Annotated Bibliography
Bambauer, Jane. "Hassle." Michigan Law Review 113.4 (2015): 461-511. Print.
Bambauer suggests that Searches and seizure in schools are in other words a debate about the privacy of individuals and the extent to which the state or anybody is able to invade an individual’s private life. Despite the fact that this may seem insignificant, a student’s locker in most cases is the only private space that a student has in a communal atmosphere of the school. In many occasions, the debate about searches and seizure is seen as an American issue. However, this can apply to any other country, and the disputes could be transferred from the student’s lockers to cabins and desks in the workplaces.
Essex, Nathan. "The U.S. Supreme Court Raises The Bar For Strip Searches In Public Schools." Clearing House 83.3 (2010): 105-108. Print.
Essex, a law expert, states that the United States Constitution defends the American citizens from unreasonable or irrational searches and seizures. In the United States Constitution, The Fourth Amendment affirms that “The people’s right remains protected in their persons, papers, houses as well as effects against irrational searches and seizures should not be at any time be violated, and that no warrants shall give, only upon credible cause, propped up by affirmation or oath and specifically describing the precise place to be searched and or the precise persons or items to seize.
FOURTH AMENDMENT -- SEARCH AND SEIZURE AND EVIDENCE RETENTION -- SECOND CIRCUIT CREATES A POTENTIAL "RIGHT TO DELETION" OF IMAGED HARD DRIVES. Harvard Law Review. (2014); 746. Print.
Fourth Amendment — Search and Seizure — Conflicted Consent When the Objecting Tenant Is Absent — Fernandez v. California. Harvard Law Review (2014); 241- 250. Print.
The Fourth Amendment dictates that a search meets a reasonableness standard. Reasonableness can be weighted on the conditions that surround the search’s general intrusive character against the genuine interest of the state. However, any time the state or government cannot prove that a search was necessary, it becomes unreasonable.
FOURTH AMENDMENT -- SEARCH AND SEIZURE AND EVIDENCE RETENTION -- SECOND CIRCUIT CREATES A POTENTIAL "RIGHT TO DELETION" OF IMAGED HARD DRIVES. Harvard Law Review. (2014); 743. Print.
The article affirms that searches and seizures were initially protected under the Fourth Amendment, which protects an individual’s space from searches and seizure that are carried out without good reasons. Nevertheless, in a Supreme Court case in 1980, New Jersey vs. T.L.O. (the name of the defendant is protected in the public records as a minor) Placed the guide for an exception. Another student found T.L.O smoking marijuana. Initially, T.L.O denied the accusations. However, he was subsequently searched and found to be in possession of cigarettes, marijuana and other illegal substances. The Supreme Court ruled that searches and seizures legal not essentially under firm warrant, but under rational suspicion. The ruling ultimately relaxed the demands of the Fourth Amendment and acts as the source of searches and seizures in schools.
Henderson, Stephen E., and Kelly Sorensen. "Search, Seizure, and Immunity: Second- Order Normative Authority and Rights." Criminal Justice Ethics 32.2 (2013): 108- 125. Print.
The article details that there are very many regulations concerning the searches and seizures that schools must follow. In accordance with the U.S Department of Education, a student’s item may be seized, or private space searched if there is sufficient proof that the school rules are under violation or that there is evidence in the student’s private space.
Kerr, Orin S. "An Economic Analysis of Search and Seizure Law." University Of Pennsylvania Law Review 164.3 (2016): 591-647. Print.
Orin argues that searches and seizures in school start as a result of reasonable suspicion by a school local employee that the student has gone against the school policy or law. In order for suspicion to be true, the school employee has to support the suspicions with facts. For instance, a justifiable search and seizure are where the school employee has made specific observations or have a particular knowledge.
"Physically Intrusive Abortion Restrictions as Fourth Amendment Searches and Seizures." Harvard Law Review 128.3 (2015): 951-972. Print.
The article argues that a justifiable search could also be that the school employee has rational inferences that are supported by observations made and facts collected. The school employee could as well explain how the facts and the rational inferences provide an objective foundation of suspicion. The knowledge and information that the employee possesses have to come from a dependable and legitimate source to be deemed reasonable. The sources may as well include the employee’s observations or knowledge and dependable reports of other officials at the school.
"Physically Intrusive Abortion Restrictions as Fourth Amendment Searches and Seizures." Harvard Law Review 128.3 (2015): 951-972. Print.
The article states that a direct reason from the court case for searches and seizures is that many students like T.L.O could be using their private space to keep illegal substances. Some parents use this case and reason to argue that the rewards that come with the stopping the distribution of these dangerous substances outweigh the risk of invading a student’s privacy.
"Policing Students." Harvard Law Review 128.6 (2015). Print.
In line with a study carried out by National Centre in 2004, the article reports that parents approve searches and seizures in schools for this reason. Over seventy-five percent of parents in the survey favored the search of students’ personal space for potential drugs and other harmful substances. Of all these parents, 51% strongly support the searches and seizures in schools.
