Search and Seizure in the Public Schools

Courts recognize the role of the United States Constitution's Fourth Amendment in protecting ordinary citizens against unreasonable government searches imposed upon themselves, their homes, private papers and personal property. Defining the extent to which the Amendment applies to privacy rights of public school students, however, continues to pose a legal dilemma. Public schools provide education to millions of children each day in learning environments that are increasingly influenced by the availability of drugs and weapons. The need to limit criminal behaviors and illegal materials on school grounds, often compels officials to order searches of students' lockers, clothing, purses, and automobiles; they require students to submit to random drug tests and examination by drug-sniffing dogs. While the legal system has defined some boundaries regarding searches and seizures in public schools, debate on the issue continues to challenge educators, students and courts of law.

Keywords Confiscate; Due Process; Fourteenth Amendment; Fourth Amendment; In Loco Parentis; Informer; Intrusive Searches; Probable Cause; Reasonable Suspicion; Search; Search Warrant; Seizure

Education & the Law > Search & Seizure in the Public Schools

Overview

The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects citizens against unreasonable governmental searches and seizures on persons, houses, papers, and private property. The Amendment requires government authorities to have probable cause before conducting search and seizure on a place, person, or thing. This Amendment protects the rights of ordinary citizens to privacy.

In the last half of the 20th century, the extent of the Fourth Amendment's protections when applied to students in public schools began to be challenged. Were students "ordinary citizens" under the definitions of Constitutional law? Were they entitled to privacy and protection from unreasonable searches and seizures while on school grounds? Were schoolteachers and administrators under legal obligation, equal to police officers and other government authorities, to show probable cause and obtain warrants prior to searching students and students' belongings?

The pursuit of answers gained momentum following several Supreme Court rulings concerning students' rights to free speech, free expression, and access to free education. In Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District (1969), the Court recognized school officials' need to maintain order and control of pupils' conduct, but determined that students did not lose their constitutional rights upon entering a public school facility (Heder, 1999). The ruling protected the rights of Des Moines students to wear black armbands in protest of the Vietnam War, but it also served as a foundation for future Fourth Amendment decisions involving nation-wide search and seizure practices in schools.

Another factor that influenced the legal definition of students' rights to privacy under the Fourth Amendment, was increased availability of illegal drugs and weapons in the United States. In nationwide studies conducted in the 1990s, students admitted bringing approximately 135,000 guns into schools each day; twenty percent of high schoolers reported carrying some type of weapon to school at least once a month (Mitchell, 1998). A 2005 survey of teenagers and parents, conducted by The National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse, found 62% of high school students and 28% of middle school students attended schools where drugs were used, kept, or sold; the numbers represented a 47% and 41% increase, respectively, over the previous three years. As dangers associated with illegal materials on school grounds multiplied, so did the frequency and invasiveness of school-authorized searches and seizures (as cited in Finn & Willert, 2006).

Further Insights

Lower-Court Rulings

If a principal suspects weapons are located in a student's locker, does he have the legal right to look inside? If a teacher asks a student to remove his jacket and empty his pockets, is he acting in the capacity of "substitute parent" or representative of the United States government? Are metal detectors, drug-sniffing dogs and strip searches appropriate in school settings?

Until the middle of the 20th century, the answers to such questions were rarely debated. The role of schoolteachers and administrators was generally viewed by courts and families as 'in loco parentis,' -- in place of the parents. Searches and seizures conducted on public school students and their belongings were not considered a violation of Fourth Amendment rights. Just as parents can enter their child's bedroom and look through drawers and closets for particular objects, it was acceptable for public school teachers and administrators to search through students' lockers, purses, and pockets.

According to Heder (1999), the concept of search and seizure as a legal issue in public schools was nonexistent prior to the 1960s. For most of the 20th century, he notes, education-related court battles traditionally revolved around issues of educational quality, roles of parents, and compulsory laws for school attendance.

In the latter half of the century, however, young people's access to drugs and guns prompted school officials to rely on extensive searches of students to uncover suspected criminal behaviors and illegal materials. Continuing to operate under the conventional definition of in loco parentis, schools rejected students' claims of constitutionally-protected privacy, arguing that maintenance of school safety took precedence. In the late 1970s, students appealed to the nation's courts for clarification and support of their Fourth Amendment rights.

