Suchergebnisse

Cover -- Half Title -- Title -- Copyright -- Contents -- Foreword -- Introduction -- Chronology -- 1. The Interpretation of the Fourth Amendment Has Changed over Time -- 2. Fourth Amendment Rights of Students are Tempered by Security Concerns -- 3. Public Schools May Search Students in Order to Maintain Discipline -- 4. Schools May Test Students Involved in Athletics for Drugs -- 5. Schools May Test Students Involved in Extracurricular Activities for Drugs -- 6. The Lawyer for the Earls Defendant Laments the Court's Decision -- 7. Student Drug Testing is Ineffective and Damaging -- 8. Student Drug Testing is Effective and does not Violate Student Privacy -- 9. The Increased Acceptance Toward Student Drug Testing Threatens All -- 10. It is a Violation of Students' Rights for Schools to Conduct Unwarranted Searches -- 11. The Student Plaintiff in Redding Describes Her Search by School Officials -- 12. The Supreme Court Has Determined That Students have Few Rights -- 13. Seizures and Searches of Students' Phones and Laptops are Constitutional -- 14. Fourth Amendment Rights have Become Weaker in Recent Years -- Organizations to Contact -- For Further Reading -- Index -- Back Cover

This legal research study identified Supreme Court cases relating to search and seizure generally, and Supreme Court, federal and state court cases relating specifically to search and seizure in education. The purpose of this study was to identify those concepts, doctrines and principles of law governing searches and seizures in order to inform administrators of their legal responsibilities. Concepts, doctrines and principles of law governing searches and seizures are summarized in the following statements: (1) Students have a right to privacy, but this right must be balanced against the school's interests and the rights of others. (2) Searches must be reasonably related to a legitimate school purpose. General, exploratory, blanket and indiscriminate searches will not be sustained by courts. (3) School officials have an affirmative obligation to maintain order and discipline for the health and safety of students. (4) Searches must be based on concrete, articulable facts. Mere suspicion is not acceptable to the courts. (5) Elementary and secondary school officials, acting in loco parentis, are generally held to the lesser standard of reasonable cause to believe. However, the more intrusive the search, the higher the standard to be applied. (6) Colleges and universities cannot condition attendance upon a waiver of a student's constitutional rights. (7) Police initiated searches are subject to the higher standard of probable cause. (8) In cases where exigent circumstances existed, such as the destruction of evidence or harm to another, administrative officials have an affirmative obligation to act immediately and they are not subject to the warIant requirement (9) Contraband seen in plain view is subject to seizure without a warrant. ; Ed. D.

This article argues that the Supreme Court's original view of the history and meaning of the fourth amendment was correct: seizures of papers were condemned in eighteenth-century England without respect to the validity of any underlying warrant, and the search and seizure clause thus embodies requirements independent of the warrant clause. Part I discusses the eighteenth-century English decisions, including Entick, and concludes that the case law of that era had two separate branches. One branch forbade general warrants and led to the adoption of the warrant clause; the other, exemplified by Entick, prohibited the seizure of certain papers and lies behind the search and seizure clause. Part II, relying on debates in Parliament and on a series of widely circulated pamphlets, describes the public controversy in the 1760's over the English government's search and seizure practices. It shows that the use of general warrants and the seizure of private papers were attacked on distinct grounds in the public arena as well as in the courts. Part III suggests several basic principles of fourth amendment jurisprudence that this history appears to require. First, the search and seizure clause forbids the inspection of innocent private papers in the course of a search for inculpatory documents that by themselves are unprotected by the fourth amendment. Second, an assessment under the search and seizure clause of the reasonableness of a seizure of private papers should take into account the problem of compulsory self-incrimination. Third, the fourth amendment strictly limits court-compelled production of documents by the defendant in a suit or prosecution for libel or other speech-related activity.

In the companion cases of Canadian Broadcasting Corp. v. Lessard and Canadian Broadcasting Corp. v. New Brunswick (AG.), the Supreme Court of Canada decided that the media should not have any special protection from police search and seizure above that afforded to ordinary citizens. In refusing to create a standard of heightened constitutional protection to be met before a search warrant can be issued against the press, the Court turned a blind eye to its past interpretations of section 8 of the Charter as containing a standard of reasonableness that varies depending upon the context of the search and the particular rights involved. These decisions ignore the unique role that the media play in a democratic society and will continue to have a negative impact on the constitutional guarantees of freedom of the press. It appears that a better balance of the interests of the press and of law enforcement can only be reached through legislative intervention.