2. School Related Law School Related Law School Safety Officer Training Course

3. Copyright Warning The material contained herein is the sole property of the National Association of School Resource Officers Inc. a non-for-profit corporation. No part of this presentation may be reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from: NASRO, 14301 FM 315 N., Chandler, Texas 75758.

4. Legal Issues for the SSO Due Process School Searches and Seizures Interviews/Interrrogations in Schools Risk of Civil Liability

5. . PROCEEDINGS Adult Juvenile 1.Criminal in nature 2.Arrested 3.Charged 4.Accused of Crime under penal code 5.Given a public trail – formal 6.Found guilty of criminal offense by impartial judge or jury 1.Civil in nature 2.Taken into custody 3.Prosecutor petitions court for juvenile adjudication 4.Alleged violation comes under juvenile or family code 5.Private hearing – more informal 6.Adjudicated delinquent by judge acting as a kindly parent

6. PROCEEDINGS Adult Juvenile 7.Sentenced 8.Might get probation 9.May sent to jail, prison or other incarceration 10.If incarcerated, serves sentence 11.Judge/jury determines length of stay 12. Purpose is punishment and deterrence 13. Released on parole 7.Disposition 8.Might get probation 9.May be committed to juvenile facility 10.If committed, most likely indeterminate –longest possible is age of majority 11.Release determined by when rehabilitated 12.Purpose is rehabilitation & salvation 13.Released on aftercare

7. Juvenile Due Process: Three(3) U.S. Supreme Court Cases I.In re Gault, 387 U.S. 1(1967) II.Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, 393 U.S. 503(1969) III.Goss v. Lopez, 419 U.S. 565 (1975)

8. In re Gault, 387 U.S. 1(1967) FACTS: On June 8, 1964, a 15 year-old Gerald Francis Gault and a friend were parents were never shown the complaint that was filed against their son, The complainant did not appear at any hearing and no written record was made of the hearings. Gault was committed to the State Industrial School as a delinquent until he reached majority, a total of six years from the date of the hearing. The maximum punishment for an adult found guilty of the same offense was a fine from $5 to $50 or imprisonment for a maximum of two months. ISSUE: Is a juvenile entitled to procedural due process rights during the adjudication stage of a juvenile proceeding? YES.

9. In re Gault, 387 U.S. 1(1967) DECISION: Juveniles are entitled to procedural rights in proceedings (such as adjudication of delinquency) that might result in commitment to an institution in which there freedom would be curtailed. These rights are: 1. Right to reasonable notice of charges; 2. Right to counsel, his or her own, appointed by court if indigent; 3. Right to confront and cross examine witnesses; and 4. Privilege against self-incrimination, including right to remain silent. CASE SIGNIFICANCE: This is the most important case ever to be decided by the Supreme Court in juvenile justice and is the most widely known case on the rights of juveniles. Essentially stating, albeit juvenile proceedings are civil in nature, require many of the due process protections afforded adults in criminal proceedings.

10. Tinker v. Des Moines School District, 393 U.S. 503(1969) * This is a free speech case involving the question of whether school officials could prohibit students from wearing armbands to protest the Vietnam War. The Supreme Court held: 1)that students “do not shed their First Amendment rights at the schoolhouse gate.” ; 2)Accordingly, schools may not prohibit a student from engaging in symbolic speech such as wearing armbands unless school officials can establish that the symbolic speech materially and substantially interferes with the requirement of appropriate discipline in the operation of the institution; and 3)School officials may not prohibit symbolic speech merely because of their desire to avoid discomfort and unpleasantness that accompanies an unpopular viewpoint. * by virtue of Tinker, schools could no longer limit substantive protections of the Constitution in the school setting.

11. Goss v. Lopez, 419 U.S. 565 (1975) This case involves the short-term suspension of a student. Up until this time, the courts had not required that any due process rights be afforded for short-term suspensions. With Goss, however, the Supreme Court ruled that although schools require flexibility in student discipline, the rules of due process must apply even if a suspension is 10 days or less. DUE PROCESS IN SHORT- TERM SUSPENSIONS In these cases at a minimum:  The school must tell the student what the charges are;  If the student denies the charges, the school must present it’s evidence; and  The school must give the student an opportunity present his/her side of the story.

