Search and Seizure Chapter 9 Introduction Fourth Amendment

Search and Seizure Chapter 9

Introduction �Fourth Amendment “The right of people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and affects against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated, and no warrant shall issue, but upon probable cause…”

Introduction continued… �S. Ct. held that Fourth Amendment’s prohibition of illegal “searches and seizure” by Federal government was applicable to states through due process clause or the Fourteenth Amendment. �Privacy rights implied under Fourth Amendment

Introduction continued… �Fourth Amendment protects citizens from government, government prohibited from obtaining evidence for prosecution except as authorized by proper procedure, such as, a specific warrant. �No warrant shall be issued, unless upon probable cause.

Exclusionary Rule �Evidence excluded if obtained improperly or illegally. �“Purpose is to compel respect for constitutional guaranty. ” �Exclusionary rule used in criminal cases.

Governmental Search & Seizure Fourth Amendment Police probable cause warrant School officials reasonable suspicion no warrant

Public School Searches �Reasonable suspicion for schools. �Reasonable suspicion lower standard than probable cause.

T. L. O. and Reasonableness �Schools �Reasonable suspicion �Random search based on “special needs” (drug testing) �New Jersey v T. LO established precedent of reasonable suspicion �Obtain contraband that is against school rules or law that could be harmful to students.

Strip Search �Stafford Unified v. Redding. �Court placed definitive limits on school officials prerogatives. �Strip search special category of intrusiveness. �Court stated “quantum leap from outer clothes and backpacks to exposure of intimate parts. ”

Special Needs and Suspicionless Searches �Under special needs search warrants are not needed. �Special needs used in random drug testing. �S. Ct. (drug test-special needs) �National Treasury Employees vs. Von Raab �Skinner v. Railway Executives �Chandler v. Miller

Special Needs continued… �S. Ct. - Skinner – Drug Testing �“In limited circumstances, where no privacy interests implicated by the search are minimal, and where an important governmental interest furthered by the intrusion would be placed in jeopardy by a requirement of individualized suspicion, a search may be reasonable despite the absence of suspicion”

Special Needs continued… �Students – Drug Testing �Vernonia School Dist. V. Acton �Board of Education v. Earls �Drug Testing – Special needs for extracurricular activities, ie, football, band, debate �Drug testing for non-instructional activities

Canine Searches �Courts not in agreement. �Some courts say canine search is not a search under Fourth Amendment. �Some courts have upheld canine search for lockers and cars but not the body of student.

Metal Detector Searches �Reasonable if justified, such as, violence in schools. �One court stated “the action was justified at the its inception by the reality of violence in the schools…”

Liability for illegal searches �Government officials performing discretionary function generally have qualified immunity. �Immunity not available if actions excessive – strip search of entire class for missing credit card. �Actions brought under Title 42 U. S. Code, Section 1983.

New Jersey v. T. L. O (1985) �Search of students by school officials is constitutionally permissible if reasonable and not excessively intrusive. �School officials subject to Fourth Amendment. �“The underlying command of the Fourth Amendment is always that searches and seizures be reasonable, what is reasonable depends on the context within which the search takes place. ”

New Jersey v. T. L. O. continued… �Reasonableness “balancing the need to search against the invasion which the search entails. ”

T. L. O. continued… �S. Ct. “It is evident that the school setting requires some easing of the restrictions to which searches by public authorities are ordinarily subjected. ” �Legality of search depends on reasonableness, under all circumstances. �Search reasonably related in scope to circumstances which justified the search in the first place.

New Jersey continued… �Search must be reasonable at inception. �Search not excessively intrusive. �Search must be individualized.

Stafford Unified Sch. V. Redding (2009) �Reasonable suspicion of drugs did not justify strip search of 13 year old girl. �“making her pull out her underwear was constitutionally unreasonable” �“the content of suspicion failed to match the degree of intrusion” �T. L. O search is not excessively intrusive in light of the age and sex of the student and the nature of the infraction.

Vernonia Sch. Dist. v. Acton (1995) �School District’s drug policy of random urinalysis for interscholastic athletes is constitutional. �The ultimate measure of the constitutionality of a government search is “reasonableness. ” �Reasonableness “balancing intrusion against legitimate governmental interest. ”

Bd. of Ed. , Pottawatomie v. Earls (2002) �Policy requiring all students who participated in competitive extracurricular activities to submit to a drug test was reasonable and did not violate the Fourth Amendment. �S. Ct. has held “the Fourth Amendment imposes no irreducible requirement of [individualized] suspicion. ”

Pottawatomie continued… �“Fourth Amendment Rights are different in public schools than elsewhere; the ‘reasonableness’ inquiry cannot disregard the schools’ custodial and tutelary responsibilities for children. ” �“Special needs” inhere in the public school context. �S. Ct. stated “In upholding the constitutionality of the policy, we express no opinion as to its wisdom. ”

Doe v. Little Rock Sch. Dist. (2004) �Random suspicionless searches of students’ persons and belongings, book bags, etc. , is unconstitutional. �Balance – individuals; legitimate expectations of privacy versus the governments need for effective methods, to deal with the appropriate public order. �Students have legitimate, though limited, expectation of privacy of personal belongings at public schools.

State of Iowa v. Jones (2003) �Annual, school wide cleanout of lockers permissible despite students’ privacy interest and lack of individual suspicion. �Purpose health and safety. �Decision based on Earls and Acton cases. �Court concluded student “has a measure of privacy in the contents of his school locker…”