The Fourth Amendment of the US Constitution protects the citizens’ privacy with personal possession such as houses and cars against unreasonable or unexplained searches, but the person or personal possessions can be searched or seized with reasonable or valid cause supported by authorities with a proper description or records of persons or objects searched or seized. However, schools can sway the Fourth Amendment for students in order to provide an safe environment for other students such as locker searches and technology monitoring. The Family Education and Privacy Act (FERPA) allows parents to access students’ private educational records without the student’s actklongments or consent but when students turns 18, the right will be transferred …show more content…
“Lockers searches are a necessary part of security within the school building to ensure guilt or lucid proclamation of the criminals by securing stolen belongings, drugs, or weapons within the lockers”(Hartman 1). The pros of locker searches are the student acknowledgement that the lockers will be searched if necessary ,so students are less likely to bring school-violating objects into the school building. Drug-sniffing dogs are administered to alert administrators if drugs or illegal substances are within the suspected student’s lockers. “The cons of locker searches are the mistrust students might feel for the administrators and the searches, even with the best intentions, can be mistaken as a invasion of privacy because students might keep personal photographs or bad report cards within the lockers”(Hartman 1). Another con of locker searches is the time consumed before and after these searches. Before a locker search policy is administered, the school needs to bring the cause of the suspicions to the school board or discuss with parents and sent notices for students and teachers about the new policy in placed; in simpler terms, locker searches can be issued in private. Another con of locker searches is the disagreements between the school’s administration and the student and parent. In other words, if the student and parent feel the search is unjust, the parents or student can press charges against the school which leads to a lengthy, costly battle. But most of the time, courts may be more lenient toward the school instead of the student because the school always sent out search notices beforehand for the potential of the locker searches. Also, schools states explicitly in student handbooks or guidelines that locker searches
In the case Morale v. Grigel, 422 F.Supp 988 (1976), the plaintiff James Morale, who is a student at New Hampshire Technical Institute, room was entered and searched by officials representing the dorm. There was no probable cause for them to enter his room, and while there they seized what they alleged to be “purple haze”. The court ruled that a check or search of a student's dormitory room is unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment unless NHTI can show that the search furthers its functioning as an educational institution. The search must further an interest that is separate and distinct from that served by New Hampshire's criminal law. Obviously, administrative checks of the rooms for health hazards are permissible pursuant to the school's
... is one that a reasonable guardian and tutor might undertake.” And he concluded that given the mission of public schools, and the circumstances of this case, the searches required by the school board's policy were “reasonable” and thereby permissible under the Constitution's 4th Amendment.
To summarize the Fourth Amendment, it protects people from unreasonable searches and seizures. A search conducted by the government exists when the area or person being searched would reasonably have an expectation of privacy. A seizure takes place when the government takes a person or property into custody based on belief a criminal law was violated. If a search or seizure is deemed unreasonable, than any evidence obtained during that search and seizure can be omitted from court under
Redding became a starting case against unconstitutional searches of students where a girl had her backpack searched in the assistant principal 's office. After the official searched her bag, the school nurse’s office was her next destination, so the nurse and the administrative assistant could search her clothes and instructed her to shake out the elastic of her bra and underwear (Carpenter 86-87). The tragic part about this case is that it is not the first or final time a similar event has occurred. In the case of Jane Doe, “...or so she was called in this case…”, a student of a high school in Little Rock, Arkansas filed a case against her school (Dowling-Sendor 46). Dowling-Sendor tells of how the school regularly conducted searches of book bags and purses, and police officials would take any contraband found. Then any items found would become evidence for a prosecution (46). When school officials searched Jane’s bag, they recovered a container full of Marijuana, and its purpose was to convict Jane Doe on a drug misdemeanor charge. After being charged with this, Jane appealed to the 8th circuit because the District Court first dismissed her case. The court ruled in her favor in a two to one decision, claiming the search caused a violation of her rights. She had every reason to win because school officials search students at this school on a regular basis, and it is
The 4th amendment protects people from being searched or having their belongings taken away without any good reason. The 4th amendment was ratified on December 15, 1791. For many years prior to the ratifiation, people were smuggling goods because of the Stamp Act; in response Great Britain passed the writs of assistance so British guards could search someone’s house when they don’t have a good reason to. This amendment gave people the right to privacy. “Our answer to the question of what policy must do before searching a cellphone seized incident to an arrest is accordingly simple - get a warrant.” This was addressed to officers searching people’s houses and taking things without having a proper reason. I find
Privacy was once taken for granted in public education, but now through the 1974 law, Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act it is pushed to the forefront of the minds of every educator in the United States (Cossler, 2010). This law has paved the way for many lawsuits regarding privacy of student’s records, which have left teachers scared, undereducated and unaware of certain regulations of the law. FERPA laws provide protections for students, but also allow access of all student records to the student’s custodial parents, which in some situations has cause problems and in some cases have specifically brought clarifications of the law. Has the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act provided the much needed privacy for students or created an overboard policies?