12. Why Learn About School Searches? SSO’s have an interest in kids –Your position is based on impacting kids SSO’s have an interest in schools –Your position was sold as a benefit to the school SSO’s have an interest in prosecution –Establish a working relationship with your School’s Attorney and Local Prosecutor

13. Why Learn About School Searches? SSO’s have an interest in training others –Train the staff, train the students about the law LIABILITY –When lawyers sue, they sue everyone, including the SSO –“The SSO should have known and been trained ” –Between 80’s and 90’s, lawsuits against the schools rose tenfold

14. FOURTH AMENDMENT "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and persons or things to be seized."

15. Warrant Exceptions  Searches without warrants are presumed unreasonable by the courts; and  If no warrant, the search must fit into these recognized exceptions:  Automobile: Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132 (1925)  Exigent Circumstances: Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S.757 (1966)  Plain View: Texas v. Brown, 460 U.S. 730 (1983)  Consent: Illinois v. Rodriguez, 497 U.S. 177(1990)  Abandoned Property: California V. Greenwood, 496 U.S. 35 (1988)  Incident to Arrest: Illinois v. LaFayette, 462 U.S. 640 (1982)  Inventory: Colorado v. Bertine, 479 U.S. 367 (1987)  Open Fields: Oliver v. United States, 466 U.S. 170 (1984)  Stop and Frisk: Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968)  Inevitable Discovery: Nix v. Williams, 467 U.S. 431 (1984)

16. Warrant Exceptions Administrative Searches –School Searches –Employee drug testing or searches –Health inspections –DUI checkpoints –Border searches –Probation orders

17. Which of the previously described search warrant exceptions apply in the school environment?

18. Application of 4th Amendment 4 th Ammend. applies only to Government actors –Security –School searches Exclusionary Rule –Unlawfully seized evidence cannot be used Civil Liability

19. Standards for Searches Reasonable Suspicion vs. Probable Cause Role of the SSO vs. Law Enforcement Officer Role of the Administrator Role of the Teacher Role of Security

20. Balancing: Privacy v. Government Interest What’s the Expectation of Privacy? –Low: Lockers, desks, automobiles –Medium: purses, book bags –High: clothing, body Government Interest ? –Low: school rules –Medium: criminal laws, student safety –High: immediate safety

21. Is the Search Justified at It’s Inception ? (object of the search) Lockers, desks –joint ownership, give notice in handbook, policies Automobiles –student owned, give notice of intent to regulate Pockets, coats –student owned, reasonable suspicion required

22. Is the Search Justified at It’s Inception ? (object of the search) Book bags, purses, wallets –student owned, reasonable suspicion required Canine searches –limited to lockers, autos, classrooms? Metal detectors –document need, have written policies, advanced notice

23. Is the Search Justified at It’s Inception ? (object of the search) Drug testing –document need, written policies, advanced notice, safeguard privacy, directed at group with reduced expectation of privacy Strip searches –Greatest threat for civil liability, no group search, Individualized only under exigent circumstances –Many civil liability cases involve the search for money

24. 4th Amendment Analysis Does the 4th amendment apply? What is the Nature of the Intrusion? What is the Standard for the Search? Was the search limited to the reasons for justification? (Scope of Search) What is the remedy should the search be unlawful? What other points should be considered?

25. Noteworthy School Search Cases for the SSO

26. “ Yes, we are under the constitution, but the constitution is what we say it is. ” Chief Justice Charles Hughes

27. Analysis of Evidence/Officer Conduct Mere Whim Reasonable Suspicion Probable Cause Beyond Reasonable Doubt

28. Leading Appeals Court Cases re: 4 th Amendment Issues in Schools  New Jersey v. TLO ( 1985 THE bright line case)  Veronia School Dist. v. Acton (1995)  Pottawatomie ISD #92 v. Earls, et al (2002)  Illinois v. Dillworth (1996)  Wisconsin v. Angelia D.B. (1997)  New Mexico v. Josue T. (1999)  In re: William V v. California (2003)

29. New Jersey v. T.L.O. (1985) Teacher found two girls smoking in the restroom One girl admitted, TLO denied it Principal searched her purse and found cigarettes and rolling papers Searched further and found marijuana, and large quantity of money

30. New Jersey v. T.L.O. (1985) Does the 4th Amendment apply to school officials? Was the search justified at it’s inception? Was the search reasonable? What is the expectation of privacy for students? What is required before the search is valid?

