Fourth Amendment: Conducting Constitutional Searches
In the case of New Jersey v. T.L.O., the Supreme Court held that under the prohibition under the Fourth Amendment on the issue of unreasonable searches and seizures can be applied to the searches that have been initiated by public school officials (Lincoln 3). The searchers shall not be confined to searches that had been conducted by law enforcement officers. At the same time, the school officials discharge the Fourth Amendment’s commands due to the special nature of their authority over minor children. The school officials become the representatives of the State when they conduct searches and seizures based on disciplinary policies imposed by state statutes. In this case, the school officials cannot claim immunity under the rules of Fourth Amendment and do not act as surrogates for the parents of students, and they cannot claim the parents immunity.
However, in this particular case of New Jersey v. T.L.O., the Supreme Court held that the minor school children hold a legitimate expectation of privacy. The school children have the option to bring with them various lawful and noncontraband items, but that does not give the conclusion that they have essentially waived the right to privacy when they carry these things with them inside the school premises (Lincoln 3). However, there is also a need to strike the balance between the expectations of privacy of the students and the need for the school administration to keep a healthy educational environment that is conducive for learning. Hence, the school authorities may impose their own restrictions as compared to the searches that are being carried out by the public authorities. In effect, the, school officials do not have to obtain warrants before conducting a search of their students who are under the school’s supervision and care. The school officials do not have to be subjected to the requirement only searches can be conducted if there is probable cause to believe that the student who is the subject of the search had violated, presently violating or about to commit a violation of the law. The search that has to be conducted inside the school premises is a search of a student where the following requirements of the reasonableness of the search under all the circumstance must take place.
In order to assess the reasonableness of the search inside the school premises will require the determination if the search was lawful from the start, or when the search is carried out. It is important that the search inside the school is closely connected to the scope of the circumstances provided under the law. Based under normal circumstances, the search of students conducted by school officials is lawful from the beginning where it will show that there were reasonable circumstances to suspect that the search will produce the evidence that the student is carrying when he or she violated the laws of the school. The search shall be allowed within its limits when the means that were adopted had been reasonably connected to meet the objectives of the search. The search should not be extremely intrusive considering the age of the students and the gender and nature of the violation that was committed (Lincoln 3).
In this particular case of New Jersey v. L.T.O., the standard used for the search was reasonable based on the norms set under the Fourth Amendment. The fact shows that the search for cigarettes among the students was reasonable. The information that was gathered by the Assistant-Vice Principal that the student was smoking justified the reasonable suspicion that the said student brought cigarettes inside her purse that she carried inside the school premises. Hence, the search was justified in spite of the fact that the confiscated cigarettes when discovered will merely represent evidence for violating the no-smoking policy of the school. In addition, when the rolling papers were discovered, it created a reasonable suspicion that the student brought marijuana and cigarettes which were found inside the purse that she brought inside the school premises. Such suspicion became the valid ground to conduct further search and seizure which led to the discovery of more evidence in connection to the drug-related activities.
In conclusion, the school officials do not need warrants or probable cause to search the school grounds, provided that they have justified grounds to believe that the student had violated the law or school policies. In this case of New Jersey v. L.T.O., the student was accused of violating a no-smoking policy of the school. The Supreme Court held that the search of the defendant’s purse is valid and that the pieces of evidence that were discovered inside her purse were valid. The illegal drugs consisting of marijuana and the cigarettes that were found in her possession were considered as admissible evidence that can be presented in juvenile proceedings (Lieberman 447).
The Supreme Court held that under the prohibition under the Fourth Amendment on the issue of unreasonable searches and seizures can be applied to the searches that are carried out by public school officials since the searchers shall not be confined to searches done by law enforcement officers. Here, the school officials are discharged of the requirements under the Fourth Amendment on the basis of the special nature of the duty of the officials over the students who are enrolled inside their institution. Here, the school officials act as the representatives of the State as they carry out their own searches and seizures on the ground of disciplinary policies. The school officials are not allowed to raise immunity under the rules of Fourth Amendment since they are not merely acting as surrogates for the parents of students who are under their supervision and control. The school authorities do not have to abide by the requirement of existence of probable cause to establish the justification to conduct the search for evidence on their students. The purpose of the strict rules Fourth Amendment is intended to guard the scope of searches that had been allowed under the Constitution. Hence, the school authorities are not required to secure a valid search warrant before conducting the search in order to recover the evidence for violation of law and statutes (Schmalleger 213). To conclude, the school authorities may impose their own restrictions as compared to the searches that are being carried out by the public authorities. As a result, the, school officials do not have to apply for a warrant before conducting a search of their students who are under the school’s supervision and care (Lincoln 3).
Works Cited:
Harr, J.Scott, Hess, Karen M. and Orthmann, Christine M. Constitutional Law and the
Criminal Justice System. California: Cengage, 2011. Print.
Lieberman, Jethro Koller. A Practical Companion to the Constitution. California:
Lincoln, Eugene A. Searches and Seizures in Public Schools: Going Beyond the Supreme
Court's Ruling in New Jersey v. T.L.O. The Journal of Negro Education. 57.1
(1988) 3-10.
New Jersey v. T.L.O. 469 U.S. 325 (1985)
Samaha, Joel. Criminal Justice. Belmont, CA: Thomas Wadsworth, 2005. Print.
Schmalleger, Frank. Criminal Justice: A Brief Introduction. New Jersey: Pearson, 2013.
Print.
Works Cited:
Hulme, Peter and Youngs, Tim. The Cambridge Companion to Travel Writing. London:
Cambridge University Press, 2002. Print.
Groom, Eileen. Methods for Teaching Travel Literature and Writing: Exploring the
World and Self. New York: Peter Lang, 2005. Print.
Kerr, Douglas and Kuehn, Julia. A Century of Travels in China: Critical Essays on
Travel Writing from the 1840s to the 1940s. Hong Kong: Hong Kong
Strassberg, Richard E. Inscribed Landscapes: Travel Writing from Imperial China.
California: University of California Press, 1994. Print.
Youngs, Tim. The Cambridge Introduction to Travel Writing. London: Cambridge
