Persuasive Essay: Student Searches

“Ultimately, the Supreme Court held 6-3 that the school’s search of T.L.O.’s purse was constitutional.” (Lannacci 2016). This essay will briefly examine the up till today open question that can never really be given a definite answer until applied in each case- “the applicability of the exclusionary rule in juvenile delinquency or criminal proceedings when the evidence has been seized in a school, by a school official, in violation of the Fourth Amendment.” (Stoddard 2011).

Citizens in America are born with a various amount of rights. One of these rights include the freedom of speech and expression. However, school administrators have the ability to restrict a student’s expression. The Supreme Court Cases ‘Bethel School District v. Fraser’ and ‘Frederick V. Morse’ gave schools the right for the administrators to discipline children when they see fit. Students should be able to express themselves in any way without fearing that their school administrators will discipline

should be punished for breaking the law and school rules. The school needs to maintain its authority over students; search and seizure is part of maintaining order.

Justice Thomas had a dissenting opinion and stated that the fourth amendment right does protect us against unreasonable search and seizures (as did most of the judges). But it is the context of were it takes place he says students have the fourth amendment right just not on school property. The reason is the responsibility the school and the officials have is to ensure the safety of the students. Thomas concurred in the

The Fourth Amendment to the constitution protects United States citizens from unreasonable searches and seizures. Our forefathers recognized the harm and abuses that occurred in the colonies to innocent people by the British, and they made sure to write protections into the U.S. Constitution. Fearing the police state that any nation has the potential to become and recognizing that freedom and liberty is meaningless when victimization by the police is a real and foreboding threat the Fourth Amendment was created. The Fourth Amendment has gone through many challenges and controversies in the past, and currently the issue of how the Fourth Amendment applies to students in public schools has come to be contended in the courts. While it is

I just don’t like how it feels getting searched for things you’d never have in a million years. It’s not jail where the officers can look through your items whenever they want to, so how come it’s starting to feel like it. No matter what a student should be violated or have their privacy invaded. And this situation is not a good thing allot of people are getting tired of being searched for no intentional

When is a search and seizure reasonable? John Vile clearly explains the origination of the Fourth Amendment and why it was created at the time of the creation of the Constitution, ¨Like the amendment that precedes it, the Fourth Amendment was largely motivated by abuses of the British when they ruled America. They had used general warrants, or so-called writs of assistance, in tracking down customs violations in the colonies. A number of states subsequently adopted provisions against such warrants, and ratifying conventions in Maryland, Virginia, and North Carolina all proposed amendments dealing with the subject¨(Vile). At first, the forefathers of our country created the Fourth Amendment so that the British could not infringe on the colonists privacy. The thought of privacy within schools was not even something that was of concern at the time of the creation of the Constitution. As time has gone on, our country has made advancements that our founding fathers could never have foreseen, and has left our current government to interpret the Fourth Amendment themselves. The Fourth Amendment is detrimental when it comes to someone’s privacy, especially in a school environment. It is valuable to students and teachers alike, without it teachers and staff members would be able to search a student’s belongings without a reason or warrant. The Fourth Amendment is definitely viable in the school environment because it places regulations on what the staff in the schools can do without

The fourth amendment to the constitution of the United States of America protect individuals from illegal search and seizure. Nonetheless, students are protected under the fourth amendment in school; however, the standard for the courts have applied a different standard for what constitute a legal search. In New Jersey v. T.L.O the courts ruled that the, “unique need to maintain a safe learning environment requires a lessening of the restrictions normally imposed for public officials to conduct searches.” Thus, the requirement for schools to search a student is reasonable suspicion and not probable cause. There are some factors that must exist raise reasonable suspicion. For example, reasonable suspicion may include: a call from a concern

2. The Supreme Court established that a warrant isn’t necessary in school due to the fact that students aren’t under the protection of police officers but instead by the school. The court decided that a search is reasonable if a) “specific facts, together with rational inference from those facts, justified the intrusion, and b) the search was reasonably related in scope to the circumstances justifying it. Also, there can be random drug testing for students in school involved in extracurricular activities, and

