The increasing amount of public school students selling, using, or being offered illegal drugs on school property has not only parents greatly concerned but school administrators and educators as well. This matter has caught the attention of the United State Supreme Court, which held “deterring drug use by school children is an important-indeed, perhaps compelling interest of the government.” Although there is a common agreement for the need to provide a drug free learning environments for our students, there is much debate with regard to the procedures and measures to be taken before infringing on the students’ Fourth Amendment right. In efforts to safeguard our students, many states have implemented the use of strip searches. The idea of having young adolescents disrobing on school grounds shocks the conscience of many and acts as a red flag for the intrusion on students’ constitutional rights. In fact, a Federal District Court has characterized a strip search as “visual rape.” So, where do we draw the line between insuring the safety of our students and in the same turn not going as far as stripping them of their Fourth Amendment right? The Fourth Amendment essentially stands for the proposition that all United States citizens are protected from the unlawful search of their persons and property. However, the Fourth Amendment had not applied to public schools due to the fact school officials were governed by the doctrine of in loco parentis. This doctrine is predicated on the idea the educators should be viewed as substituting the place of the parents while the students’ are in the school setting. Following the rationale of this doctrine, educators shared the same rights and responsibilities that a student’s parents po... ... middle of paper ... ...notified the student’s mother and turned the evidence over to the police. This case is known for the monumental move the Court made by determining in contrast to the probable cause standard applicable to law enforcement, “no warrant is necessary for administrators and the school only needs to have reasonable suspicion to conduct a search.” Using this new standard, the court found Mr. Choplick had reasonable suspicion the student had cigarettes on her given the fact the teacher had reported she had been smoking and her purse “was the obvious place to find them.” Thus this reasonable suspicion lead to a more thorough search which the court held was also constitutional. Ultimately, the court weighed the student’s legitimate expectation of privacy and the school’s equally legitimate need to maintain a safe environment and found the school’s interest had more weight.
In the case Morale v. Grigel, 422 F.Supp 988 (1976), the plaintiff James Morale, who is a student at New Hampshire Technical Institute, room was entered and searched by officials representing the dorm. There was no probable cause for them to enter his room, and while there they seized what they alleged to be “purple haze”. The court ruled that a check or search of a student's dormitory room is unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment unless NHTI can show that the search furthers its functioning as an educational institution. The search must further an interest that is separate and distinct from that served by New Hampshire's criminal law. Obviously, administrative checks of the rooms for health hazards are permissible pursuant to the school's
This decision makes it clear the most important thing for a school to do is to protect the students. It also states that the board of education, whose role is to oversee the schools, must make sure that the staff of the schools is protecting those children. This case highlights that long-term abuse can happen in schools if there are not clear policies or, if there are, that there is no one ensuring that those policies are
“I join the judgment of the Court and agree with much that is said in its opinion. I write separately, however, because I believe the Court omits a crucial step in its analysis of whether a school search must be based upon probable cause. The Court correctly states that we have recognized limited exceptions to the probable cause requirement "[w]here a careful balancing of governmental and private interests suggests that the public interest is best served" by a lesser standard. I believe that we have used such a balancing test, rather than strictly applying the Fourth Amendment's Warrant and Probable-Cause Clause, only when we were confronted with "a special law enforcement need for greater flexibility. Florida v. Royer, (1983) (BLACKMUN, J., dissenting).” The first of the two concurrences in part comes from Marshall. “I fully agree with Part II of the Court's opinion. Teachers, like all other government officials, must conform their conduct to the Fourth Amendment's protections of personal privacy and personal security. As JUSTICE STEVENS points out, this principle is of particular importance when applied to schoolteachers, for children learn as much by example as by exposition. It would be incongruous and futile to charge teachers with the task of embuing their students with an understanding of our system of constitutional democracy, while at the same time immunizing those same teachers from the need to respect
Savanna Redding, a 13-year old student was brought into the Assistant Principal Wilson’s office to discuss an important matter (Safford Unified School District #1 et. al. v. Redding., 557 U.S. ___ (2009). Wilson opened a planner sitting on his desk, which contained several knives, lighters, and a cigarette (“Safford”, 2009).. The Redding admitted the planner was hers, but stated that she had let her friend Marisa borrow it a few days before and none of the items were hers (“Safford”, 2009). The planner had been located within reaching distance of Marisa. Wilson has been notified from other school staff, that the Redding and Marisa were part of a group at the school dance, where cigarettes and alcohol were collected from the ladies’ restroom
One such unlawful act came to be known as the Gun-Free School Zone Act of 1990” (Arnold 495). One must acknowledge that the Columbine shooting, and every other school shooting past 1990, took place after the Federal Gun-Free School Zone Act of 1990 was enacted. This law did nothing to prevent our children from being murdered, it merely established a framework by which one can be simply be prosecuted for violating the provisions contained within. Passing more laws aimed at prohibition are meaningless and ineffective. Unless the Colorado State Legislature provides each school district with the means to actually enforce the Federal provisions of the Gun-Free School Zone Act, beyond that of just prosecution when the law is breached, any individual is free to physically bring a firearm onto the campus. Compliance with this law, as any law is, is only applicable to those that voluntarily comply; prohibition of guns brought into K-12 campuses are an exercise in futility without the means, such as a metal detector, to enforce the federal
Yes, I do know that even with school searches people bring all types of things on to school campus no matter if they get caught or not. I feel as if the students do have the right to refuse if they are searched or not because the fact of them being a minor and the fact that as a kid we get into places where we don't always know the right answer or way to go so we agree to things we might not understand. I also feel that if law enforcement has to have probable cause the school bored should have probable cause as well. " school officials.... are not required to advise students that they have a right to refuse consent to search .... or rise discipline." (Ellenberger 32) Some schools have all different policy's and rules to telling students their rights to refusing anything because they are dealing with more minors then with legal adults. Secondly, many parents get concerned about their children being in schools that don't have searches. " Parents and students fear that they will be in class with other students who are under the influence." (Robison) The parents and students feel that having school searches will help eliminate the drug and alcohol use in or during school hours. Lastly, most school bored are just looking for a safe environment for their students and staff to come to for eight
