Assignment2 for my Education & Law course.

1. Assignment 2: Student Freedoms 1
Assignment 2: Student Freedoms
Nikia Glass
Dr. Joe L. Canada
Education and the Law – EDU 520
November 3, 2013

2. Assignment 2: Student Freedoms 2
Abstract
Today, some may argue that students have way too many rights; and that there is entirely
too much focus on student freedom. It’s possible that this focus on the freedom of students may
take away from the real goals and objectives of the educational process; which is to encourage
students to succeed in school and in life, and become productive citizens in society. However,
there are instances, when specific circumstances may rightfully call for a search and seizure. On
the other hand, there are a few situations, where the rights of students can be revoked. For this
reason it is imperative for teachers, principals, and school officials to be aware and educated
about the law, and consider the limitations, as it pertains to search and seizure in schools. This
will help prevent unlawful infringement upon the rights of students. Furthermore, “although the
underlying command of the Fourth Amendment is always that searches and seizures be
reasonable, what is reasonable depends on the context within which is a search takes place…”
(Yudof, Levin, Moran, Ryan, and Bowman, 2012, p. 329). This paper will review and address
some of these issues, and a few court cases concerning search and seizure in schools.

3. Assignment 2: Student Freedoms 3
Lawful processes
Generally, the mission of all schools is to maximize the academic and social development
of students. However, in some instances, criminal conduct committed by students may cause
districts to investigate violations and mete out punishment. Some may argue that the
circumstances surrounding the issuing of punishment is sometimes unjust, especially when it
comes to the issues of search and seizures. Such issues may include, but may not be limited to
(1) situations in which school officials can conduct a search; (2) the level of suspicion that is
necessary to legally justify a search and seize; (3) the point and time, as to when and how
contraband should be seized; and (4) the absolute and exact process that should precede any
consequences as a result of the search and seize. These issues are addressed by the U. S.
Constitution and the special protections it extends. With these addresses, there are limitations
that should not be overlooked.
It is very important to note that the Fourth Amendment prohibits “unreasonable” searches
and seizures. The Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause requires for all school officials to
provide alleged offenders with the following rights: (a.) specific information about the charges,
as well as, the evidence associated with the search and seize; and (b.) a chance to tell his or her
side of the story. In legal terms, the offender has a right to notice and an opportunity to be heard.
If the school fails to follow these steps of due process, any punishment that is given,
regardless of legitimate means may be over ruled. The challenge for school districts and the
courts is to balance students’ constitutional rights with the need for safety and preventing
violence or disregard for schools rules. Based upon the need for school safety, the authority to
conduct searches and discipline students too often infringe upon the privacy rights of students.
For this reason school officials must be careful in their actions, and make sure their need to

4. Assignment 2: Student Freedoms 4
search and seize is supported by substantial amount of evidence, and free from any subsequence
of ill intent.
Limitations of searches and seizures
First and foremost, the Fourth Amendment protects students against unreasonable
searches and seizures. “The 4th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution places limits on the power
of the police to make arrests, search people and their property, and seize objects and contraband
(such as illegal drugs or weapons). These limits are the bedrock of search and seizure law”
(Nolo.com, 2013, p.1). If there is no true basis for a search, then there is no need for a search.
However, the law highlights some easing of restrictions to which searchers are subject, and the
modification requirements of school settings, as it refers to the level of suspicion of illicit activity
necessary to conduct a search in schools. The school does have the responsibility to provide all
students with a safe and orderly environment; therefore, justifiable searches and seizures should
be conducted with the intent to keep problems at a minimum. Metal detectors, cameras,
uniformed school police officers, drug-sniffing dogs, and random drug screenings, help keep
guns, gangs, drugs and criminal behavior off of school grounds. These concerns have become a
national priority, and strict rules are supported and enforceable by law.
Secondly, reasonable suspicion must be in existence; implicating that the act of a crime is
underway, or has already been committed. Reasonable suspicion may be based upon a number of
surrounding circumstances, including; the location, time, activity, and the source of information.
Thirdly, the search can not be excessively intrusive, such as a nude search, or any other search
without questions or reason. Such acts clearly violate any human dignity and therefore is deemed
unlawful.

5. Assignment 2: Student Freedoms 5
Legal rulings to support position
Ruling #1: In the Redding v. Safford Unified School District, the courts declared that the
conduction of a strip search was unlawful, because there was very little implication of reasonable
suspicion. The nude search of a thirteen year old girl was considered an invasion of
constitutional rights, and the school district lost their case, and was subjected to a monetary
settlement (askthejudgeinfo.com, 2013).
School officials did not have to jump from searching Savana's backpack and outer
clothing to searching her underwear. In order for this to be a lawful search, they needed to have
findings of a reasonable suspicion of danger to the students from the power of the drugs; or their
quantity, or reason to believe that Savana was carrying pills in her underwear. “Because this
additional justification for a more intrusive search was not present, the Court held that the strip
search of Savana violated her 4thAmendment rights” (Dinsmore & Shohl, 2013, p.1).
Ruling #2: There was a similar case; that involved the Supreme Court of Appeals of
West Virginia, in State ex rel. Galford v. Mark Anthony B.; here the court concluded that “the
conduct of a student suspected of stealing money from a teacher's purse did not pose the type of
immediate danger to others that might justify a strip search, and thus the search violated the
student's constitutional rights” (Dinsmore & Shohl, 20113, p.1).
Ruling #3: In another case, an eighteen year old boy was found breaking school rules,
and questioned about drug activity. The young teen denied the allegations, but he was still
escorted to the principal’s office where he was asked to empty his pockets. He pulled out
synthetic marijuana, and a glass pipe. Although, drugs were found, he decided to challenge the
search on appeal, but the North Dakota Supreme Court ruled in favor of the school, and declared

