Safford Unified School District Vs Redding Case Study

Luis M. v. Hayward Unified School District case can be applied to this situation when a student was attacked and thusly injured in his school’s hallway in between class changes. There were no teachers supervising the hallway. Luis M. was a 15-year-old sophomore. Luis M. said a gang member attacked him in the lunchroom on his first day at Hayward High. Luis M. said the school was negligent in supervising the students and allowing the nonstudents to enter campus. Applying this case to the walkway here, the school could easily be considered negligent if a student were to become injured while traveling along this area because of a lack of supervision. The school is breaching its duty of care to the students’ safety. Lack of supervision could

In the court case SMYTH v. LUBBERS, 398 F.Supp 777 (1975) the plaintiff’s rooms were searched without a warrant or probable cause by campus police officers that were acting as officials of the state. They seized a substance that was alleged to be marijuana and proceeded to arrest the plaintiffs. The court held that the search and seizure was illegal because, that two of the campus police officers were acting as representatives of the county police at the time, and there are rules in the student handbook at that college in place to protect students from illegal search and seizure, and those rule were not followed. Just like in Jones v. Rohward University, Deary Jones was subjected to an illegal search and seizure. This search and seizure is

The case that I have been researching is the Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe, case number 530 US 290. This case was argued in the year 2000, the final decision was made on June 19, 2000. In this research paper you will read about what happened before, during and after this case. The question that was brought forth to the court and what the Court's final acknowledgement was. Did you know that the Establishment Clause is to prohibit the establishment of a national religion by Congress and the preference by the U.S government of one religion over another.

T.L.O. case “...school officials do not have to meet the same standards as police officers when conducting searches” (New Jersey v. T.L.O.). The T.L.O. case was just one of the cases concerning schools and there were many others, including the Safford Unified School District v. Redding case. This case specifically concerned searching for drugs in schools. The Court ruled in this case, “...no indication of danger to the students from the power of the drugs or their quantity or any reason to suppose that Savana was carrying these pills in her underwear. Given these deficiencies, we conclude that the search was unreasonable. T.L.O. directed school officials to limit the intrusiveness of a search in light of the age and sex of the student and the nature of the infraction” (Safford Unified School District v. Redding). Basically, if there is no disturbance in the school day, then there should be a search procedure with a warrant. However, if there is a disturbance in the school day, the school should not be required to get a search

The case of New Jersey vs T.L.O was a resultant case of a search conducted by the then assistant vice principal- Theodore Choplick at Piscataway township high school with two freshmen girls -T.L.O inclusive, after a teacher had caught them smoking cigarettes in the bathroom. The first girl had admitted to the offense, however, T.L.O denied this. This prompted Theodore to demand to search her purse where he found implicating evidence. In short, she was expelled and fined for 1000 USD. This led to a court case with an intent on proving that the school had violated the Fourth Amendment since the school was a Governmental organization. The Fourth Amendment states that “the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures,

In the case of New Jersey v. T.L.O. a young girl, T.L.O., had her purse searched, suspected of having cigarettes in her purse. The school officials of Piscataway High School uncovered cigarettes, miniature quantity of marijuana, and a list for students who owe her money. T.L.O. was now imposed charge of possession of marijuana. T.L.O. was not content and moved to terminate evidence discovered in the search, but was however contradicted her motion. She was sentenced to probation for one year, after confirmed guilty from the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court of New Jersey. The Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division proclaimed the contradiction of the process to terminate evidence. Holding that the exclusionary rule of the fourth amendment involves the search and seizures regulated by the school officials in public schools, the New Jersey Supreme Court interchanged.

In the case of Vernonia v. Acton the fourth amendment is involved. The fourth amendment states that all people should be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures. The Vernonia School District found that student athletes were participating in drug use after an official investigation, because of this they began requiring random drug testing for the students to participate in school sports. A student at the school, James Acton, and his parents did not consent to the random testing so he was not allowed to participate in football. Because he was not allowed, it was questioned if random drug testing of the student athletes violated the reasonable search and seizure clause of the fourth amendment.

Justice Souter delivered the opinion of the Court saying that the search did violate Savanna Fourth Amendment right because no drugs were suspected to be concealed in her bra and underwear so they had no reason . The judge felt the school officials were not liable and entitled to qualified immunity because school officials were just trying to prevent drugs distributed throughout the school.