31. New Jersey v. T.L.O. (1985) Court found the Principal was justified Had reasonable suspicion that TLO was smoking Once finding evidence of drug use, the principal was justified in looking further Search was limited to each suspected violation

32. New Jersey v. T.L.O. (1985) Balancing expectation of privacy vs. government interest “A search of a student is justified at it’s inception, by a teacher or school official when there are reasonable grounds for suspecting the search will turn up evidence the student has violated the law or school rules.”

33. Veronia School Dist. v. Acton (1995) Acton was refused participation on the football team for refusing consent Student athletes subjected to random (urinalysis) drug testing History of student drug use at the school Athletes were “leaders”, and subject to injury and thus subject to this new policy Policy unanimously approved by parents

34. Veronia School Dist. v. Acton (1995) US Supreme Court ruled a public school system may randomly drug test student athletes Court said “athletes have a reduced expectation of privacy” Drug problem of the school could be addressed by the testing of athletes Protect student athletes against drug related injury

35. Pottawatomie ISD v. Earls, et al (2002) U.S. Supreme Court case  Similar to Veronia analysis, but this school policy, “… requires all middle and high school students to consent to urinalysis testing for drugs in order to participate in any extracurricular activity.”  The court held: ”… policy is reasonable means of furthering the School District’s important interest in preventing and deterring drug use among its school children and does not violate the fourth amendment.”

36. Pottawatomie ISD v. Earls, et al (continued)  “ …Court must review the policy for ‘reasonableness’, the touchstone of constitutionality.”  “ …In contrast to the criminal context, a probable- cause finding is unnecessary in the public school context because it would unduly interfere with maintenance of the swift and informal disciplinary procedures that are needed.”  “… Because the ‘reasonableness’ inquiry cannot disregard the schools’ custodial and tutelary responsibility for children.”

37. Illinois v. Dillworth (1996) Officer searched a student for drugs based on information provided by two teachers SRO searched based on Reasonable Suspicion The search was negative, but based on the suspects actions, the officer searched a flashlight in the suspect’s hand Officer recovered cocaine from the flashlight

38. Illinois v. Dillworth (1996) Illinois Supreme court upheld the search Ruled Dillworth had diminished privacy in school Search was “minimally intrusive” State had an interest in keeping drugs out of school Information supplied to SRO, and his observations SRO was a member of the school staff TLO’s reasonable suspicion standard should apply to the SRO

39. Wisconsin v. Angelia D.B (1997) Student told Principal that Angelia had a knife Principal summoned SRO SRO conducted a pat-down (negative results) Locker searched by principal (negative results) Angelia removed jacket, lifted shirt Knife recovered from her waistband

40. Wisconsin v. Angelia D.B (1997) Defense filed motion to suppress Said the search was “highly intrusive” and not supported by “probable cause” Defense also said “duties of police and school officials are inherently different” State said “school officials need to maintain a safe and proper educational environment”

41. Wisconsin v. Angelia D.B (1997) Court upheld the search Noted the SRO was full time, had an office, worked closely with school officials Said “official responsibilities of SRO is to assist school officials in maintaining safe learning environment” SRO is qualified to conduct weapon searches, school officials are not

42. New Mexico v. Josue T. (1999) Josue T. was questioned by Administrator regarding smoking marijuana. Josue T. was “evasive” and smelled strongly of burnt marijuana, taken to the office Josue T. refused to remove his right hand. Appeared as if he was holding a heavy object. Administrator became concerned and considered it a safety issue. SRO asked to search. SRO took hand, removed it from the pocket, reached into the pocket and recovered a.38 caliber handgun

43. New Mexico v. Josue T. (1999) Defense claimed the search was unreasonable Court said the “school” was justified under TLO v. New Jersey Need to “create a safe and orderly environment for learning” State agreed that TLO applies to SRO’s when asked to search at request of School Officials

44. In re: William V. (2003) 4 Cal Rptr 3d 695 FACTS: * 6 September 2001 Officer D. Johannes of Hayward (CA) Police Department and works as SRO at HHS. * Officer walking toward admin building notices William V. standing alone w/ school contraband red bandana hanging from back pocket of trousers. Officer inquires as to contraband rag, William V. retorts, “What rag? What red rag?” * Officer decides to escort to office for discipline of school policy. Prior to escorting to Principal’s Office a “Terry” search was conducted for weapons and finds a 5” knife with serrated metal blade which William admitted he possessed for protection Alameda County District Attorney filed Juvenile Petition alleging one count of felony possession of a knife on school grounds.

