state”

Remember that the most important role you have and the best skills set you “bring to the table” is your ability to contribute to a safe school environment

.

Interview & InterrogationInterview & InterrogationDifferent State’s RulesDifferent State’s Rules

No different than adults Must have parent present Must be notified of right to have parent

present Age cut off Largest consideration for SSOs is

school policy on interviewing students

Student Interview Common ProcessStudent Interview Common Process


1. Denying Blaming


1. Denying Blaming

2. Begging Pleading Promising


1. Denying Blaming


3. Guilting Arguing


1. Denying Blaming


3. Guilting Arguing

4. Rebelling

.

When determining whether to pursue prosecution of incidents dealt with as a SSO & SRO, determined by answers to 2 Basic Questions (discretion):

.


1. What is in the best interest of the student?

.


1. What is in the best interest of the student?; and

2. What is in the best interests of the school?

Civil LiabilityCivil Liability

Civil Litigation brought against public Civil Litigation brought against public schools has increased by over 200% over schools has increased by over 200% over

the past 15 years.the past 15 years.


• Plaintiff must prove two things– defendant was acting under “color of law”– defendants actions deprived the plaintiff of

his/her rights as per Constitution

• “Color of Law”– acting because of a statutory scheme giving

authority– Not just for Police, also Teachers, Admin


• Case law has determined that anyone contributing to the deprivation of rights may also be liable

• Majority of successful cases deal with strip searches

Plaintiff’s Components Plaintiff’s Components to Prove Liabilityto Prove Liability

1. There was a duty owed;

2. There was a breach of that duty;

3. A causal connection between the breached duty and the plaintiff’s injury; and

4. The plaintiff’s injuries resulted from the breached duty.

3 Basic Questions on Liability:3 Basic Questions on Liability:

1.1. What did you know?What did you know?

2.2. When did you know it?When did you know it?

3.3. What did you do about it? What did you do about it?

“ “ I believe that justice is instinct and I believe that justice is instinct and innate, that the moral sense is as much a innate, that the moral sense is as much a part of our constitution as that of feeling, part of our constitution as that of feeling,

seeing, or hearing. ”seeing, or hearing. ”

Thomas JeffersonLetter to John Adams

© Copyright 2005. ExcelForce: STAR. All rights reserved.

Action PlansAction Plans

• Review the law

• Consider privacy issues

• Train school personnel

• Document problems

• Bring in the school board

• Draft written policies

Reality Check

What are the two most What are the two most important lessons you have important lessons you have

learned from this component?learned from this component?

Next Learning ModuleNext Learning Module

Report Writing For the SSOReport Writing For the SSO

Documents

School Related Law School Related Law School Safety Officer Training Course