Searches of Students Property

Searches of Students Property

Aracelis Ortega
University of St. Thomas
Terry Bruner, J.D.
EDUC 5391 School Law
July 20, 2016

Background/Importance

Searches of Students Property

The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution states:

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.

This right is granted by law to all adults as well as all students. Along with this right,
school officials need to provide a safe environment to all students and staff. In order to provide
such environments in schools, administrators have to follow protocols in order to conduct a
search on students property. Property searches in schools need to be swift in order to protect the
students, therefore, administrators and teachers have to have reasonable suspicion about a student
in order to conduct a search on their property at school. A search on a students property does not
require a warrant for the purpose of safety and quick action.
Property searches in schools have become highly controversial based on the involvement
of rights provided by the law to students, the safety of students in schools, and property privacy.
It is a national goal to keep all learning institutions safe for students and with that in mind,
administrators in schools conduct reasonable searches on students property such as their
backpacks or book bags, purses, and automobiles. Desks and lockers at a school are the schools
property, therefore, it is not a student's property. Property searches at private or public learning
institutions are meant to protect and provide a safe environment for its students.

Major Cases/Laws

Searches of Students Property

One landmark case in which the U.S. Supreme Court made a ruling on school searches
was the New Jersey v. T.L.O. case in 1985.
A fourteen-year-old female student was caught smoking with another girl in a girls
restroom at school by a teacher. The teacher brought the students to an administrator who
questioned them about smoking. One of the students admitted to smoking and T.L.O. denied
smoking. By reasonable suspicion, the administrator conducted a reasonable search by
confiscating her purse and going through it. Inside were found cigarettes, cigarette rolling paper,
a grass-like substance, a pipe, a wad of money, a list of names who owed her money, and a letter
in which implicated her selling marijuana. The Juvenile Court in New Jersey found her guilty of
delinquency.
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the search conducted on the students purse did not
violate the Fourth Amendment. They also concluded that the Fourth Amendment applied to
public school officials, such as administrators and teachers, because they act as agents of the
state.
According to Justice Byron White, School children have legitimate expectations of
privacy. But striking the balance between school children's legitimate expectations of privacy
and the school's equally legitimate need to maintain an environment in which learning can take
place requires some easing of the restrictions to which searches by public authorities are
ordinarily subject.
This case was an example of how public school officials have a legitimate stronghold on
how to keep schools safe for all students and also provide an insight to students that they do have
freedoms and rights but all within rules and laws of the learning institutions.

Searches of Students Property

Another case that resorted to common sense and probable suspicion was Commonwealth
v. Craig A. Carey.
In this case, two reliable students advised their art teacher that Carey had shown them a
gun and that he had brought it to school as a result of a fight he had with another student the past
Friday. The teacher informed the assistant principal of the issue and reaffirmed that the students
that provided such information were reliable and known to him. The assistant principal along
with other two administrators planned how they would go about searching for a gun on school
premises and Carey. As they did not find a gun on Carey, they called the police as a
precautionary measure. The administrators questioned Carey and after searching him and
searching the places that he had been at school, one of the administrators searched his locker.
There was a dungaree jacket in which he had a sawed off .22 caliber rifle, a black powdery
substance, a gun sight, and a bullet. Carey acknowledged that the items were his and he waived
his Miranda rights along with the motion to suppress. Craig A. Carey was found guilty of
unlawful possession of a firearm.
It was argued that the administrators violated Careys privacy by searching his locker
without his permission. But the court ordered that the locker was a physical property of the
school and that the students only used them for a limited time to put their belongings in them.
The administrators acted with a plan and followed it using probable suspicion. They acted
quickly in order to secure safety for all of their students. "The special need for an immediate
response to behavior that threatens either the safety of schoolchildren and teachers or the
educational process itself justifies the Court in excepting school searches from the warrant and
probable cause requirement. The Court recognized that a school administrator's task of
maintaining discipline in the school has become a more difficult one, as "in recent years, school

