Case Study: New Jersey V.

In 1985 a case the Supreme Court heard a case involving searches and seizure of student’s lockers and effects but the school need to show that “reasonable ground existed to believe that the search will uncover evidence of a violation of criminal law or regulation,” rather than the probable cause standard that applies in criminal proceedings. (Shmoop Editorial Team, 2008) Drug testing of students has since been upheld since the Supreme Court heard New Jersey v. T.L.O.
This case began when a school administrator discovered marijuana on a student’s personal belongings while searching for cigarettes that were banned for students to have on school property. The courts ruled that students do have Fourth Amendments rights to freedom from unreasonable

searches and seizures but school officials don’t need to adhere to the normal standard of “probable cause” to prompt searches of a student’s property; a lower standard of “reasonableness, under all the circumstances” is sufficient. (Shmoop Editorial Team, 2008)
On the surface, the school administrator finding marijuana in the students’ possession may seem like an open and shut situation. The student was smoking in the bathroom, which was against school policy to smoke inside the school building but was allowable in designated areas, and when the student denied it the school administrator went looking for evidence that proved that the student indeed was smoking in the bathroom. One of the rules governing warrantless searches by the police is that they are allowed if there is probable cause that a crime has been committed. Had a teacher witness the students smoking in the bathroom it would offer more than probable cause the students had been smoking. Once the administrator had taken possession of the students’ belongings, the warrantless search rule was initiated.
In short, the administrators search would seem legitimate and the evidence discovered would seem as if it could be used in court. However the students smoking was in an unauthorized area, not the act of smoking. Therefore, there was no rule against students carrying cigarettes. This opens up the question of “What was the purpose of the school administrator going into their personal property? If cigarettes were found on the students’ person, had they broken any school rules by having a pack of cigarettes? Did this prove that students had been smoking in the bathroom? When this was taken to court the students lawyers argued that the school administrator found marijuana as a result of an unwarranted search looking for cigarettes because the student was suspected of smoking in the bathroom. By going through the students belongings did the school administrator find evidence that would be used against the student in court?
As a result, this case New Jersey v. T.L.O made its way to the Supreme Court in 1985. Based on what I’ve read the challenge in distinguishing the necessary need for school officials and the constitutional rights of students provided a mixed verdict. The Supreme Court ruled that students have fourth amendment rights and were protected against unreasonable searches. However, school officials, needed some flexibility in following through with their professional responsibilities. Therefore, students could not be searched unreasonably, the standard for conducting warrantless searches would be lowered. School officials (teachers and administrators) don’t need to have “probable cause” that an infraction of the school rules have been committed in order to conduct a search. However, if a search is conducted it must meet the standard of “reasonableness, under all of the circumstances”. (Shmoop Editorial Team, 2008)
In theory this would mean that school officials would only need to have reasonable suspicion that a school rule or law had been broken before conducting a search, and the search would be conducted under reasonable circumstances.
In 1995 an Oregon 12 year old student went to court to protest the mandatory drug testing of all student athletes upon the premise that it violated his privacy. Mandatory drug testing for student athletes is a legitimate pursuit for high schools and colleges. The U.S. Supreme court has upheld the constitutionality of this practice. Student drug testing policies, however, must be clear, concise and specific. Constitutional issues regarding mandatory drug testing for students were explored by the Supreme Court in the case Vernonia Sch. Dist. 47J v. Acton (1995). The defendant was a school system in Vernonia, Oregon, a small town about 35 miles northwest of Portland. The school in question established a random drug testing protocol for its student athletes in 1989. This was motivated by what was described as a drug culture that had grown out of control: “Staff members’ direct observations of students using drugs led the administration to the conclusion that the rebellion was being fueled by alcohol and drug abuse as well as by the students misperceptions about the drug culture”(Zirkel, 1995, p.187). Notable among the students participating in drug use were the student athletes.
Prior to initiating the random drug testing program, the Vernonia school district made attempts at other interventions. The district invited speakers to counsel students on the dangers of drugs. Special drug abuse classes were developed to educate students. Despite the efforts of the school district drug related problems escalated in number. School administrators then considered a broad program of random testing (urinalysis) for the entire student body but narrowed the focus on a particular population; the student athletes. The drug testing program the district established received the unanimous approval of parents who attended a special public hearing on the issue. The parents, like the school board, were motivated by the concern that athletes were leaders amongst the student body and that drug use increases the risk of sports-related injuries. One question that came as a result of this court case in regards to drug testing had been answered. Obtaining a urine sample for the purpose of testing for drug use was subject to Fourth Amendment protections. The question now became, did the Vernonia school district meet the standard of “reasonableness under all of the circumstance”? The district argued that student drug use was increasing at a drastic rate and that student athletes were among leaders in the teen “drug culture.” Interventions such as drug education & counseling had been tried and were not successful in trying to reduce drug use among the student body. Moreover, the drug tests were conducted in a reasonable fashion, conducted privately and the only other person in the room was an adult who either turned away or remained outside the stall. The results were made known to only a few school officials, and if a student tested positive for drug use a second test was administered to confirm the results of the first test. In response the lawyers for the students’ argued that there was no information specific to their clients linking him or her to drug use. The lawyers made the implication that the school was administering these tests that were invasive and embarrassing, without just cause that the student in question had ever used drugs. The Fourth Amendment was brought into this using the example of the colonists’ objections to indiscriminate search warrants used by the British. Writs of assistance had provided British custom officers with the authorization to search all colonial homes and vessels for smuggled goods. The colonists at the time believed their rights were violated by the searches without any provocation and therefore they had written into their constitution a protection against this type of indiscriminate invasion of privacy.
On June 26th in 1995, the Supreme Court delivered its decision in Vernonia School District v. Acton. Siding with the school district that there was a drug problem and the influence of students athletes, it delivered the decision that the drug testing was reasonable and that the tests were not unreasonably invasive of the students privacy.
The court argued that the athletes are accustomed to less privacy than other students as they shower and change in common locker rooms and in close quarters. Therefore the courts concluded both the objectives and the methods of the search met the standard of reasonableness established in the New Jersey v. T.L.O case. However, three Justices disagreed and echoed the student’s argument that their Fourth Amendment rights had been violated. In upholding a blanket search program (the drug testing) the court upheld the very thing that the colonists had set out to eliminate in their opposition to writs of assistance. With this case school districts have been tasked with providing more services that just providing education to the students. Schools have assumed the role in addressing addition social issues including drug use, teen pregnancy, eating disorders and childhood obesity. The Supreme Court has made it clear that drug testing of student athletes is constitutional. Deterring drug use in schools is a pressing need that it overrides concerns about students’ rights to privacy. As long as policies are developed that are prudent, fairly nonpunitive, written, and specific, school administrator can use drug testing as a tool to promote a drug free environment in the schools.
In the case Safford United School District v. April Redding, an eighth grade student at Safford Middle School, Savana Redding, was strip-searched by school officials on the basis of information given from another student that Savana might have ibuprofen in her possession and that was in violation of the school policy. The information that the school administrators turned out to be false, but the school, which had a zero tolerance drug policy, said the search was justified. (Shmoop Editorial Team, 2008) Court documents show that Savanna mention that the search left her feeling humiliated and that her constitutional rights against unreasonable searches had been violated. Ms. Reddings’ mother subsequently filed suit against the school district and the school officials responsible for the search in the District Court for the District of Arizona.
The suit alleged her Fourth Amendment right to be free of unreasonable search and seizure was violated.

