search & seizure, ferpa ppt, dr. william allan kritsonis, public school law, educational laws...

8/14/2019 Search & Seizure, FERPA PPT, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Public School Law, Educational Laws & Policies, Educational Leadership and Administration, Management, Supervision,…

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/search-seizure-ferpa-ppt-dr-william-allan-kritsonis-public-school-law 1/25

Search and Seizurein Public Schools

William Allan Kritsonis, PhD



Basis

• Fourth Amendment to the United StatesConstitution

•

• “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, againstunreasonable searches and seizures, shall not beviolated and no Warrants shall issue, but upon

probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation,and particularly describing the place to besearched, and the persons or things to be seized.”



Basis cont

• Fifth Amendment to the United StatesConstitution (Due Process) – schoolofficials who plan to discipline a student or

employee must first provide the allegedwrong-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 andthe courts is to balance students’constitutional rights with the need for

safety and preventing violence or disregard for school rules (www.centerfor publiceducation.org).”

http://www.centerfor/

http://www.centerfor/



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 student’s car in the parking lot



Court Precedents

• New Jersey v. T.L.O. (1985)

• “The purse of a female high school studentwas searched upon suspect of her smoking in girls’ school restroom.Student denied the incident. Her pursewas searched by a school administrator

who uncovered not only cigarettes, butalso marijuana and writings indicating thestudent 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 therestrictions to which searches by publicauthorities are ordinarily subject



• “Neither the warrant requirement nor the probablecause standard is appropriate(caselaw.lp.findlaw)”

•

• Simple reasonableness governs all searches of students’ persons and effects by schoolauthorities

•

• “Reasonable grounds for suspecting that the searchwill turn up evidence that the student has violatedor is violating either the law or the rules of theschool (caselaw.lp.findlaw)”



Supreme Court Ruling inNew Jersey v. T.L.O. (1985)

• “Today’s public school officials do notmerely exercise authority voluntarilyconferred on them by individual

parents; rather they act in furtheranceof publicly mandated educational anddisciplinary policies.”



• “School searches must be reasonably related inscope to the circumstances justifying theinterference, and “not excessively intrusive inlight 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 missingfrom her gym bag during PE class. Inresponse, teachers searched the entireclass in their locker rooms. Boys wererequired to undress down to their

underwear, girls were required to do thesame in front of each other. No moneywas found.



Sixth Court of Appeal RulingThe 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 avoidedexcept under extreme circumstancesinvolving 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 tosave children’s lives. The aim here is not topunish children, but to send this this message:

We love you, and don’t want to lose you.”



• “Random, suspicionless drug testingof public school students willdistance students from school

personnel as long as it remains in theschool’s arsenal (Lacroix, 2008).”



Court PrecedentRandom Drug Testing

• Vernonia v. Acton (1995)

• Vernonia teenagers became noticeablyattracted to the “drug culture” and student

drug use was on the rise. Studentsboasted “there was nothing the schoolcould do about it.”

• The Vernonia School District instituted a

policy requiring all student athletes tosubmit to random drug testing byurinalysis in order to play sports

•

•



Supreme Court Ruling

• The privacy expectations of public schoolstudents were less than those of thegeneral public

• Legitimate privacy expectations are evenless with regard to student athletes. Anelement of communal undress is inherentin athletic participation, with open locker

rooms, community showers, and evendoorless toilet stalls



• Athletes subject themselves toregulation just by signing up for ateam. They have to keep their grades

up, submit to a pre-season physicalexam, and comply with the coach’srules, 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 observedduring the very personal process of urinationby an adult who is present only for thatreason, and whose ultimate purpose is toperform scientific tests on the urine to discover if something very major is going on in theathlete’s private life.



Supreme Court Rulingon the Character of Intrusion

• The manner in which the samples were takenwas typical of the environment of publicrestrooms, and therefore the privacyinterests compromised were neglible.

•

• The government’s scientific examination of acitizen’s bodily fluids – is not significantbecause 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 testfor drugs in the urine of all studentsinvolved in an extracurricular activity

was upheld.



• “The courts have thus spoken on theissue, and the war on drugs lawfullyextends to the government’s

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 childrenthus explains why students inschools can be subjected to

searches, violations of free speech,and corporal punishment much morefrequently than adults are (Lewis,2006).”

•

• 27 states currently sanction corporalpunishment



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 inloco parentisand the importance of state protection of studentrights. 2, 251-2790.

• Lewis, T. E. (2006). The school is an exceptional space: rethinkingeducation 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/

http://www.caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment04/

http://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

•

search & seizure, ferpa ppt, dr. william allan kritsonis, public school law, educational laws...

Documents