6. Assignment 2: Student Freedoms 6
that the search was in deed reasonable and therefore constitutional and just
(askthejudgeinfo.com, 2013).
Ruling #4: Regarding this particular case, there were two students of Springfield public
school, and a Virginia-based civil liberties group; for the Rutherford Institute. The argument was
based upon an allegation that the students’ 4th
Amendment right was violated, when drug-
sniffing dogs went rummaging through their property. However, the school protested and
exclaimed that based upon the school’s drug policy, they had every right to conduct annual drug-
sniffing to hunt for illegal drugs. They also declared that they conduct these proceedings each
year, with the intent to help keep the student body safe and drug free. This case went to the
District Court, and the federal Court of Appeals, where the liberty group lost in both instances,
and both rulings deemed the hunting constitutional (Kampis, 2013).
Ruling #5: The Vernonia School District v. Acton (1995) case involved a 7th
grade
student athlete and his parents; they opposed random drug testing. Since the young boy refused
to be tested he was suspended, and his parents sued the school for infringing upon their child’s
Fourth Amendment right. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the School district, and upheld
the intent of the drug-testing policy efforts; stating “Students who voluntarily participate in
school athletics have reason to expect intrusions upon normal rights and privileges, including
privacy" (law.cornell.edu, 2013).
The New Jersey v. T.L.O. case
‘T.L.O. is the landmark case on search and seizure at school. Law permits for school
officials to search a student's property if they have a "reasonable suspicion" that a school rule has
been broken, or a student has committed or is in the process of committing a crime’ (Jacobs,
2013, p.1). This case supports my argument that search and seizures should only be conducted

7. Assignment 2: Student Freedoms 7
when there is evident of reasonable suspicion. It is the leading case on this subject, and since
1985, it has set the standard for the school search and seizure policy.
Once T.L.O., was caught smoking in the bathroom, there was evidence for reasonable
suspicion. Then she was taken to the principal′s office, and questioned. Although she denied
every allegation made, she was still ordered to hand over her purse. In court, there was a debate
about whether or not school officials had the right to search her purse, but since there were
grounds for reasonable suspicion school officials had every right to search and seize her purse.
Furthermore, although students have privacy rights, these rights may be limited based
upon the school rules and regulations, as well as, responsibilities to maintain a safe learning
environment. The moment a school rule has been broken, or the moment a crime has or is about
to take place, school officials have every right to infringe upon the privacy rights of students.
“The court held that the standard to be applied in school searches is that of reasonableness. This
covers not only your person, but your locker, desk, car, and backpack; and in some instances, if
proven to be school related, some searches may be conducted off of school grounds” (Jacobs,
2013, p. 2).
Recommendations concerning existing laws
I believe that the following changes will help to create a fairer educational setting in
terms of search and seizure: (1) any school district that adheres to a school law that permits
searches without probable cause should be challenged and taken to court {South Carolina;
ARTICLE 11: SECTION 59-63-1110}; (2) any school district that adheres to a school law that
permits strip searches, by anyone other than an official police officer, without convicting
evidence of probable cause should be challenged and taken to court {South Carolina; ARTICLE
11: SECTION 59-63-1130}.; (3) any school district that adheres to a school law that limits

8. Assignment 2: Student Freedoms 8
training to school administrators only should be challenged and ordered to extend training to all
grade level teachers and teacher’s aides {South Carolina; ARTICLE 11: SECTION 59-63-1150};
(Cctech.edu, 2013).

9. Assignment 2: Student Freedoms 9
References
Askthejudge.info (2013). Can a school official search a student? Retrieved from
http://www.askthejudge.info/can-a-school-search-a-student/
Cctech.edu (2013). Seizure laws for south carolina. Retrieved from http://www.cctech.edu/3586.
htm
Dinsmore & Shohl (2013). Recent US Supreme Court Decision on Student Search and Seizure,
Something Every School Administrator Should be Aware of. Retrieved from
http://www.martindale.com/constitutional-law/article_Dinsmore-Shohl-LLP_742006.htm
Jacobs, T., (2008). 10 Supreme court cases every teen should know. Retrieved from
http://www.nytimes.com/learning/teachers/featured articles/20080915monday.html
Kampis, J., (2013). School search-and-seizure fight not over in MO. MissouriWatchdog.org.
Retrieved from http://watchdog.org/75953/school-search-and-seizure-fight-not-over-in-
mo/
Law.cornell.edu (2013). Legal information institute. Supreme court of the united states, No. 94-
590.515 U.S. 646 (1995). Retrieved http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/94-
590.ZO.html
Nolo.com (2013). Understanding Search and Seizure Law. Retrieved from
http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/search-seizure-criminal-law-30183.html
Yudof, M., Levin, B., Moran, R., Ryan, J., & Bowman, K. (2012). Educational policy and the
law. (5th
ed.). Belmont, CA:Cengage Learning.