I am part of a special category of the human race. Not quite a member of the “real world,” too old for toys and too young to vote. I am, as you may have guessed, a minority. What separates me from the rest of the categories the people on earth? The Constitution, generally speaking, applies to everyone equally, regardless of race, religion, age, or any other factor you could think of. However, minors can have their rights suppressed in ways that many adult’s rights may not be. The most common violations of these rights are in the rights of students, that is, children attending school. The rights of free speech, free association, and freedom from unwarranted search and seizure have been heated disagreements between school administrators and students,
As years passed, growing concern of violence, and crime in schools gave rise to the establishment of policies in order to combat the dangerous behavior among students. This led to schools having the necessity of adopting zero tolerance policies, such as the “Gun-Free Schools Act” passed in 1994. The cracking down on zero tolerance policies has been a major point of conflict, for the fact that schools have misinterpreted their limits when enforcing “zero tolerance”. A matter that is viewed improperly by schools, and one which is acted tough on is the term “weapon”. It is not harmful for a student to make a gun with their fingers, however; those are the type of acts that are now seen as major offenses in the eyes of the school system. While the use of zero tolerance policies intensified, it was also visible that the administrators started relying more heavily on actual police — in the form of School Resource Officers (SROs) stationed in schools. The presence of police officers in school and zero tolerance policies combined, have boosted the amounts of teens in juvenile detention, as a punishment for a minor offense. Now for students the fear of being arrested, and prosecuted while being in school is higher than it ever should be. The arrest can lead to suspension or expulsion, and here is where we see the real
The procedure of testing student for drugs, alcohol and tobacco before every school day should be allowed. The fact that the subject of drug testing has even been brought up is a sign that illegal substances have become troublesome in high school environments. Therefore, school officials should be allowed to use any means necessary to discourage the use of these illegal substances, even if it means that the school officials could become dangerously close to violating the students’ constitutional rights. A student under the influence of drugs or alcohol could endanger his or her fellow students or faculty and that student should not be allowed to attend that school. School officials must protect those who are at that school, so having a student whose actions are being controlled by illegal substances would not be the best way to protect the students and faculty. Students should be tested everyday for drugs, alcohol, and tobacco so that the students are healthier, the students have better grades, and the students never start doings things that could have a negative impact on their future.
There has been a lot of controversy about whether students rights are being violated during drug searches. As more drug searches occur at school, more students are asking the question if this is violating there rights. Unannounced Drug searches can keep schools safer but in addition could possibly violate peoples rights. Unannounced drug visits should stay as it keeps schools safer, and it is a deterrent for students to bring illegal substances to school.
Having student searches is against the fourth amendment. What makes it even more irritating is that it’s legal. According to the law made in 1980, it takes away your fourth amendment in school if there is probable cause. Trust is also a big thing, if teachers trust their students, they can make it more free and interesting. When students trust their teachers they are more dedicated to learning. But when student searches are present students can’t trust faculty anymore. Additionally, people for student searches believe that it reduces illegal substances brought to school. People against student searches think it breaks trust. Student searches aren’t necessary to promote student safety.
In America, marijuana is the most used drug after alcohol and tobacco. Marijuana is used by millions of Americans, despite the harsh laws illegalizing the drug. Some states, such as Washington and Colorado have legalized marijuana for recreational use. Efforts to legalize the drug in other states have been unsuccessful such as Proposition 19 in California, which failed in 2010 despite uptight campaigns. Billions of dollars are spent at the state, local, and federal level to fight the use of marijuana. Millions are arrested for marijuana offenses and sentenced for extended periods. Marijuana has negative effects on the human health and high potential for addiction. Legalizing marijuana will eliminate the black market, which is responsible for the increase in violence, crime, and corruption. Resources used for mass incarceration in the war on drug can be redirected to rehabilitation to decrease drug abuse and addiction.
Even though it violates some of the students’ rights to privacy, it ensures all school students and teachers safety. School searches were implemented to prevent school violence and prevent altercations at school. Searches also can validate or disprove accusations or suspicion against groups or individuals. Many who have experienced these types of searches noticed a decline in drug use ion campus and violence on campus. “We had used the traditional methods of drug education. We had brought in speakers to talk to the parents and the kids but that did not seem to be enough. The message just wasn’t getting through.” (Robinson) This passage suggests the traditional methods were ineffective, so non-conventional methods need to be implicated in order to prevent drug use and violence on campus. Resource officers, teachers, and administrators with experience in this practice of drug searches often discover the positive impact of drug searches, as Colorado principle Mary White said“Those who see dogs conduct these searches- they don’t know when the searches are coming, and they have an investment to protect. They just don’t think it’s worth it [bringing drugs alcohol, or firearms into a school]” (Robinson). Which shows the use of drug dogs and student searches HAS shown a positive improvement in
"Search and Seizure, Due Process, and Public Schools." Search and Seizure, Due Process, and Public Schools. Web. 10 Nov.
Drug abuse has been a hot topic for our society due to how stimulants interfere with health, prosperity, and the lives of others in all nations. All drugs have the potential to be misapplied, whether obtained by prescription, over the counter, or illegally. Drug abuse is a despicable disease that affects many helpless people. Majority of those who are beset with this disease go untreated due to health insurance companies who neglect and discriminate this issue. As an outcome of missed opportunities of treatments, abusers become homeless, very ill, or even worst, death.