45. In re: William V. v. California (continued) Following subsequent hearing, the juvenile court denied William’s motion to suppress the knife on school grounds. He was adjudicated and found guilty of a misdemeanor and probation imposed. He filed a timely notice of appeal. APPEALS COURT RULING: “ …trial court properly denied William’s motion to suppress” “ William contends that Officer Johannes was not a school official and that, even if he was, the search was still unreasonable.” A. The reasonable suspicion standard applicable to school officials applied to Officer Johannes as a School Resource Officer. B. The initial detention and subsequent search were reasonable.

46. In re: William V. v. California (continued) B. The initial detention and subsequent search were reasonable. “ Officer Johannes testified that he saw the colored bandana hanging from William’s pocket. William’s violation of the school rule prohibiting bandanas on school grounds justified the initial detention. Johannes’s additional testimony that the school had experienced a number of incidents of gang violence in the prior weeks, that the color of the bandana indicated a gang affiliation, and the manner in which the bandana was folded indicated to him that a confrontation was imminent justified the limited search for weapons. In light of William’s bulky clothes, Johannes reasonably lifted William’s jacket to search his waistband. Accordingly, the scope of the search was ‘ reasonably related to the objectives of the search and not excessively intrusive in light of the age and sex of the student and the nature of the infraction.’ (T.L.O., supra, 469 U.S. at p. 342).”

47. Safe School Search Strategies  Signage: parking lots and entrance/exits  Legislation & policy stating lockers, desks are school property & subject to search  Notification in student handbook (sign for book), at student assemblies, and “take home” or mailed parent literature  Parking and locker permit form/waiver giving notice that are subject to search

48. Safe School Search Strategies (continued)  Build a strong and effective relationship with your juvenile prosecutors and school district lawyers  Lobby & encourage legislation and/or court rulings that state a SRO is a school staff member pursuant to New Jersey v. TLO and our cited state level appeals court cases  Have customs, policies and practices which do not enlist school officials as, “ agents of the state”  Remember that the most important role you have and the best skills set you “bring to the table” is your ability to contribute to a safe school environment

49. . Interview & Interrogation Different State’s Rules Interview & Interrogation Different State’s Rules  No different than adults  Must have parent present  Must be notified of right to have parent present  Age cut off  Largest consideration for SSOs is school policy on interviewing students

50. Student Interview Common Process

51. 1. Denying Blaming

52. Student Interview Common Process 1. Denying Blaming 2. Begging Pleading Promising

53. Student Interview Common Process 1. Denying Blaming 2. Begging Pleading Promising 3. Guilting Arguing

54. Student Interview Common Process 1. Denying Blaming 2. Begging Pleading Promising 3. Guilting Arguing 4. Rebelling

55. . When determining whether to pursue prosecution of incidents dealt with as a SSO & SRO, determined by answers to 2 Basic Questions (discretion):

56. . 1.What is in the best interest of the student?

57. . When determining whether to pursue prosecution of incidents dealt with as a SSO & SRO, determined by answers to 2 Basic Questions (discretion): 1.What is in the best interest of the student?; and 2.What is in the best interests of the school?

58. Civil Liability Civil Litigation brought against public schools has increased by over 200% over the past 15 years.

59. Civil Liability Plaintiff must prove two things –defendant was acting under “color of law” –defendants actions deprived the plaintiff of his/her rights as per Constitution “Color of Law” –acting because of a statutory scheme giving authority –Not just for Police, also Teachers, Admin

60. Civil Liability Case law has determined that anyone contributing to the deprivation of rights may also be liable Majority of successful cases deal with strip searches

61. Plaintiff’s Components to Prove Liability 1.There was a duty owed; 2.There was a breach of that duty; 3.A causal connection between the breached duty and the plaintiff’s injury; and 4.The plaintiff’s injuries resulted from the breached duty.

62. 3 Basic Questions on Liability: 1.What did you know? 2.When did you know it? 3.What did you do about it?

63. “ I believe that justice is instinct and innate, that the moral sense is as much a part of our constitution as that of feeling, seeing, or hearing. ” Thomas Jefferson Letter to John Adams

64. © Copyright 2005. ExcelForce: STAR. All rights reserved.

65. Action Plans Review the law Consider privacy issues Train school personnel Document problems Bring in the school board Draft written policies

66. Reality Check What are the two most important lessons you have learned from this component?

67. Next Learning Module Report Writing For the SSO