The following court cases describe a few search and seizure lawsuits filed by students and parents against schools in the late 1970s and early 1980s. The cases outline some of the challenges lower courts encountered in defining the application of terms like "government" and "unreasonable" in regard to public school environments. The cases also give historical perspective to the difficulties associated with balancing students' needs for privacy with school officials' duties to maintain safe learning opportunities.

Bellnier v. Lund

In 1977, a teacher in New York learned that three dollars had been stolen from a student's coat pocket and ordered a strip search of all students in the classroom. Students were taken to the school's restrooms, ordered to strip down to their undergarments, and then their clothing was searched by a group of teachers and school officials. Students were allowed to return to their classroom when the search failed to locate the stolen money. A second search was conducted on the students' books, desks, and coats. Again, the missing money was not found. In a lawsuit filed against the school, a district court ruled in Bellnier v. Lund that although the teacher likely had a reasonable suspicion that someone in the classroom had taken the money, the teacher did not have sufficient facts to substantiate the intrusiveness of the search to which students were subjected. The court ruled that specific and reliable information must be available prior to an invasive search of a particular student or students by school officials (Essex, 2003).

Horton v. Goose Creek Independent School District

In 1978, officials at Goose Creek Independent School District in Louisiana were concerned with the increasing numbers of drug and alcohol problems they were encountering among students. In an effort to combat the trouble, school officials hired a company that specialized in drug-sniffing dogs to conduct an unannounced inspection of the students' lockers, book bags, cars, and clothes. The dogs were taken into the schools while classes were in session and sniff-searched the students and their belongings. If a dog signaled that a bag or locker had an illegal substance, the particular student was ordered to submit the article for search. If the dog signaled that a student was in possession of an illegal substance, the student was taken to the school's office and searched ("Horton v. Goose Creek," 1999).

Several students sued the school district claiming the searches violated their Fourth Amendment rights to protection from unreasonable searches and seizures, as well as their Fourteenth Amendment rights which guaranteed they would not be deprived of property or freedom without due process. The students claimed that searches by drug-sniffing dogs were upsetting and embarrassing; one student detailed her fear of dogs and the negative effect the event had on her ability to succeed on an important examination that day.

The case, Horton v. Goose Creek Independent School District (1982), was initially decided in favor of the school. But upon appeal, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals split its decision into two separate rulings. The court decided that dogs could sniff students' lockers and cars without violating Fourth Amendment rights since such an action was not considered a "search" under the definition of the law. Dogs could not sniff students, however, since the physical act of dogs' noses touching them would intrude on privacy. The court further ruled that using dogs to sniff every student in the district was unreasonable because each child was not individually under suspicion of carrying drugs or alcohol ("Horton v. Goose Creek," 1999).

Supreme Court Rulings

Over the course of several decades, lower courts created legal boundaries for searches and seizures in U.S. public schools, but their rulings were inconsistent. Courts in one region of the country often contradicted those in others. District courts' decisions were frequently overturned by appeals courts. In 1985, a case concerning search and seizure in public schools finally came before the United States Supreme Court. The Court's decision on the important case provided schools and families with much-needed clarification and cohesion on the volatile issue.

New Jersey v. T.L.O.

The first United States Supreme Court case concerning Fourth Amendment law in schools, and the one most often cited, was New Jersey v. T.L.O (1985). The case involved events at Piscataway High School in Middlesex County, New Jersey in 1980. A teacher discovered two 14-year-old girls smoking in a school restroom and took the girls to the vice principal's office. One girl admitted to smoking, but the other one refused to confess. The vice principal looked through the uncooperative girl's purse and found a package of cigarettes and cigarette-rolling papers. He then conducted a more thorough search of the purse and confiscated a small amount of marijuana, a pipe, empty plastic bags, a large amount of money, a list of students who owed the girl money, and letters which suggested she was dealing marijuana. The girl's mother was notified, and the evidence was turned over to police. The girl, known as "T.L.O." in court documents, confessed to police that she had sold drugs at school and charges were filed against her (New Jersey v. T.L.O., 1985).