The district court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment and dismissed the case. On the initial appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed. However, on rehearing before the entire court, the court of appeals held that Ms. Redding's Fourth Amendment right to be free of unreasonable search and seizure was violated. It reasoned that the strip search was not justified nor was the scope of intrusion reasonably related to the circumstances. In an 8 to 1 decision the Supreme Court ruled that the school had violated Redding’s Fourth Amendment rights because the “content of the suspicion failed to match the degree of the intrusion.” (Shmoop Editorial Team, 2008)The courts also said the school could not be sued because the laws on student searches were unclear in 2003, when the search took place. The Court clarified guidelines for intimate searchers: School officials must consider factors like the students age (Redding was 13 at the time of this incident) whether the drugs in question are dangerous enough to justify the search and if there was enough evidence to suspect that a student had hidden dangerous drugs in an intimate place on their body.
The Redding case elaborates on the New Jersey v. T.L.O (1985) case were the courts said that schools have the right to search students’ possessions, including backpacks and lockers, if there is “reasonable suspicion” that a school rule/policy had been broken. However, the ruling didn’t mention anything about intimate body searches. (Shmoop Editorial Team,

2008)

References
Shmoop Editorial Team. (2008, November 11). Drug Testing Rights. Retrieved January 21, 2015 from http://shmoop.com/right-to-privacy/drug-testing-rights.html
Shmoop Editorial Team. (2008, November 11). The Fourth Amendment & Students. Retrieved January 21, 2015 from http://shmoop.com/right-to-privacy/fourth-amendment-students.html
Shmoop Editorial Team. (2008, November 11). New Jersey v T.L.O.. Retrieved January 21, 2015 from http://shmoop.com/right-to-privacy/new-jersey-v-tlo.html
Zirkel, P. (October 1995). Drug test passes court test. Phi Delta Kappan, pp. 187-188