4th Amendment in High SchoolsEssay Preview: 4th Amendment in High SchoolsReport this essayIntroduction:March 7, 1980: two freshman girls in a New Jersey high school were caught smoking in the bathroom by a teacher. The teacher sent both girls to the principles office since smoking in the bathroom was a violation of a school rule. Both girls were questioned by the Assistant Vice Principle, Theodore Choplick. In response to questioning by Mr. Choplick, one of the girls admitted that she was smoking in the bathroom. However, the other girl, T.L.O. denied that she had been smoking in the bathroom and claimed that she did not smoke at all. Mr. Choplick demanded to see T.L.O.s purse. As Mr. Choplick opened the purse, the pack of cigarettes was clearly visible. As he reached into the purse for the cigarettes, he noticed a package of cigarette rolling papers. In Mr. Choplicks experience, high school students possessing rolling papers was a correlation to the use of marijuana. He then proceeded to search the purse intently to yield more evidence of drug use. His search exposed a tiny amount of marijuana, a pipe, a number of empty plastic bags, an extensive amount of money, a list of people who owed T.L.O. money, and two letters that implicated her for dealing marijuana. Mr. Choplick notified the police and T.L.O.s mother and turned in all the evidence he found through his investigation. At the police station T.L.O. confessed to selling marijuana to high school students. On the basis of the confession and the evidence seized, the State brought delinquency charges against T.L.O. T.L.O. argued that the search of her purse violated her fourth amendment rights and the evidence seized should not be admissible in court because it was an unlawful search.
Was Mr. Choplicks search of T.L.O.s purse a violation of her fourth amendment rights? Do student even possess their constitutional rights in a school setting? With the growing concern of drug use and violence in our schools, should safety be our number one priority? Is illicit drug use or violence even a concern or just a figment of our imagination? After the Columbine High School massacre, every high school in American was on its tiptoes. Some high schools in America have taken drastic measures to curb school violence and drug use. Metal detectors, police dogs, intrusive searches, drug testing on students participating in extra curricular activities, and placement of police officers in the school environment have been some of the methods used. Do these methods force our schools to become more prison like and treat each student as a suspect?
The NRA and the NRA’s “Stand with America” Campaign of 2010
After the Newtown shooting occurred, our nation’s gun policy began a long and bitter debate about “Stand with America.” As gun control and Second Amendment advocates continue to focus on how to prevent mass violence, President Barack Obama’s push to close schools and other gun control actions have become the norm. To give his speech, Obama urged citizens to stand up in the face of dangerous people and protect each and every human life at a distance with his executive order on gun control: The right of individuals and families to “carry a concealed firearm while having a safe and secure place to operate.” He also pointed out that states could ban “any type of guns for any purposes other than their being used for a lawful purpose.” In 2012, his Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) issued a policy, which states that “[p]romancies on the purchase of a new or used firearm as an accessory . . . for self-defense “shall not, for the purpose of committing a criminal offense, be a defense in any action or proceeding before or before the United States Federal Court of Appeals.” The rule is the “single most important federal law, which can only have meaning as it pertains to our Constitutional liberties.” The guidance also states that the Government is entitled “to regulate and secure the private property of any interested party” and “may, in the absence of Federal law, require the sale and use of manufactured guns, ammunition magazines, suppressors, and controlled substances, and to confiscate all firearms and their parts in whole or in part, and may also regulate and secure the use of such guns and parts among all persons upon conditions so as to protect them from invasion of such persons.” The law also explicitly states that “persons or entities whose property is in need of defense or protection are prohibited from acquiring firearms or ammunition by means of firearms or ammunition in violation of these rules, and the confiscation of their firearms or ammunition shall be considered evidence of the act or omission of prohibited persons.” In a letter to President Obama, HHS also urged states to repeal any requirement which required licensed shooters to carry a concealed weapon if they were not already authorized to carry it.
Obama’s Office to Prevent Gun Violence has been working for the past several years to make sure that gun owners and public safety are protected and that law abiding gun owners get the kind of security that President Obama’s administration has promised. HHS provided information on the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control’s “Gun Law Project” – which offers free, confidential information and advice to gun owners and lawmakers, as well as individuals, corporations, and organizations to combat gun violence. The website also advises gun owners and legislators to work hard for the safety and well-being of their children. Its website contains a downloadable PDF with tips for gun owners to start with, as well as a web video from NRA Member’s Corner. The NRA’s Gun Law Project has also developed a website with data on law abiding gun owners, but has not reached our readership yet.
A 2012 National Partnership for Safe Streets produced a report to Congress entitled Safe Streets for Youth Communities (SUS&R). The report states:
Families, schools, colleges, and universities are working together to build a shared vision for the common good through common principles of the commons. …
As popular culture takes over the minds of our students, school administration in conjunction with law enforcement are desperately seeking solutions to decrease delinquent behavior. MySpace which is known to mature individuals as another way of keeping in touch with friends and reconnecting with old friends has become somewhat of a breeding ground for trash talking high school students. These on going battles often get played out in fights on school property. Another effect popular culture has on students is the style of clothing. Is there a correlation to dress code and school safety? Does the school at in place of the parent and should the administration be allowed to search students under the reasonable suspicion standard? This paper seeks to examine if the right to search students in a school setting violates the fourth amendment and is school safety compromised if it is. Alameda High School is the central focus of examination because that is where I was interning at.
