Sometimes, there may be reasons to suspect students in the violation of the order in a school. To that end, in the United States, there is a mechanism of searches that – to an exact extent – can ensure discipline and prevent many undesirable issues in this regard. However, this topic is not as simple as it may seem at first approximation. In particular, there is considerable ambiguity in terms of the violation of the student’s right to privacy. Within the scope of the theme, a significant number of factors should not be forgotten, which justifies the necessity of constant research and reviews. What is more, from the perspective of the mentioned topic, it can be seen how the decision-making process of school leaders is affected by the legal dimension in the country, as well as its importance. Below, a discussion on the lawful grounds for the search of students in schools will be provided.
In the Constitution, there is the Fourth Amendment, according to which the rights of the people are to be protected in their personalities, accommodations, and documents from inappropriate searches and seizures. These rights cannot be breached, as well as no Warrants can be issued without a reasonable cause that should be founded n Oath (U. S. Const. amend. IV.). It seems rational to say that in accordance with these statements, the government has no legal opportunity to conduct unreasonable and warrantless interventions in an area in which an individual or individuals have their privacy rights (the United States v. Chadwick, 1997). At this point, the question of whether such a state of affairs is applicable to students in schools or not.
It may be claimed that different standards are applied to students. The latter, as adults, apparently have constitutional rights (Morse v. Frederick, 2007); however, they are not absolutely the same as a free adult has under the other conditions. A student does not lose their constitutional rights at school, but they do not get identical protection that the Fourth Amendment provides. This, again, is due to the fact that an adult is in other circumstances. In the mentioned educational establishments, a student has only a limited privacy right.
The Fourth Amendment which does not allow imprudent searches and seizures is applicable to searches that are conducted by a public school official. Nevertheless, the rights of a student are to be defined, taking into account particular peculiarities of schools’ conditions. The United States, which has the role of the schoolmaster of children, can undertake a more considerable extent of supervision and control in comparison to an adult who is free in this vein (Vernonia School Dist. 47J v. Acton, 1995). This determines whether a search is appropriate or not; hence, the search of students can be legitimate.
Given the rationale above, it might be suggested that the search of students by school officials is to be reasonable, and all conditions should be considered. In order to define whether such a search is appropriate, one should remember a number of important aspects. First, it is whether this search was proper initially; second, the mentioned search that is being conducted should be linked with the scope of the conditions of the particular case (Hazelwood School Dist. v. Kuhlmeier, 1988). In most situations, searches are justified at their inception if there are rational arguments for looking for the pieces of evidence that will prove that students have violated the law or the schools’ principles.
Another crucial point in the framework of the theme is that a search warrant is not needed in schools. A plethora of searches of adults is to be founded on a search warrant that, in turn, must be signed by a judge. This document also should be grounded on the principle of probable cause. However, for a school official, it is not necessary to obtain a warrant prior to searching students. The warrant norm is not applicable to the school circumstances. If the State could require this warrant from the school officials before the search of a student who is suspected of breaking the establishment’s rules, it would unreasonably hinder the maintenance of discipline and settled procedures.
Here, it should be stressed that for school searches, probable cause is not required; instead, there is the necessity of reasonable suspicion. The latter requires less information than the former, as well as takes place in a case when facts raise moderate chances to find evidence of the offense. The privacy right of students is not neglected but balanced by the importance of maintaining order. For instance, in Safford Unified School Dist. #1 v. Redding (2009), the school official’s search of the backpack of the student and outer clothes for prescription of drugs was legitimate. However, the search for the underwear was unreasonable, given that there was no reasonable suspicion that this student had utilized the underwear for concealing evidence.
A school can undertake random searches, not due to individualized suspicion but the necessity of preventive measures. For example, these can involve the utilization of metal detectors and a sweep of lockers. The legitimacy of random searches takes place if schools have a convincing interest or particular need that justifies the search without suspicion. The prevention of drug abuse is the primary reason expressed by school officials in the United States. For instance, drug-testing programs are a type of random search. In Todd v. Rush (1998) and Miller v. Wilkes (1999), this type was approved for students who take part in extracurricular activities.
To conclude, the issue of the search for students in US schools was discussed. It was found that these searches are legitimate and are to involve several essential aspects. Students do not shed their Constitutional right of privacy in a school; still, this right is limited due to the presence of the related establishment’s order, rules, and discipline. However, when such a search is conducted – despite the fact that no search warrant and probable cause are not needed – reasonable suspicion is required. Moreover, random search is allowed because it is considered a preventive measure.
It seems appropriate to claim that the discussed theme clearly shows that school leaders are significantly affected by the legal dimension in their decision-making process. Although the power to arrange education in the country belongs to the states, concerns regarding effectiveness and local involvement are resolved by the delegation of authorities from legislative branches to school officials and leaders. Such a system tends to operate efficiently and gives benefits, as there is a visible balance of powers, responsibilities, and the scope of influence in this vein in the US. It is essential to provide the local education providers with the opportunity to organize the specific aspects of their order on their own.
References
Hazelwood School Dist. v. Kuhlmeier, 484 U.S. 260, 266 (1988). Web.
Miller v. Wilkes, 172 F.3d 574 (1999). Web.
Morse v. Frederick, 127 S. Ct. 2618, 2628, 168 L. Ed. 2d 290, 220 Ed. Law Rep. 50 (2007). Web.
Safford Unified School Dist. #1 v. Redding, 557 U.S. 364 (2009). Web.
Todd v. Rush, 133 F. 3d 984 (1998). Web.
U. S. Const. Amend. IV.
United States v. Chadwick, 433 U.S. 1, 7, 53 L.Ed.2d 538, 97 S.Ct. 2476 (1977). Web.
Vernonia School Dist. 47J v. Acton, 515 U.S. 646 (1995). Web.