In court hearings, T.L.O.'s attorney argued that the vice principal's actions had violated the girl's Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable search and seizure since the vice principal had not obtained a search warrant prior to looking through her purse. The attorney further insisted that T.L.O. was entitled to rights equal those enjoyed by ordinary citizens suspected of illegal activity or criminal intent: probable cause or a warrant must exist before a search could be administered (New Jersey v. T.L.O., 1985).

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the New Jersey school; however, it also established legal parameters for defining students' privacy rights in relation to school-authorized searches and seizures. According to the Court:

• Special needs of schools justify less privacy entitlement to students than those extended to private citizens.

• The role of school officials extends beyond that of in loco parentis: school officials are considered representatives of the government when conducting searches and seizures.

• Because schools have special needs, school officials are not required to obtain probable cause or warrants prior to searching students; existence of a reasonable suspicion is enough to initiate a search.

• Searches are acceptable when schools adopt reasonable methods related to the objectives of the search and when those methods are not excessively intrusive for the age and sex of the student and the nature of the infraction (New Jersey v. T.L.O., 1985).

Vernonia v. Acton & Board of Education v. Earls

In Vernonia v. Acton (1995), the Supreme Court expanding its ruling on searches and seizures in public schools. Authorities at Vernonia School District in Oregon, acting on an informer's tip that student athletes were involved in the school's troubling drug problem, conducted random urinalysis testing on all students who were participating in its athletic programs. One student refused to submit to the test and was denied the ability to join the school's football team. The student and his parents filed a lawsuit against the school district, claiming violation of his Fourth Amendment rights due to unreasonable search. The Supreme Court ruled that in circumstances when drug use by student athletes potentially affects school safety, random drug testing is justified (Vernonia Sch. Dist. V. Acton, 1995). In 2002, in Board of Education v. Earls, the Court ruled to permit random drug testing of all public school students who participate in all extracurricular activities (Board of Education v. Earls, 2002).

Viewpoints

Over the years, American courts have ruled on cases involving searches and seizures in public schools, sometimes favoring students' privacy rights and sometimes favoring school officials' safety policies. The courts' decisions have been widely debated and criticized.

Some argue that courts have not done enough to protect rights guaranteed in the Fourth Amendment. Lynch (2006) fears that recent rulings not only lessen privacy rights of students, but also threaten privacy rights for all American citizens. He predicts that court decisions favoring schools in cases involving searches and seizures will result in youngsters growing to adulthood with few expectations of privacy from government (Lynch, 2006).

Heder (1999) agrees and notes the courts' willingness to uphold searches of students' property, the presence of armed, police-liaison officers in school hallways, and the use of metal detectors in school entrances. An example of Heder's concern is found in a lawsuit filed against the Unified School District of Los Angeles, California in 1998. The school district had a written policy allowing school officials to conduct daily random searches on pupils with hand-held metal detectors. One morning, an assistant principal searched students who entered his school building at least 30 minutes late for classes. His metal detector found a knife hidden on a girl named Latasha. In People v. Latasha W. (1998), the California Court of Appeals ruled that the search was conducted within legal boundaries (People v. Latasha W., 1998).

Others argue that the courts have not sufficiently empowered school officials with enough legal tools to ensure safe school facilities. In September 2006, the United States House of Representatives passed the Student and Teacher Safety Act to reinforce the ability of public school districts to search students if the searches were conducted by full-time teachers or school officials. The legislation, which did not become law, stated that school officials "acting on any reasonable suspicion based on professional experience and judgment," could conduct a search of any public school student, if the search was conducted to ensure that classrooms, school buildings, school property, and students "remain free from the threat of all weapons, dangerous materials, or illegal narcotics" (United States Congress, 2006, section 3B). Prior to the legislation's consideration, however, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) warned legislators that the language of the Act was too broad and would allow school officials to conduct random, school-wide searches without any individualized suspicion of specific students breaking laws or school rules.