Research Paper
Search and Seizure is Schools and Students’ Personal Space
Despite the fact that there are many rules and regulations regarding searches and seizures that school must follow, there are some reasons that compel schools into conducting random searches. For instance, weapons have been the chief reason for carrying out random searches and seizures in schools. The main explanation is always to prevent teen weapon violence in schools. National Centre survey carried out another study on Youth Risk Behavior and found out that 6% of students carry weapons or dangerous interments with them to school. The survey pointed out that these students carry these weapons at least one to six days in a period of one month. Some of the students even resorted to carrying these weapons to school due to fear (Bambauer 492).
All in all, searches and seizures have their advantages and disadvantages. Parents insist that searches and seizures are advantageous because of their effectiveness. Getting contraband items such as drugs, stolen property as well as weapons is quick and effective through searches. It is a sure way of establishing guilt and getting the right student to punish. Searches of desks and lockers can as well be localized to the lockers of the students being suspected (Essex 107). Drug-sniffing dogs can also notify and lead the administrators to lockers with illegal or harmful substances. Apart from the effectiveness of searches and seizures in practice, the very existence of the policy of locker search in school can act as an effective deterrent. When students are aware that their lockers are subject to random search as a school policy, they are less likely to carry harmful or dangerous substances to school hence making the school atmosphere safe (“FOURTH AMENDMENT-EVIDENCE RETENTION” 747).
This author points out the drawbacks that come with searches in schools. He claims that searches and seizures all have a great drawback that cannot go unmentioned. Searches and seizures break the trust that once existed between the students and the administration or teachers. Students are likely to feel that their privacy and personal space is being invaded. Students too have the right to carry their personal items and property wherever they go (“Policing Students” 1751). Students may keep personal items in their lockers. Some of the personal items students may possess at the school include personal letters and photographs. Therefore, even a search with a good intention may still break the trust between students and teachers or administrators. It may even result in a rift between the student body and the school faculty (“Fourth Amendment-Anonymous Tips and Suspected Drunk” 238).
This article points out that another drawback in the searches and seizures in schools is that the search may run into some legal issues. The legal status of the search will always depend on the genuineness of reasons for developing the suspicion that a certain locker contains illegal or dangerous substances. It will also depend on the presence or absence of search and seizure policy in school that is known by the students. If a student’s parents or the student chooses to take legal action against the school due to the search, a pricey legal battle could follow (“Physically Intrusive Abortion Restrictions as Fourth Amendment Searches and Seizure” 968). Apart from the legal issues that surround the issue of searches and seizures in schools, courts tend to rule in favor of schools in such case, according to World Law Direct. It is especially true in circumstances where students had been given warning of the potential searches and seizures at an earlier time such as in the student’s newsletter (Kerr 600). If there is evidence that that the search was carried out because of suspicion of a potential threat, the school can strengthen the case even more.
Searches and seizures in schools are a debate that raises controversial reactions among students, parents, and the school administrations. The mixed feeling about the debate is because every participant has a different strong interest (Henderson & Sorensen 114). The students will utterly oppose the searching of their lockers because they want their personal space and private life respected. On the other hand, parents approve search and seizure in schools because they believe that the safety of their children far outweighs the students desire to keep their personal space. However, searches can be conducted if it is part of the school policy that is well known to students. Students are not completely safe if left to use their personal space in harming themselves and others. There needs to be a solution the solution is fixing search and seizure in the school policy.
Works cited
Bambauer, Jane. "Hassle." Michigan Law Review 113.4 (2015): 461-511. Print.
Essex, Nathan. "The U.S. Supreme Court Raises The Bar For Strip Searches In Public Schools." Clearing House 83.3 (2010): 105-108. Print.
"Fourth Amendment — Search And Seizure — Anonymous Tips And Suspected Drunk Driving — Navarette V. California." Harvard Law Review 128.1 (2014): 231-240. Print.
FOURTH AMENDMENT -- SEARCH AND SEIZURE AND EVIDENCE RETENTION -- SECOND CIRCUIT CREATES A POTENTIAL "RIGHT TO DELETION" OF IMAGED HARD DRIVES. Harvard Law Review. 128, 2, 743-750, Dec. 2014. Print.
Fourth Amendment — Search and Seizure — Conflicted Consent When the Objecting Tenant Is Absent — Fernandez v. California. Harvard Law Review (2014); 128 (1): 241-250. Print.
"Fourth Amendment — Search And Seizure — Searching Cell Phones Incident To Arrest — Riley V. California." Harvard Law Review 128.1 (2014): 251-260. Print.
Henderson, Stephen E., and Kelly Sorensen. "Search, Seizure, and Immunity: Second-Order Normative Authority and Rights." Criminal Justice Ethics 32.2 (2013): 108-125. Print.
Kerr, Orin S. "An Economic Analysis of Search and Seizure Law." University Of Pennsylvania Law Review 164.3 (2016): 591-647. Print.
"Physically Intrusive Abortion Restrictions as Fourth Amendment Searches and Seizures." Harvard Law Review 128.3 (2015): 951-972. Print.
"Policing Students." Harvard Law Review 128.6 (2015): 1747-1770. Print.
