University of Phoenix Material

Search of Student Property & Person

A search of a student’s person or property may start as a reasonable search but can quickly escalate into an unreasonable one. The case study “Walkabout” at the beginning of Chapter 6 presents the issue of searching students. Additionally, the issue of drugs (even over-the-counter drugs) on school property is a current problem that should be addressed.

My Last name start with  (W).

For this discussion, if your last name begins with A through M, you will present an argument in full support of the search of Tasha’s property and person. If your last name begins with N through Z, you will present an argument that the search of Tasha’s property and person was unreasonable. (John Doe would argue in support of searching Tasha’s person and property.) Both arguments should keep in mind: Tasha is most likely violating school rules by skipping math class and hiding behind some shrubberies. But, does this justify the search of her purse? Does a tip from an “unreliable” source that Tasha is selling pills during lunch justify a search of her purse? Of her brassiere?

Chapters are uploaded for this discussion:

Chapter 6 Student Search

Introduction

The right to be free from unreasonable searches starts with the assumption that any search is an invasion of privacy. However, at school and school-sponsored events, these rights protect students from only unreasonable searches, not from all searches. The problem is defining what search under what circumstances is reasonable. This chapter addresses this question by examining the law related to a variety of student searches. The decision-making process is further guided by the ethical principles of Jeremy Bentham and selected ISLLC standards.

Focus Questions

1. What legal principles define school officials’ authority to search students?

2. What ethical guides should school leaders use in making search decisions?

3. When may a student search be unreasonable?

4. When may student lockers, automobiles, and book bags be searched?

5. What are the legal parameters of drug dogs and drug testing?

Key Terms

1. Principle of proportionality

2. Probable cause

3. Reasonable cause

4. School resource officers

5. Urinalysis

6. Utilitarianism

Case Study Walkabout

Johnson City Middle School (JCMS) assistant principal LaDonna Fields was participating in her favorite administrative duty: walkabout. JCMS had been built in the early 1960s on the edge of the city. By the 1990s, JCMS was surrounded on all sides by homes, in some cases separated from backyards only by dilapidated fencing and hedgerows. Concerns over school safety had resulted in a board policy officially called territoriality. Territoriality basically required that an administrator walk around the boundaries of JCMS facilities at least 1 day per week to establish a presence in the neighborhood. The activity quickly became known as walkabout.

It was a particularly nice day that LaDonna had chosen for her weekly duty. She was taking her time walking about, looking in parked cars, behind shrubberies, and other potential hiding places for “misplaced” JCMS students. Out of the corner of her eye she glimpsed what looked like a person behind one of the shrubs on a neighboring property. She decided to investigate and to her surprise found eighth-grader Tasha Moore hiding behind the shrub. Dressed in the “school uniform” of skinny denim jeans, a tank top, and an oversized men’s oxford shirt, Tasha did not seem to see LaDonna until she spoke. A smile crossed LaDonna’s face as she said, “Hi, Tasha. I heard you were missing from math class again.”

Tasha was an intelligent and popular student who had been elected class secretary and middle school homecoming queen. Tasha lived with her mother, who worked in a nearby city, and Tasha had many hours of unsupervised time on her hands. Another student had told LaDonna that Tasha often brought “pills” to school and sold them to students during lunch and between classes. LaDonna knew the informant was notoriously unreliable, but she had decided to take a special interest in Tasha and make an example out of her. This was her chance. Or so she thought.

“Well, Tasha, I guess I need to ask you why you are hiding here.”

Tasha replied with as much conviction as she could, “Waiting for my mom. I have a dental appointment.”

LaDonna replied, “Yeah, right, and I’m the tooth fairy. Now why are you not in math class, and why are you hiding here?” When Tasha did not answer, LaDonna said, “Let me see your purse, please.” Tasha hesitated, but did hand the purse to LaDonna, who opened it and immediately found a book of hall passes apparently taken from the administrative offices or a teacher’s desk. Hall passes were used by teachers and administrators to admit students who were late to class or late to school, or to give permission to use the restroom from class. After finding the hall passes, LaDonna continued to search the purse. Further digging revealed a couple of condoms in a zippered inner pocket, some rolling papers normally used to smoke marijuana, three $20 bills, and, most interesting to LaDonna, a single pill. “Come with me, please, Tasha.”

Once in her office, LaDonna asked Tasha, “What kind of pill is this? Where did you get the money? Do you have any more pills?”