Other critics oppose general search and seizure policies in public schools altogether. Torres and Chen (2006) argue that courts have not sufficiently defined what constitutes a reasonable suspicion, who can conduct searches, or the extent to which invasion into students' privacy (if any) is legal. Both Fredrickson and McCurdy (2006), of the ACLU, insist that educators would be more effective in securing children's safety by focusing on suspicious behaviors of specific individuals instead of inflicting mass search techniques on large groups.

Current Cases & Future Debates

On November 5, 2003, armed police officers in SWAT team uniforms entered Stratford High School in Goose Creek, South Carolina, with authorization from the school's principal, and forced 150 teenagers to the floor and against walls as a drug-sniffing dog searched their book bags ("Landmark settlement," 2006).

On February 18, 2004, students at Mumford High School in Detroit, Michigan were lined up against the school's walls as police conducted physical pat-downs on each and inspected all pockets, purses, and book bags. Students were then taken to the school auditorium, where they were held for more than an hour and a half as police searched the rest of the building for guns and drugs ("ACLU challenges," 2007).

On March 17, 2004, a student at Nazareth High School in Nazareth, Pennsylvania was caught with a cell phone on school property during school hours; students were allowed to carry cell phones, but using them was a violation of school policy. After seizing the phone, a teacher and an assistant principal called nine students listed on its directory to determine if other students were also violating school policy. The teacher and assistant principal then accessed the phone's text messages, listened to its stored voice mails, and held a conversation on the phone with the student's brother without identifying themselves (Klump v. Nazareth Area Sch. Dist., 2006).

Each of these events resulted in lawsuits claiming students' Fourth Amendment rights had been violated by searches and seizures in public schools. Public school districts across the nation serve the educational needs of nearly 50 million schoolchildren each day. Educators struggle to find ways to provide safe, effective learning environments for children while respecting each student's constitutional rights to privacy. Yet, the cases described above, and similar ones throughout the United States, suggest that debates on searches and seizures in public schools will continue to pose challenges for families, school districts, police departments, and the U.S. court system for years to come.

Terms & Concepts

Confiscate: to seize; to take possession by force or by legal process.

Due Process: a legal requirement that protects an individual from unfair or unreasonable treatment as a result of enacted laws; formal legal proceedings based on established rules and principles.

Fourteenth Amendment, Section 1: "…nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

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 the persons or things to be seized."

In Loco Parentis: in place of the parent; in the role of a parent with respect to the care, supervision, and discipline of a child.

Intrusive Searches: a search that is not welcomed or invited; one that is highly personal in nature, such as a strip search

Probable Cause: based on facts and circumstances that would lead a reasonable person to believe a law is being, or has been, violated.

Reasonable Suspicion: a reasonable belief based on circumstances or information, but without proof, that something wrong or illegal has occurred.

Search: the examination of a person's home, car, or other personal space, or person, in an attempt to find something that is illegal or stolen or that provides some evidence of that person's guilt of some criminal act.

Search Warrant: a written order, signed by a judge, which directs an official to look for stolen goods or unlawful possessions and bring them to court for use in criminal prosecution.

Seizure: when a person or property is forcefully taken away by legal process.

Bibliography

ACLU. (2004). ACLU challenges Detroit police over mass searches of public school students. Retrieved July 23, 2007, from http://www.aclu.org/studentsrights/gen/12843prs20040610.html

ACLU. (2006). Landmark settlement reached in notorious school drug raid caught on tape. Retrieved July 23, 2007, from ACLU website, http://www.aclu.org/drugpolicy/youth/26123prs20060711.html

Across the nation: Districts. (1995). Education Week, 15 , 4. Retrieved July 30, 2007 from EBSCO Online Databases Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=9510112968&site=ehost-live

Board of Education of Independent School Dist. No. 92 of Pottawatomie Cty v. Earls, 536 U.S. 822 (2002). Retrieved July 30, 2007, from http://www.law.cornell.edu/

Essex, N. (2002). School law and the public schools: A practical guide for school leaders (2nd ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Essex, N. (2003). Intrusive searches can prove troublesome for public school officials. The Clearing House, 76 , 195-7. Retrieved July 20, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=10017488&site=ehost-live

Essex, N. (2006). The legal toll of drug sweeps in hallways. School Administrator, 63 , 46. Retrieved July 20, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete.

