Introduction
Many school officials have performed countless duties and responsibilities in different level of challenges that are extremely in demand. School officials are expected to work hard with different students with different characteristics, faculty, and parents in complex circumstances. It is necessary to face multiple needs and the necessity to make decisions in accordance to the environment it belongs, in the right time, right management, and with full liability. In the legal research, the importance of the Supreme Court about the New Jersey v. T. L. O. is reviewed properly by state court cases related to the Search and Seizure in public schools. The answers and explanations provide the guiding questions and conceptual models; the practicalities of the school law exercises have the thorough understanding of the search and seizure in public schools.
The student search is a tool for maintaining school safety; however, the school administrators need to balance the individual rights of the students for a safe learning environment in the school community necessary. In the United States public schools, they have the Fourth Amendment right to be free from any reasonable searches. The right is diminished in the environment of the school; however, its unique necessity maintains a safe atmosphere that learning and teaching occurred. There is a balance on implementation between the rights to privacy of the students and the necessity to maintain the school safety. In the United States Supreme Court, it clarifies the protection for the citizens by the Fourth Amendment. The federal and state courts has ignored related issues in education from 17 89 to 1850; the position of the court about the juvenile matters involved was under the jurisdiction of its states. In addition, the Supreme Court stands specifically for unofficial policies that are referred to the Doctrine of Discretionary Educational Primacy or DDEP. The doctrine means that, the Court does not interfere with the school decisions or it does not substitute the discretion of the court for the school. With regards to the police involvement in searches, the T.L.O. decision does not address the standards specifically when police officers are part of the school searches. There was avoidance from the Court in terms of decisions regarding the proper standards for assessing the searches’ legality as conducted by the school officials with its union to the law enforcement agency. From a review performed in the case, it indicated that the courts have decided to apply standards to T. L. O. The application involved the standards of the law enforcement in the search and seizure process with the school authorities. There are three categories in the analysis: (1) the T. L. O. standard applied in cases and the school officials initiated the search or the police officers’ involvement is minimal; (2) the standard on reasonable under the circumstances was applied and the school resource officer had the initiative or authority in the searches during school hours and goals related to education. Another category is that, (3) other courts held the probable cause applied in cases outside that the police officers initiated the search, part of the investigation. It means that, if the officials of the school requested the presence of the police authority has its limitation with regards to its involvement. In addition, the school can decide to search, perform the search, and the school itself has the authority to order primary motive for the actions taken. However, if the police authority requests for the search, decides to search, or participates in the search actively, there is the application of the probable cause standards.
New Jersey versus T. L. O. Case
As stated by Justice Byron White that, the warrant requirement particularly in the school environment and the legality of the search of the students depends on the reasonableness and under all the circumstances of the search. The search is permissible with the scope that measures the adaptation of the related reasonable objectives. In addition, the search is not excessively intrusive to age and gender of the students as the nature of its infraction. The New Jersey Supreme Court has addressed the issue of State In the Interest of T. L. O. The opinion demonstrated by the New Jersey Court is that, if an official search has violated the constitutional rights, there is no admissible evidence in the criminal proceedings as concluded. Many courts have encountered different cases about searching of students and its property. For example, the New Jersey v. T. L. O. case, it involved two girls who were caught smoking in the school bathroom publicly. One of the girls admitted about the allegation while T. L. O. denied that she was smoking. The school administrator checked the purse of T. L. O. if she had cigarettes and they found out more evidences such as marijuana and other things that connect to the incident. The parents were notified and it resulted to filing a case against T. L. O. as delinquency charges in juvenile court conducted by the State of New Jersey. However, T. L. O. brought the issue before the court that her Fourth amendment rights was violated because she was searched unlawfully. The motion was denied and concluded that the Fourth amendment applied to searches by the school administrator and held in effort to maintain discipline or enforce the school policies. When T. L. O. appealed to the New Jersey Supreme Court and the Court found out the search was unreasonable since the search was conducted without her consent or probable cause by the assistant principal happened to be a government official. The Supreme Court ruled that there was a violation of the Fifth Amendment right of T. L. O. during interrogation. The New Jersey v. T. L. O. became a standard that the reasonableness of a search is determined in case law that relates to search and seizure in the school. Today, in relation to the student freedom, there is a balance of the individual students’ rights to be free from unreasonable search and seizure against the desire to have secure and safe environment in the school. The court has established the Reasonableness Standard; it acknowledged the higher probable cause standard that police authority should follow the appropriate standards for the school officials.