Searches of Students Property

disorder and disciple has taken an ugly form. Many violent crimes in schools have become
major social problems that are in need of attention by all.
On the New Jersey v. T.L.O. case in 1985, the Justices concluded that students were
protected by the Fourth Amendment's ban on unreasonable search and seizure. Because the issue
of the Fourth Amendment was left open for interpretation, in that case, the Wisconsin Supreme
Court went beyond and made a strict ruling on locker searches. The ruling stated that school
officials can search student lockers without having a probable suspicion that there is evidence of
contraband or crime. This was the outcome of the Wisconsin case of random locker searches.
In 1990, school officials at Madison High School in Milwaukee conducted locker
searches for guns based on the principal hearing rumors of a school shootout being planned at the
school. A security aide opened lockers until he found a heavy coat and found a revolver inside
along with cocaine. The fifteen-year-old boy was found criminally delinquent.
They boys attorney, Mark Lukoff, argued that his privacy of his locker and rights under
the Fourth Amendment had been violated. The justices concluded that the locker was school
property therefore, the student did not have a right to expect privacy. Also, the school expressed
in the student handbook that the lockers were school property and that they could be searched at
any time. According to Justice Bablitch, students had no privacy rights protecting their lockers
because of society's need to control increasing violence in the schools.
My Districts Policies on Searches
In my districts Code of Conduct, the board expresses to students and parents that
students are guaranteed the rights provided by the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. It
also states clearly what type of materials students are not permitted by the school district and the
law to bring into the learning institutions. My school district strictly provides in writing that

Searches of Students Property

administrators/school officials can conduct reasonable searches of students and school property
based on reasonable cause. When there is reasonable cause, school officials believe that the
student possesses materials that can cause harm to others in the school. Such materials are drugs,
weapons, alcohol, and any other contraband in violation of school rules or the law. Reasonable
searches are conducted on school property such as desks, lockers, computers, and any other
electronic devices. These are school property and as such, remain under the control of school
officials for random searches or inspection. Students cannot expect privacy on property that
corresponds to the school. Metal detectors and trained dogs can also be utilized by school
officials and law enforcement at random locations and times in order to see if students and staff
are in compliance with safety. It is an action conducted by school officials in order to keep a safe
environment in which learning can occur without being interrupted by contraband being brought
into the schools.
Where We Stand Now
The number one goal of public and private learning institutions is to provide a safe and
healthy environment in which all students can learn and grow. The U.S. Supreme Court has
acknowledged that there is a need for a different standard of safety in schools that take into
account the age and vulnerability of the students. School searches have prevented many cases of
contraband in schools, guns, and inappropriate materials brought into school grounds. All of
these precautionary measures stem from past actions from students that have committed horrific
actions against other students and staff members. Such was one case in 1999, in which two
students gunned down classmates at Columbine High School in Littleton, Colorado. These types
of attacks against others in a learning institution urged school officials to be more vigilant about
investigating potential violations being committed on school grounds. Today, school officials are

Searches of Students Property

expected to impose a zero-tolerance policy in schools that specify strict punishments for grave
offenses. But as for school searches, the courts treat every case depending on the situation and
severity of it individually. They revert to the landmark case to make their decision, the Fourth,
and Fifth Amendment. A setback on this topic is that not all of the states have the same laws
about school searches. It is a topic that will continue to transcend in education due to privacy,
rights, and safety.
Ramifications for School Administrators
School administrators are now in a variety of situations in which common sense and a
good notion of self-judgement are now necessary in order to provide safety in schools. They
have to take action keeping in mind all of the laws and repercussions that their decision will have
especially dealing with student personal property and their privacy. Because such cases can occur
in schools, administrators, and teachers are urged to be part of an organization that protects them
with legal advice and guidance from attorneys on such topics.
Administrators now need a good understanding of the laws that pertain to school grounds,
students rights, safety procedures in place, and above all have good reflexes in emergency
situations. School searches are a big part of keeping everyone safe in a learning institution and
teachers and administrators act as the agents that can keep discipline and safety in check.

Searches of Students Property

8
References

Essex, N. L. (2016). SCHOOL LAW AND THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS: A Practical Guide for
Educational Leaders (6th ed.). NJ: Pearson.
Gray, Ritter & Graham, P.C. (2015). The Judicial Learning Center. Retrieved from:
http://judiciallearningcenter.org/your-4th-amendment-rights/
The United States Courts. Retrieved from: http://www.uscourts.gov/educationalresources/educational-activities/facts-and-case-summary-new-jersey-v-tlo