Student Searches and Seizures:
Everything you ever wanted to know-and probably more--about the subject of
the 4th amendment and public schools
8th Grade Slide Show
Presentation
The basic case law
•
•
•
•
•
•
TLO v. New Jersey
In re William G.
Board of Education v. Earls
Veronia School District v. Acton
In re Randy G.
And then some hypotheticals….
New Jersey v. T.L.O. (1985)
• Teacher found two girls smoking in bathroom, brought
them to VP where one admitted smoking. The other
denied smoking, and VP opened her purse and found
cigarettes, and, as he reached for them found rolling
papers, and decided to search further, finding
marijuana, pipe, empty baggies, lots of dollar bills, and
list of “people who still owe me money.” All this was
then turned over to police. She was found “delinquent,”
but challenged this determination as a result of an
unconstitutional search of her purse. Is she right?
USSC ruling in T.L.O.
• Search was reasonable. It was justified
because there was a reasonable suspicion
and the scope and conduct of search was
reasonably related to circumstances
giving rise to search.
• Note the standard for school officials is less
than for police. Only reasonable suspicion
is required to search, not probable cause.
In re William G. (1985)
• Assistant principal Lorenz, stopped William
and questioned him when he noticed him
carrying a small black case with an “oddlooking bulge.” When William repeatedly
refused to allow Lorenz to search the case,
Lorenz “forcefully took and unzipped it.”
Busted! Lorenz admitted he had no prior info
that led him to believe William had violated a
law or a school rule.
Cal. SC ruling in William G.
• In re William G. determined that the lack of
prior information led to the conclusion that
Lorenz's search of the case was illegal.
William’s furtive movements in trying to hide
the case, his demand for a warrant, and
Lorenz's suspicion that William was
tardy or truant did not create a
reasonable suspicion upon which to base
the search.
Board of Education of
Pottawatomie Co. v. Earls
• Pottawatomie school district is in Tecumseh,
OK. Its “Student Activities Drug Testing
Policy” tested students wishing to participate in
band, choir, color guard, FFA, FHA and the
school’s athletic and academic teams--all extracurricular activities. Students refusing to take
these random, confidential, drug tests were
barred from their chosen activity.
The USSC said: The school’s
actions were LEGAL
• “The Policy is a reasonable means of
furthering the School District’s important
interest in preventing and deterring drug use
among its schoolchildren and does not
violate the 4th Amendment.”
• This expanded the Acton rule (random drug
tests of student athletes OK if there is a
“legitimate government interest”)
Vernonia School District
v. Acton (1995)
• An official investigation led to the discovery that high
school athletes in the Vernonia School District
(Oregon) participated in illicit drug use. School officials
were concerned that drug use increases the risk of
sports-related injury. Consequently, the school district
adopted the Student Athlete Drug Policy which
authorizes random urinalysis drug testing of its student
athletes. James Acton, a student, was denied
participation in his school's football program when he
and his parents refused to consent to the testing. They
then sued the school district. Who is constitutionally
correct?
USSC decision in Acton
• The reasonableness of a search is judged by “balancing
the intrusion on the individual's 4th Amendment
interests against promotion of legitimate governmental
interests.” High school athletes are under State
supervision during school hours and are subject to
greater control than free adults. Privacy interests
compromised by urine samples are negligible since the
conditions of collection are similar to public restrooms,
and the results are viewed only by limited authorities.
Furthermore, the governmental concern over the safety
of minors under their supervision overrides the
minimal, if any, intrusion in student-athletes’ privacy.
In re Randy G. (2001)
• CW, a campus security officer at R’s high school observed R and
a friend in area of campus where students not permitted. When R
saw CW, he “fixed his pocket very nervously.” Lining of pocket
was still sticking out. Kids went back to class. CW followed to see
where they were going because the minor acted “very paranoid
and nervous.” CW went to R’s class and asked R if she could see
him outside. Once in the hallway, CW asked R if he had anything
on him. He replied “No” and repeated denial when asked again. R
consented to search of bag, and replied “No” to CW’s repeated
question whether he had anything on him. CW asked if it was okay
to do a patdown, and R replied “Yes.” A patdown revealed a knife,
later found to have a locking blade, in R’s left pocket. PC §
626.10. R made ward of court (W&I § 602), placed on probation.
Appeals.
Cal. SC rules in In re Randy G.
• School officials have the power to stop a
minor student in order to ask questions
or conduct an investigation even in the
absence of reasonable suspicion, so long
as such authority is not exercised in an
arbitrary, capricious, or harassing
manner.
The Delicate Balance
• One the one hand, teachers and school
administrators have a solemn responsibility
to protect the safety and well-being of our
children and to ensure that schools can
fulfill their educational mission.
• On the other hand, minor children attending
school, like all persons in America, possess
rights under the Constitution.
What makes for
“reasonable suspicion”?
• Articulable facts and reasonable inferences
creating nexus between infraction, object,
and place. Factors sufficient to give rise to a
reasonable suspicion:
– information from teacher, suspicious bulges
suggesting illegal object, direct observation of part
of an object, sudden inexplicable moves toward
pocket or other place, knowledge of previous
infractions, discovery of one thing leads to another...
The “exclusionary rule” in
public schools…should it apply?
• What is “the exclusionary rule”?
– Material or information gained from an illegal
search, seizure (4th amendment) or
interrogation (Miranda) is inadmissible in
court.
– The rule applies to criminal cases
– Exceptions: “good faith” exception, etc.
• Purpose is to deter illegal police behavior.
Exclusionary Rule decision in
Gordon J. v. Santa Ana
Unified School District (1984)
• “Consequently, after balancing the competing
interests involved, we hold the exclusionary
rule inapplicable in high school disciplinary
proceedings -- even where, as here, they are
concededly directed in part toward punishment
of the offending student. The social cost in
terms of harm to other students, to say nothing
of the damage to the morale of parents and
teachers, is too dear.
Hypo #1 (In re Johnny F.)
• After several taggings, security aide and counselor go
to 3rd period class to search for markers. They asked
students to empty pockets, noticed a lighter on J’s
desk, sniffed it, determined marijuana smell, took kid
to principal who asked J to empty pockets. He refused,
but principal saw plastic baggie in wide open jacket
pocket. J was then patted down, baggie felt, was asked
what was in pocket. He said “Nothing.” He was told
“not to lie,” asked again, and J admitted it was
marijuana. It was then seized and J was made ward of
court under W&I 602, fined, and placed on probation.
Hypo #2 (In re Corey L.)
• 3 students individually warned principal
that another student carrying drugs.
Principal confronted Corey and asked.
Corey denied it and said “you can search
me if you want.” Principal searched and
found 2 bags of cocaine. Corey argued that
the search was unlawful due to the failure to
warn him of his Miranda rights.
The issue of
“individualized suspicion”
• If school officials have reason to believe an
infraction occurred at a specific location, it
will occasionally be reasonable for them to
search all students who were present at the
place where it occurred. These blanket
searches are valid of:
– location/area is closed or relatively confined
– infraction is so overt, open & illicit
Brousseau v. Town of Westerly
• Pat down searches of sixth graders who
were eating in the school cafeteria when a
cafeteria worker announced that a 13 ½
inch pizza-cutting knife was missing.
• Is this valid?
DesRoches v. Caprio (1998)
• Search of backpacks of 19 ninth-grade art
students after a pair of sneakers was
reported missing from their classroom
• Valid search?
Kennedy v. Dexter Schools
• Strip search of two students who were
around a group of about ten students present
at the scene of an apparent crime (missing
diamond ring)
• Valid search?