Recommendation for Fairer Educational Setting
Particularly, disciplining the students with serious behavior problems is a great challenge for the educators. Educators should balance the needs of the students and the school community. The center of the challenge is the comparison of punitive and supportive disciplinary practices. The reliance on punitive approaches to discipline, a zero tolerance policies, has proven counterproductive and ineffective. It holds true in the general education students and students with disabilities. An effective discipline practices ensured the dignity and the safety of the students and staff, it preserves the learning environment integrity that addressed the causes of misbehavior of the students to improve the behavioral skills positively toward lasting results. Many schools have adopted the zero tolerance approach in disciplining the students in school that resulted to suspension or expulsion of the students involved in the misbehavior or misconduct. However, the zero tolerance approach does not necessarily threaten the safety and welfare of others, and the harsh results automatically invoked. In addition, it is irrespective of the severity of the circumstances involved or the misbehavior and with no consideration of the negative impact on the welfare of the offending students and the overall climate of the school. The suspension, expulsion, and punitive consequences are not the main solution to the disruptive or dangerous behaviors of students. the dangerous students involved in misbehavior or misconduct are not changed through exclusion from the proper school settings instead they became worse. There are high risks of delinquency and crime if young people are not attending in school or not involved in labor forces.
A positive discipline is a research-based procedure that focused on the increasing behavior desire and not solely on decreasing undesirable behaviors by means of punishments. It implies that positive discipline strategy improves the safety and results for the students. The procedure itself emphasized the significance of the positive changes toward the environment of the child to make sure that the behavior of a child improves essentially. The changes involved the utilization of positive reinforcement, supportive teacher-student relationships, modeling, support from the family, and help from different specialists in education or even health organizations. The positive discipline strategy benefits every student for several reasons such as engaging in curriculum, preventing discipline problems, relationship-building activities, and maintains proper social behavior for safer school. Other reasons are the positive solutions intended for the needs of the students, teacher interactions; a comfortable environment leads to more improved performance or behavior, and functional communication skills. In addition, an effective implementation of proactive supports in terms of behavior includes competency culturally, family-friendly support, and prevention on different problems. The research-based approach provides proactive system of the behavioral support in the school that includes Positive Behavior Support or PBS, social skills instruction, violence prevention program, and school-based mental health service. Specifically, the strategies focus on early prevention, social skill trainings, adult mentors, and teacher support teams.
Conclusion
The different behavioral issues involving students can be addressed through proactive support in the behavioral strategies. It is necessary to consider the range of causal factors to immediately implement the safety concerns for the students. Removing the students from the regular educational setting is not the solution of the problems of misconduct or misbehavior. Students who are involved on the issues deserve to receive quality access of a proper instruction. The strategies enable the students to continue to progress positively in the general curriculum and to receive quality services and modifications for the students to meet their goals set by the school. The benefits obtained by the students in the school-home relationship promote quality education system as its key challenge.
Reference
Bedden, D. T. (2006). Student Search and Seizure in K-12 Public Schools Retrieved from
http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/theses/available/etd-03102006-174524/unrestricted/DBeddenFinalETD.pdf?q=schoollaw.
Ehlenberger, K. R. (2002). The Right to Search Students. Understanding the Law , 59 (4), 31-35.
Keenan, D., & Thomas, T. M. (2014). An Offense-Severity Model for Stop-and-Frisks. Yale Law
Landmark Cases of the U.S. Supreme Court. (2014). About Us: Landmark Cases of the U.S.
Supreme Court. Retrieved October 2014, from Landmark Cases of the U.S. Supreme Court Web site: http://www.streetlaw.org/