Regardless of the possibility of students having illicit substances on campus, the 4th Amendment should apply to students because students could have embarrassing items in their bag. If a student was coming in from being off campus, they could have their bag searched by an adult in the school if they suspected they were carrying illegal items. However, if the student had personal items in their backpack and were embarrassed about them in any way, having a person dig through their bag to look for illicit substances that they would most likely not possess in the first place would cause the student mental strain and a possible loss of trust in the adult carrying out the search and others in the school that didn’t challenge the validity of the search. In the court case of Safford Unified School District, the administrators of Safford Middle School strip searched a thirteen year old girl. The administrators were informed that she was in the possession of prescription strength ibuprofen and had given some to another student. The school was not provided a specific time or location that this had occurred. They had no evidence besides the word of another student that she possessed the pills, and therefore the search was unreasonable. More importantly, there was no reason for the school authorities to strip search a thirteen year old girl and cause her and her mother emotional trauma, especially not for alleged non-specific possession of an amount of ibuprofen equivalent to two Advil

The Fourth Amendment defends people from being neglected by an authoritative and controlling government. Conflicting to popular belief, the right to privacy is not specifically mentioned in the U.S. Constitution. Over the years, the courts have translated the Fourth Amendment, along with other Amendments such as the ninth, to protect privacy in many situations. In question, is there a limitation for those rights to be exercised at school? Is a student protected from unreasonable searches and seizures at school? New Jersey v. T.L.O., (1985), a case where a 14-year old girl female student caught smoking in the bathroom at school was searched at school, and the evidence collected was used by the state in her delinquency trial in juvenile court.

Ever since the first school shooting, a lot of people have changed their beliefs on this subject. I was in eighth grade when the shooting at Columbine High School took place. Before that shooting, I never would have considered something like that happening. Now, it is seventeen years later and school shootings almost seem like an everyday thing. That is sad, but it is true. This is why I believe a student should not have a high expectation of privacy while at school. The law used to be more lenient, but these circumstances have changed that. Right after Columbine, a lot of states had a zero tolerance law. According to the Center for Public Education site, this law said that if a student was caught with contraband they were given a strict punishment, no matter what the circumstance was. The laws have changed some over the last few years, and are not quite as strict as that. The schools still have to ensure that every student is safe, though. It is common for schools to have metal detectors or bring in dogs on a regular basis. Once they have a reason to suspect a student, they have the right to search their belongings. I believe this is well within their rights as administrators who are trying to protect the school as a whole. I realize that students may feel violated, I have been there. It was always an inconvenience to have to sit outside the hallways while the dogs searched each room. I never felt like it was wrong when they did find something though. So many students would bring large amounts of drugs, guns and knives to school. If it weren’t for the measures that the school took they would just be walking around with these items. I hope these laws never change, and my kids have the same protection that I did. I would hate to imagine my child going to school with guns and drugs within an arm’s reach. I believe the issue of student’s privacy is one that many people can agree with each other on.

The Court ruled that it did not violate students' federal or state constitutional rights to be free from unreasonable searches. The Court reasoned that the state, as schoolmaster of children, must exercise a degree of supervision and control greater than it could exercise over adults. They also said that public school children have lesser privacy expectations with regard to medical examinations and procedures than the general population, and student athletes have even less legitimate privacy expectation. The school district had immediate and legitimate concern in preventing student athletes from using drugs.

I am a strong believer that the rights of the many should not be violated because of the few that violates the law. I told my students at the beginning of the school year that they should not bring anything valuable to class because I am not responsible if it is stolen. I refuse to violate the rights of all the good students in the class because of one student’s action. Because of my stance, I feel that the level of government involvement as described in these articles is appropriate. When there is ground for suspicion, it warrants investigation but once there is no credible evidence, the data should be deleted as suggested by the federal regulations. First it is against the law in a recent court ruling that it is illegal to collect mass cell phone data like what was done by the National Security Agency (NSA) regarding mass data collection with due

Drugfree.org says, “When students feel respected their drug abuse problems escalate slower, and they are less likely to start abusing drugs.” When drug testing is a common thing in schools, students may feel like their rights are not being respected. The ACLU says that random drug testing in schools can take away the rights of students. Even when random drug testing is used in schools, ACLU says, “A drug test is not likely to catch most drug users.” Norml.org says, "It is clear that drug testing is not providing the solution for substance-use prevention that its advocates