Unreasonable searches are to be prohibited in middle schools. Since the reasons for Redding being search was at the request of the principal. Wilson, he was the main person discussed. The nurse and secretary were acting as agents for Wilson in order to perform the search that he was unable to do because he was male. The school’s rules for the suspicions of illicit drugs were modified to adjust to how it should be handled by school officials. The reasonable standard of suspicion and probable cause has an implicit bearing on the reliable knowledge of what is known and discovered. The rules of the school do strictly prohibited the use of nonmedical use, possession, or sale of any drug on the school grounds. The majority feels that the manner in which she was searched was unjust and that it should have been more proof before they proceeded to perform a strip search of the student. The search of the backpack and outer clothes could be expected because of reasonable suspicion of concealing drugs, but the strip search was unnecessary because her clothes did not have pockets and they did not have the right or enough proof to proceed with the strip search in the manner that they did. The Court has adopted a different standard for searches involving an intrusion into the human

The upshot was reversal of summary judgment as to Wilson, while affirming the judgments in favor of Schwallier, the school nurse, and Romero, the administrative assistant, since they had not acted as independent decision makers. It is noted and recognized that the school setting requires some modification of the level of suspicion of illicit activity needed to justify a search, and held that for searches by school officials. The standard of reasonable suspicion has been declared on the school and the legality of a school administrator's search of a student. Cases that are on probable cause have an implicit bearing on the reliable knowledge element of reasonable suspicion, as we have attempted to flesh out the knowledge component by looking to the degree to which known facts imply prohibited conduct, the specificity of the information received. The lesser standard for school searches could as readily be described as a moderate chance of finding evidence of wrongdoing. In this case, the school's policies strictly prohibit the nonmedical use, possession, or sale of any drug on school grounds, including any prescription or over-the-counter drug, except those for which permission to use in school has been granted pursuant to board policy. The majority finds that subjective and reasonable societal expectations of personal privacy support this type of search, which it labels a strip search, as categorically distinct, requiring distinct elements of justification on the part of school authorities for going beyond a search of outer clothing and belongings., in the majority's view, although the school officials had reasonable suspicion to believe that Redding had the pills on her person, they needed some greater level of particularized suspicion to

The case was argued to the U.S. Supreme Court on March 28, 1995. The court noted that the Fourth Amendment, which forbids unreasonable searches and seizures, was extended via the Fourteenth Amendment to cover searches and seizures by state officers, including those at public schools. Since the collection and testing of urine under the school policy was a search and thus subject to the Fourth Amendment, the Court decided a reasonableness test would be required. As a result, the court stated that while school officials are technically agents of the state, because of their custodial relationship with their students, the school faculty have authority to act in-loco-parentis to make sure the children they are responsible for are kept safe. The court

This Amicus Brief is on behalf of the Bristol School District. Suzie and her boyfriend Cyrus are both students at a high school in Bristol, Virginia. Suzie sent inappropriate photos of herself to her boyfriend, Cyrus, but shortly after that their relationship soured. Cyrus forwarded some of the photos to upperclassmen in the school. Suzie and her parents were upset with Cyrus and demanded the principal take action. The principal confronted Cyrus, but he denied the allegations. Principal Sheevers told the school security guard to frisk Cyrus for his phone, but the security guard was not able to find Cyrus’s phone. Principal Sheevers proceeded to Cyrus’s locker and opened it and found his cell phone. Principal Sheevers found the photos on Cyrus’s phone and suspended him for two weeks. Cyrus sued the school for accusing the school of violating his fourth amendment. The search of Cyrus’s cell phone by the school principal was not a violation of his

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

With the use of proper search and seizure guidelines, schools are allowed to search students lockers without a warrant. Lockers and backpacks are subject to search with reasonable suspicion. To search a locker, a school staff member or police officer would have to have reasonable suspicion, probable cause, and student consent in some cases (Ehlenberger). For reasonable suspicion to occur, “ the search would be justified at its inception, meaning that there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that the search will reveal evidence that the student has violated or is violating the law or school rules, and the search is reasonably related in scope to the circumstances that justified the search, meaning that the measures used to conduct the search are reasonably related to the objectives of the search and that the search is not excessively intrusive in light of the student 's age and sex and the nature of the offense” (Ehlenberger). Probable cause to search is when” "known facts and circumstances are sufficient to warrant a man of reasonable prudence in the belief that contraband will be found" (Ornelas v. United States, 1996, at 696)”

To fully understand the role and related responsibilities of search and seizure in the public schools, the Constitutional rights of the students and case law must be examined.