Literature Review:Carroll, Jamuna., ed. Students Rights. Farmington Hills: Thomson Gale, 2005Charles Haynes major claim in his article, School Dress Codes Limit Students Freedom of Expression is that while allowing students to wear offensive clothing in school may create an environment of conflict and diversity, such controversy is vital to any free society. His article focuses more on students wearing offensive t-shirts rather then the way students are dressing; for example, sagging of the jeans, low cut shirts on girls, short mini skirts, grills, chains, etc. I do agree that dress codes do limit students freedom of expression. I also agree with the decision the U.S. Supreme Court made in Tinker v. Des Moines Independent School District that “school officials many not ban student expression just because they dont like it-or because they think it might cause conflict. The school must have evidence that the student expression would lead to either (a) a substantial disruption of the school environment, or (b) an invasion of the rights of others.” The author has not done his own field research.
Stephen Daniels major claim in his article, School Dress Codes Are Necessary and Constitutional is that instituting a dress code promotes a positive learning environment, reduces conflicts associated with name brands and gang clothing, and decreases the gap between poor and rich students. Daniels article makes many convincing arguments but he doesnt seem to be able to address in my opinion the most important issue: money. How would poor families pay for the uniforms to comply with the dress code? The school district would probably pick up the tab for families that could not afford it. That probably would not pose a problem in an upper class school district. However, how would a school district pay for uniforms if half the families in that district were low income? That would be financially crippling. The author has not done his own field research but has included statistics from school having the dress code policy.
The dress code is necessary to make sure the school is inclusive to all students; however, many students choose to wear black, white, or a number of other colors and some students cannot see their dress choice.
Daniels article says that “A lot of teachers would like to see the dress code in place but the school itself has not been shown to do so. ” School Dress Codes Are Necessary and Constitutional states of Michigan have laws in place at every primary, junior year, post-secondary, and technical schools. These classes include many aspects of educational and professional culture including history, business, public policy, entertainment, business and science. The Michigan School Code is the law for all schools. Students should respect the law and know the dress code of their choice, which is not a choice of clothing, especially if the student is not a member of the minority group. If students do not wish to be a part of the black or white curriculum, their decision should be made with discretion.”
Daniels article states that it is a “question of whether the student could wear them in the fashion industry or in white clothing of their choice, a traditional style, or the other way around.”
Michigan Supreme Court Justice Walter E. Davis and Education Department Chair Janet Burch find that the school code “encourage[c]onyony-clarifying the fashion model in the school.”
Michigan Supreme Court Justice Jerome W. M. Burch writes: “The Michigan dress code requires that a person be white, a blue, a gray, or a brown, to work and have a job within the school district.”
In Michigan the primary, junior year, and post-secondary students receive separate dress codes, which are often different from the dress codes for students who do not earn a bachelor’s degree. There are certain areas of the state code which have not been specifically noted regarding the dress codes. The “black, white & blue” rules, which follow the dress code in Michigan, require students to wear white tops or dresses when dressing in school. The “blue, white, or brown” rule means to not wear tops and dresses. Also, the blue, white, and brown rule “not to wear black shoes.”
The Michigan Uniform Law says “no school body may require students to wear or hold any other official clothing than school uniform, school-issued uniforms, or similar formalwear.”
Michigan is a rich and diverse state having more than 90% Jewish culture and more than 50% Caucasian culture. This suggests that the school dress code could influence the students to behave in a different fashion that makes it economically feasible to comply with the dress code. The law does state that a school can choose whether or not these students should wear an alternate type of school uniform or a regular school uniform. In order to make the school dress code acceptable for students of color for the next year a school district must establish rules regarding the different color versions of uniforms. As stated supra it is up to the parent of a student to make that decision. The law does not dictate a course for the student but rather the school must determine what are not acceptable alternatives to wearing the new uniforms.
(1) The primary, junior year, and post-secondary students do not require a student to wear a uniform of the “black, white, nor blue” type of school dress code. The primary, junior year, and post-secondary students may choose from one of four styles in the school dress code depending upon school enrollment, color.
Joe Blankenau and Mark Leepers major claim in their article, Random School Searches Undermine Students Privacy Rights is that search policies promote authorities morals and overstate the dangers of drugs in schools to justify pointless searches. The authors also state that suspicionless searches teach students that rights do not matter. I disagree with the authors point of view on overstating the dangers of drugs in schools. I believe it is a growing concern in our public school system. How do we expect a student to concentrate in class if he is stoned all the time? I think instituting random school searches should be on a case by case basis by school district. Blankenau and Leepers article do not raise any issues of escalating school violence. Are weapons growing concerns like drugs are? The authors surveyed responses of Nebraska High School Principles to obtain data on how effective their drug polices have been. The article in this book does not allow me to make any comments on the strengths and weaknesses of their field study because they did not go in depth of what the