Board of Education of Independent School District No. 92 of Pottawatomie County v. Earls 536 U.S. 822 (2002) No. 01-332. United States Supreme Court. Argued March 19, 2002. Decided June 27, 2002. CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT The Law: This case deals with the Fourth Amendment and “[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.” The Fourth Amendment is implicated by the procedure of searching for urine to be tested by public school staff. The School District’s Policy is reviewed to check its reasonableness which is the bench mark of government related searches (Board). The Facts of the Case: At issue was that the Policy violated the Fourth Amendment. Two Tecumseh High School students and their parents brought forward this case stating it implicated the Fourth Amendment’s right of privacy. A summary judgment was granted by the District Court (Board 2). The Court of Appeals of the Tenth Circuit held that the Policy violated the Fourth Amendment. The appell...
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
Justice Harlan’s reasonable expectations test in Katz vs. United States (1967) considers whether a person has an “actual (subjective) expectation of privacy” and if so, whether such expectation is one that “society is prepared to recognize as ‘reasonable.’” (Solove and Schwartz 99) If there is no expectation of privacy, there is no search and no seizure (reasonable, or not), and hence no Fourth Amendment issue. Likewise, we must first ascertain whether a search took place. A few questions from a police officer, a frisk, or the taking of blood samples do not constitute a search. (Solove and Schwartz 83; 86) Likewise, the plain view doctrine establishes that objects knowingly exhibited in a public area, in plain view for police to see, do not
The Court held that because of the “special facts” the “attempt to secure evidence of blood-alcohol content in this case was an appropriate incident to petitioner’s arrest.” Under current jurisprudence, we would construe the language about “special facts” as relating to the exigent circumstances exception to the Fourth Amendment – which resists categorical rules – and instead focuses on the need for the intrusion and the availability of a warrant. However, the language also justifies the search as “incident to petitioner’s arrest,” which would indicate that the test was upheld as a search incident-to-arrest. In situations where it is appropriate, that has been described as a “categorical” exception to the warrant requirement that does not require any case-by-case
There are records of many cases that has created controversies over reasonable or unreasonable searches and seizures. As stated in the fourth amendment,
The U.S Constitution came up with exclusive amendments in order to promote rights for its citizens. One of them is the Fourth amendment. The Fourth Amendment highlights the right of people to be secure in their persons, houses, 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 searches, and persons or things to be seized (Worral, 2012). In other words such amendment gave significance to two legal concepts the prohibition of unreasonable searches and seizures and the obligation to provide probable cause to issue a warrant. This leads to the introduction of the landmark Supreme Court case Mapp v. Ohio and the connection to a fact pattern (similar case). Both cases will be analyzed showing the importance of facts and arguments regarding the exclusionary rule and the poisonous doctrine.
Vernonia School District v. Acton was a US Supreme court decision that aims to uphold the constitutionality affecting random drug testing implemented by local public schools in Vernonia, Oregon States. This provision mandates student athletes to undergo drug testing before they are allowed to participate in sporting activities. This particular measure established by the constitution stated that it propagates any illegal use of any prohibited substances for students in order to preserve the integrity of the society, in particular with regard to drug use. An official investigation led to the discovery that high school athletes in the Vernonia School District participated in illicit drug use. School officials were concerned that drug use increases the risk of sports-related injuries.
Decision : Reasonable standard held to be proper standard for determining legality of searches conducted by public school officials.
The Supreme Court had to decide on the question of, does random drug testing of high school athletes violate the reasonable search and seizure clause of the Fourth Amendment? 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, 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.
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 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.
These two court cases are very important in the evolution of the Fourth Amendment in public schools.
The law differs from state to state as the 4th amendment has been modified to meet public school safety. Legislatures decided that there needs to be some modification of the level of suspicion of illegal activity needed to justify a search. They also decided that there's a need for a balanced between the students and the school setting. The 4th amendment has been modified from where you need probable cause and a warrant to...
In 1787 Article three of the constitution created the Supreme Court, but not until 1789 was it configured. The way it was originally set up was with one Chief Justice and five associate judges, with all six members being appointed for life. This court serves as the “supreme law of the land”, it has the power to determine if state or federal laws are in conflict with how the Court interprets the constitution.
Dred Scott, an African American man who was born into slavery, wanted what all slaves would have wanted, their freedom. They were mistreated, neglected, and treated not as humans, but as property. In 1852, Dred Scott sued his current owner, Sanford, about him, no longer being a slave, but a free man (Oyez 1). In Article four of the Constitution, it states that any slave, who set foot in a free land, makes them a free man. This controversy led to the ruling of the state courts and in the end, came to the final word of the Supreme Court. Is he a slave or a free man?
The amendment involved in this case was the Fourth Amendment due to the protection of unreasonable search