Search and Seizure

in Public Schools

William Allan Kritsonis, PhD

 Basis
Fourth Amendment to the United States
Constitution

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 the persons or things to be seized.
 Basis cont
Fifth Amendment to the United States
Constitution (Due Process) school officials
who plan to discipline a student or employee
must first provide the alleged wrong-doer
with

Specific information about the charges and

the evidence behind it

A chance to tell his or her side of the story

 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 school rules (
www.centerforpubliceducation.org).
 School Specific Situations
Drug testing students in extracurricular
activities
Drug-sniffing dogs on campus
Locker searches and metal detectors
Backpacks, wallet, and personal computer
searches
Searching a students car in the parking lot
 Court Precedents
New Jersey v. T.L.O. (1985)

The purse of a female high school student

was searched upon suspect of her smoking in
girls school restroom. Student denied the
incident. Her purse was searched by a school
administrator who uncovered not only
cigarettes, but also marijuana and writings
indicating the student had been selling
marijuana (Lacroix, 2008).
 Ruling
School officials act as representatives of the
state, not merely as surrogates for parents

School setting requires some easing of the

restrictions to which searches by public
authorities are ordinarily subject
 Neither the warrant requirement nor the probable
cause standard is appropriate (caselaw.lp.findlaw)

Simple reasonableness governs all searches of

students persons and effects by school authorities

Reasonable grounds for suspecting that the search

will turn up evidence that the student has violated or
is violating either the law or the rules of the school
(caselaw.lp.findlaw)
 Supreme Court Ruling in
New Jersey v. T.L.O. (1985)

Todays public school officials do not

merely exercise authority voluntarily
conferred on them by individual
parents; rather they act in furtherance
of publicly mandated educational and
disciplinary policies.
 School searches must be reasonably related in
scope to the circumstances justifying the
interference, and not excessively intrusive in light
of the age and sex of the student and the nature of
the infraction (caselaw.lp.findlaw)
 Court Precedent:
Strip Searches
Board v. Whitmore Lake School

Female student reported $364 missing from

her gym bag during PE class. In response,
teachers searched the entire class in their
locker rooms. Boys were required to undress
down to their underwear, girls were required
to do the same in front of each other. No
money was found.
 Sixth Court of Appeal Ruling
The Board v. Whitmore Lake School
Strip Search Unreasonable
Recovery of money was primary basis for
search, which did not pose a threat to health
or safety
Search involved a large group of students
who did not consent to the search
School personnel had no reason to suspect
any of the students individually
 Strip searches should be avoided
except under extreme circumstances
involving health and safety of other
students (Essex, 2005).
 Drug Testing
In his 2004 State of the Union Address,
President Bush stated

I propose an additional 23 million dollars for schools

that want to use drug testing as a tool to save
childrens lives. The aim here is not to punish
children, but to send this this message: We love you,
and dont want to lose you.
 Random, suspicionless drug testing
of public school students will distance
students from school personnel as
long as it remains in the schools
arsenal (Lacroix, 2008).
 Court Precedent
Random Drug Testing
Vernonia v. Acton (1995)
Vernonia teenagers became noticeably
attracted to the drug culture and student
drug use was on the rise. Students boasted
there was nothing the school could do about
it.
The Vernonia School District instituted a
policy requiring all student athletes to submit
to random drug testing by urinalysis in order
to play sports
 Supreme Court Ruling
The privacy expectations of public school
students were less than those of the general
public
Legitimate privacy expectations are even
less with regard to student athletes. An
element of communal undress is inherent in
athletic participation, with open locker
rooms, community showers, and even
doorless toilet stalls
 Athletes subject themselves to
regulation just by signing up for a
team. They have to keep their grades
up, submit to a pre-season physical
exam, and comply with the coachs
rules, among other things.

School sports are not for the bashful.

 Voluntary nudity in front of peers, a minor
consequence of athletic participation, constitutes
implied consent to being observed during the
very personal process of urination by an adult
who is present only for that reason, and whose
ultimate purpose is to perform scientific tests on
the urine to discover if something very major is
going on in the athletes private life.
 Supreme Court Ruling
on the Character of Intrusion
The manner in which the samples were taken
was typical of the environment of public
restrooms, and therefore the privacy
interests compromised were neglible.

The governments scientific examination of a

citizens bodily fluids is not significant
because the urine is tested only for drugs
and the results given only to a few people.
 Board of Education v. Earls (2002)

The right of a school to randomly test

for drugs in the urine of all students
involved in an extracurricular activity
was upheld.
 The courts have thus spoken on the
issue, and the war on drugs lawfully
extends to the governments collection
and scientific inspection of the bodily
fluids of the hockey-playing, trumpet-
blowing, debating, cheerleading youth
of America (Lacroix, 2008).
 Ingraham v. Wright (1977)
Corporal Punishment
The inferior legal status of children
thus explains why students in schools
can be subjected to searches,
violations of free speech, and corporal
punishment much more frequently than
adults are (Lewis, 2006).

27 states currently sanction corporal

punishment
 References

Essex, N. L. (2005). Student privacy rights involving strip searches.

Education and the Law, 17(3), 105-110.
Lacroix, T. (2008). Student drug testing: the blinding appeal of in
loco parentis and the importance of state protection of student
rights. 2, 251-2790.
Lewis, T. E. (2006). The school is an exceptional space: rethinking
education from the perspective of the biopedagogical. Educational
theory, 56(2), 159-176.
U.S. constitution: fourth amendment, Findlaw for legal
professionals, retrieved 9/30/08.
www.caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment04/
 Search and seizure, due process, and public schools. The center for
public education, retrieved 9/30/08.
www.centerforpubliceducation.org