Brandon Day EDAD 689 November 3, 2010

Overview When analyzing search/seizure methods in public schools, one must be mindful of federal legislation which protects the liberties of students. Two notable laws are the Fourth and Fifth Amendments of the United States Constitution. The challenge for school districts and courts is to balance the constitutional rights of students with the need for safety and preventing violence.

Fourth Amendment The principle of search and seizure is addressed in the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Ratified in 1791, this act guards citizens against unreasonable searches conducted by law enforcement officials or government entities. Additionally, the amendment specifically requires search and arrest warrants to be judicially sanctioned and supported by probable cause.

Fifth Amendment The U.S. Constitution’s Fifth Amendment establishes the premise of due process, which is an individual’s entitlement to proper legal procedures and natural justice.

Protocol for Searches on School Grounds On school confines, the standard for student searches is “reasonable suspicion.” No warrant is necessary. Although privacy is a factor, the aforementioned approach allows school officials to conduct searches which may be prohibited by regular law enforcement officers. The Supreme Court has recognized that a different standard for public schools exists regarding student searches in an attempt to closely monitor the health and safety of student populations.

Protocol for Searches on School Grounds During a search, if any contraband items are seized, school officials who plan to discipline a student must provide the alleged offender with two rights: (1.) Specific information about the charges and the evidence behind it. (2.) A chance to tell his or her side of the story. Otherwise, a disciplinary decision can be overturned.

Students’ Rights Plain View Violation If contraband items are in plain view, they can be seized without probable cause, reasonable suspicion, or a warrant. Lockers The expectation for privacy is low; courts generally uphold locker searches (located on school grounds). Purses and book bags School officials need reasonable suspicion to search personal items.

Students’ Rights Body Searches Pat-down searches are minimally intrusive, but strip searches are viewed as highly invasive. Several states prohibit no-clothes searches (South Carolina not included). Canine Searches Generally seen as non-intrusive since there is no expectation of privacy in the air around objects. Drug-sniffing dogs only explore what is within “plain smell.” Student Drug Testing School districts have a right to implement random drug testing as a condition for students to participate in virtually any extracurricular activity.

Horry County Schools (Search and Seizure) *Any person, including students, on school premises shall be subject to a reasonable search, with or without probable cause, of his/her person and personal belongings subject to the limitations and requirements of this policy and/or law. Personal belongings include, but are not limited to, purses, book bags, wallets, satchels, computers, and other devices used for electronic data storage.

Horry County Schools (Search and Seizure) Before conducting searches, school officials must receive training in the “reasonableness standard” under existing case law and in District procedures regarding searches (usually administrators). District employees are prohibited from conducting strip searches.

Horry County Schools (Search and Seizure) For reasonable suspicion to exist, a school official conducting a search must be able to articulate why, based on all the circumstances, he/she objectively and reasonably suspects the search of the person or personal property is likely to yield evidence of a violation of a policy, rule, or law. In formulating a reasonable suspicion, a school official may rely on information he/she considers reliable, including reports from students, as well as the school official’s own observations, knowledge and experience

Horry County Schools (Search and Seizure) Should the school official determine that a pat-down search is necessary, the school official must escort the person to a private area where the pat-down search may be conducted by a person who is the same sex as the person being searched. A witness must be present during such searches. If a student refuses to comply, the student should be escorted to the office and discipline procedures may be initiated, and/or, if warranted, the police should be contacted.

Horry County Schools (Search and Seizure) The District provides lockers, desks, and other such school property to students for their use. As authorized by S.C. law and because the District retains ownership of such property, school officials may conduct searches of such property, including random and unannounced searches, with or without reasonable suspicion, when such search is determined by a school official to be otherwise reasonable in light of the needs of the school. However, objects belonging to students contained in such school property will not be opened or searched except as provided in the section above.

Horry County Schools (Search and Seizure) Because parking on school premises is a privilege, the school retains authority to conduct routine inspections of the exterior of vehicles parked on school property at any time. In conducting an inspection of the exterior of a vehicle, school officials may observe those things inside vehicles which are in plain view. The interiors of student vehicles, including such things as trunks, glove compartments, and personal belongings within a vehicle may be searched whenever a school official has reason to believe a student is violating a policy, rule, or law, as described in the "reasonableness standard" set forth in the section above. When a school official needs to gain access to the interior of a vehicle parked on school premises for purposes of conducting a search in compliance with the "reasonableness standard," he/she will first ask the student to provide access. If a student refuses to provide the school official with access to the interior of the vehicle, he/she may be subject to disciplinary action including loss of all parking privileges and the possible towing of the vehicle at the student’s expense.

Notable Supreme Court Cases (Search/Seizure in Public Schools) New Jersey v. T.L.O. Case appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States in 1984, involving the search of a high school student for contraband after she was caught smoking. A search of her purse revealed drug paraphernalia, marijuana, and documentation of drug sales. She was charged as a juvenile for the drugs and paraphernalia found in the search and given a sentence of one year’s probation. She fought the search, claiming it violated her Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable searches. The State Supreme Court agreed with T.L.O. and overturned the decision. The State of New Jersey (school officials and additional proponents) appealed the case to the U.S. Supreme Court, where a 6-3 ruling was relinquished, stating that the search was reasonable under the fourth Amendment.

Notable Supreme Court Cases (Search/Seizure in Public Schools) Safford Unified School District v. Redding (2009) Case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States. It held that a strip search of a middle-school child violated the Fourth Amendment where the school lacked reasons to suspect either that the drugs presented a danger or that they were concealed in her underwear. Savanna Redding allegedly distributed ibuprofen to another student, so school officials conducted a strip search (down to student’s undergarments). No meds were found & student’s parents weren’t contacted. The Supreme Court ruled 8-1 in favor of Redding. However, the court also held, however, that because this was not clearly-established law prior to the court's decision, the officials involved were shielded from liability by qualified immunity.

Notable Supreme Court Cases (Search/Seizure in Public Schools) Veronia v. Acton (1995) U.S. Supreme Court decision which upheld the constitutionality of random drug testing implemented by public schools in Vernonia, Oregon. Student athletes were required to submit to random drug testing before being allowed to participate in sports due to the suspicion of illicit drug use. During the season, 10% of all athletes were selected at random for testing. James Acton, a student, was denied participation in his school's football program when he and his parents refused to consent to the testing. The Supreme Court, in a 6-3 vote, contested that although the tests were not searches under the Fourth Amendment, they were reasonable in light of the schools' interest in preventing teenage drug use.

Notable Supreme Court Cases (Search/Seizure in Public Schools) Board of Education v. Earls (2002) Decision of the Supreme Court of the United States that upheld the constitutionality of mandatory drug testing by public schools of students participating in extracurricular activities. The legal challenge was brought by two students, Lindsay Earls and Daniel James, and their families against the school board of Tecumseh, Oklahoma, alleging that their policy requiring students to consent to random urinalysis testing for drug use violated the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The majority decision held that students in extracurricular activities had a diminished expectation of privacy, and that the policy furthered an important interest of the school in preventing drug use among students.

Sources court/cases/ar24.html court/cases/ar24.html Horry County Schools’ District Policies Manuel eizure_due/?page=3 eizure_due/?page=3