Tasha replied, “My mother gave me the money to buy food. The pill is a prescription ibuprofen for cramps. I don’t have any more, and I don’t know how it got in my purse.”

Her suspicions growing, LaDonna asked Tasha to remove her outer shirt and turn her pockets inside out. Finding nothing of interest in Tasha’s pockets, LaDonna asked Tasha to bend over so she could visually examine the contents of Tasha’s brassiere. The examination did not reveal any pills. Tasha was obviously embarrassed and asked to call her mother.

Leadership Perspectives

The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads, in part, “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated . . . but upon probable cause.” The Fourth Amendment, however, does not prohibit all searches, just unreasonable searches. In other words, the Fourth Amendment does not protect all privacy interests, just those that society recognizes as legitimate. Thus, reasonableness depends on the circumstances or context of the search. For example, searches of person and property have become commonplace in airports, at federal courthouses, and at most large sporting events. Just as society has accepted certain searches of persons and property in the name of safety, students in school are likewise required to acquiesce to reasonable searches of their persons and property (ISLLC Standard 3).

ISLLC Standard 3

The U.S. Supreme Court has held that even a limited search of a person is a substantial invasion of privacy ( Terry v. Ohio, 1967 ). However, the U.S. Supreme Court has again carved out a special niche for students on school grounds and at school-sponsored events. Consequently, students do not enjoy the same Fourth Amendment rights inside the schoolhouse gate as they do outside. For example, some random searches have been declared unconstitutional in society (see, for example,  City of Indianapolis v. Edmond, 2000 , holding random drug-detection dog searches of stopped vehicles to be unconstitutional) that might very well pass muster at a school (see, for example, Horton v. Goose Creek Independent School District, 1983, finding canine searches of school lockers and automobiles in school parking lots constitutional). However, just as students do not leave all of their First Amendment rights at the schoolhouse gate, they do not lose all of their Fourth Amendment rights to be free of unreasonable searches in schools ( New Jersey v. T. L. O., 1985 ). The problem is defining the term unreasonable. Most educators and parents would agree that stealing hall passes and allegations of selling pills to students during lunch, as illustrated in the case study “Walkabout,” should be taken seriously by school officials. They would also most likely agree that at some point any search could become unreasonable and detract from the greater good of the school culture (ISLLC Standard 5). But, at what point does a student’s expectation of privacy outweigh the obligation of school leaders to maintain good order and discipline in the school? In other words, at what point does a reasonable search become unreasonable?

ISLLC Standard 5

ISLLC Standard 5D calls for school leaders to consider and evaluate the potential moral and legal consequences of their decision making. This is especially true when deciding to search a student’s person or property. Searches that are initially justifiable can easily slide onto a slippery slope that leads to an unreasonable search. The case study “Walkabout” is an illustration of this slope. Tasha is certainly guilty of skipping class. She may also be guilty of other things, including meeting a boyfriend in the middle of the day, stealing hubcaps, or numerous other misdeeds. Drug use and/or possession with the intent to distribute on school campuses are serious problems that should be addressed. But, does the evidence support the assumption that Tasha is in possession of illegal contraband? Would the search of Tasha’s purse be justified in this situation? Assuming that the search of Tasha’s purse is justified, would finding the single pill justify a search of her pockets and shirt? Would finding the single pill justify a search of an eighth-grade student’s brassiere?

ISLLC Standard 5D

To illustrate, visualize the reason for a search and the relative intrusiveness of a search on a continuum. One end of the continuum would include relatively minor items such as a small amount of money. The other end of the continuum would include drugs and weapons. The intrusiveness of the search could be visualized on the same continuum starting on one end with a cursory search escalating to a search of pockets or jackets and culminating with an intrusive strip search. The problem occurs when the reason for the search and the relative intrusiveness of the search become out of balance. For example, a search of an eighth-grade student’s underwear for a $5 bill seems unreasonable, and a cursory search for drugs or weapons violates school administrators’ obligation to keep students safe. The point is this: Starting and stopping a student search at the appropriate point on the continuum is difficult. This is especially true when emotions are high. Consequently, decisions to search a student or her or his property, and the even more difficult decision when to terminate a search, can create considerable legal and ethical dilemmas for school leaders (ISLLC Standard 5D). However, the utilitarian ethics of Jeremy Bentham may provide guidance.

ISLLC Standard 5D