According to the 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.” Without the Fourth Amendment, people would have no rights over their own personal privacy. Police officers could just enter people’s houses and take anything that they could use as evidence and use it against them. With the advancement in today’s technology, it is getting more and more difficult to define what exactly privacy is to us, and whether or not the Fourth Amendment protects it.
The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution states that people have the right “to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures,” but the issue at hand here is whether this also applies to the searches of open fields and of objects in plain view and whether the fourth amendment provides protection over these as well. In order to reaffirm the courts’ decision on this matter I will be relating their decisions in the cases of Oliver v. United States (1984), and California v. Greenwood (1988) which deal directly with the question of whether a person can have reasonable expectations of privacy as provided for in the fourth amendment with regards to objects in an open field or in plain view.
It is a common known fact that the Bill of Rights serve as a type of contract between the government and the people that outlines the specific rights that each individual is entailed and the government cannot revoke those rights. The Fourth Amendment protects those accused of a crime by preventing officials from searching the home, property, or body of the accused without a valid reason or a search warrant. Despite being a crucial amendment in terms of the privacy and personal protection of an individual, the history behind the conception of the amendment and the history of the amendment in the modern day is not known to a majority of the American population.
The school locker is usually the only private space available to a student in the environment of the school. So it focuses many of the main issues involved in privacy of the students. The 4th Amendment of the US 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 person or things to be seized.”
The Fourth Amendment 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.' (Encarta Online) In the court case of Katz v. United States it was said that, 'the 4th Amendment protects the people and not certain areas against search and seizure.' (Katz v. U.S.) Without this amendment people would have no claim over their personal privacy, or security. Any officer could enter homes and take any evidence that could be used to make an arrest or that could be used for prosecution in court.
A-58). It also requires “a warrant that specifically describes the place to be searched, the person involved, and suspicious things to be seized” (Goldfield et al. A- 58). The Fourth Amendment protects the privacy of the people by preventing public officials from searching homes or personal belonging without reason. It also determines whether “someone 's privacy is diminished by a governmental search or seizure” (Heritage). This amendment protects citizens from having evidence which was seized illegally “used against the one whose privacy was invaded” (Heritage). This gives police incentive to abide by the Fourth Amendment. The Fourth Amendment protects a person’s privacy “only when a person has a legitimate expectation to privacy” (FindLaw). This means the police cannot search person’s home, briefcase, or purse. The Fourth Amendment also requires there to be certain requirements before a warrant can be issued. The Fourth Amendment requires a warrant “when the police search a home or an office, unless the search must happen immediately, and there is no opportunity to obtain a warrant” (Heritage). The Fourth Amendment protects the privacy of the people, but also the safety of the people. When there is probable cause, a government official can destroy property or subdue a suspect. The Fourth Amendment prevents government officials from harassing the public.
School searchers have been going on for many years now, and as the years keep passing the searches happen more and more. Schools didn't have many back in the day due to trust in the schools also they didn't have as many drugs around as now a days. I feel that school searches are a good thing to have through out the year and also have them if they have probable cause to search sgtudents lockers.
Which can be having armed officers walk though halls, making sure the school is safe from any harm that could potentially happen.
In September 25, 1789, the First Amendment protects people’s privacy of beliefs without government intrusion. The Fourth Amendment protects one’s person and possessions from unreasonable searches and seizures. On February 1, 1886 in Boyd v. U.S. Supreme Court recognized the protection of privacy interests under the Fourth and Fifth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution. In the 1890s, the legal concept of pr...