Finn, K. & Willert, J. (2006). Alcohol and drugs in schools: Teachers' reactions to the problem. Phi Delta Kappan, 88 , 37-40. Retrieved July 30, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=22295163&site=ehost-live

Foldesy, G. (1991). The legal implications of canine searches. The Clearing House, 65 , 26. Retrieved July 20, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=9705075571&site=ehost-live

Fredrickson, C. & McCurdy, J. (2006). Oppose H.R. 5295, the Student Teacher Safety Act of 2006. ACLU Letter to the House of Representatives. Retrieved on July 23, 2007, from http://www.aclu.org/crimjustice/juv/26774leg20060918.html

Heder, B. O. (1999). The development of search and seizure law in public schools. Brigham Young University Education & Law Journal, Winter 99 , 71. Retrieved July 30, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=1517705&site=ehost-live

Hoover, L. A. (2007). Getting schooled in the Fourth Amendment. The FBI LawEnforcement Bulletin, 76 , 22-32. Retrieved July 20, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Premier. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=25002891&site=ehost-live

Horton v. Goose Creek Independent School District. (1999). Great American Court Cases. Retrieved September 21, 2007, from http://law.jrank.org/pages/13036/Horton-v-Goose-Creek-Independent-School-District.html

H.R. 5295--109th Congress (2006). Student and Teacher Safety Act of 2006. Retrieved July 23, 2007, from http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?tab=summary&bill=h109-5295&page-command

Klump v. Nazareth Area School District, 425 F. Supp. 2d 622, (E.D. Pa., 2006).Retrieved July 30, 2007, from http://www.paed.uscourts.gov/documents/opinions/06d0400p.pdf

Lynch, M. (2006). Mere platitudes: The "domino effect" of school-search cases on the Fourth Amendment rights of every American. Iowa Law Review, 91 , 781.

Mitchell, J. C. (1998). An alternative approach to the Fourth Amendment in public schools: Balancing students' rights with school safety. Brigham Young University Law Review, 1998 , 1207-1241. Retrieved July 30, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Premier. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=1232617&site=ehost-live

New Jersey v. T.L.O., 469 U.S. 325 (1985). Retrieved July 30, 2007, from http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0469_0325_ZS.html

People v. Latasha W., 70 Cal. Rptr. 2d 886 (Cal. Ct. App. 1998). Retrieved 30 July, 2007, from http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/programs/cfcc/resources/caselaw/del/16.htm

Principal violates Fourth Amendment in seizure, search of high school student. (2011). ERS e-Bulletin, 38, 10. Retrieved December 15, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=61793571&site=ehost-live

Sharp increase in drugs in schools. (2005). The Brown University Digest of Addiction Theory & Application, Supplement 10, 24 (S10), 1-2.Retrieved July 30, 2007, from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Premier. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=20537450&site=ehost-live

SRO's scare tactics during seizure of pupil could lead to 4th Amend. liability. (2013). School Law Briefings, 17, 8-9. Retrieved December 15, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=90225031&site=ehost-live

Student and Teacher Safety Act of 2006. Section 3B. (2006). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Retrieved August 24, 2007, from http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h109-5295

Torres, M., Brady, K. P., & Stefkovlch, J. A. (2011). Student strip searches: The legal and ethical implications of Safford Unified School District v. Redding for school leaders. Journal of School Leadership, 21, 42-63. Retrieved December 15, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=66562406&site=ehost-live

Torres, M., & Chen, Y. (2006). Assessing Columbine's impact on students' Fourth Amendment case outcomes: Implication for administrative discretion and decision making. NASSP Bulletin 90 , 185-206. Retrieved July 30, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=24911856&site=ehost-live

Vernonia Sch. Dist. 471 v. Acton, 515 U.S. 646 (1995). Retrieved 30 July, 2007, from http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/94-590.ZO.html

Suggested Reading

Alexander, K. & Alexander, M. (2004). American public school law. Boston: Wadsworth Publishing.

Persico, D. (1998). New Jersey v. T.L.O: Searches in schools. Berkeley Height, NJ: Enslow Press.

Student searches and the law. (1995). Westlake Village, CA: National School Safety Center.