a. |
Our conclusion is that because public school officials act in " in loco parentis "in their dealing with the students, they act as representatves of the state in carrying out searches and other disciplinary functions, and therefore, must comply with the restrictions of the fourth amendment. |
b. |
Requiring a teacher to obtain a warrant before searching a child suspected of an infraction of school rules would unduly nterfere with the maintenance of the swift and informal disciplinary procedures in the schools. Most importantly, balancing the legitimate expectation of privacy and the school's equally legitimate need to maintain an environment in which learning can take place. |
a. |
First, a search by public school officials is justified at its inception,"when there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that the search will turn up evidence that the student has violated or is violating either the law or the rules of the school." |
b. |
Second, the search must be reasonbly related in scope to the circumstances which justified the interference in the first place. The measures adopted are reasonably related to the objectives of the search and not excessively intrusive in light of the age and sex of the student and the nature of the infraction. Accordingly, the judgement of the Supreme Court of New Jersey is Reversed. Justice POWELL, with whom Justice O'CONNOR joins, concurring. Justice BLACKMUN, concurring in the judgement. Justice BRENNAN, with whom Justice MARSALL joins, concurring in part and dissenting in part. |
a. | School locker searches |
School lockers are under the joint control of the student and school officials. In Zamora v. Pomeroy,(639 F.2d,665), School officials give notice to the students that their right to privacy is limited. |
|
b. | Vehicle searches |
In State v.Slattery (1990), the court admitted it reasonable search for a school official, acting on a tip that a student was selling marijuana out of his car in the school parking lot. |
|
c. | Bookbags/Purses/Pockets searches |
In State v.Moore (1992),was permitted, but if a search of the student's pockets reveal no prohibited items, the search should be end there. |
|
d. | Body searches |
Strip searches should be performed only under the most extreme circumstances, such as dangerous drugs or weapons, and reliable evidence. And see the case in Alabama (1992). |
|
e. | Urine testing |
Lower court has decided urine testing upon the reasonable suspicion standard.(Anable v.Ford,653 F.Supp,22 1985) Before, schools could not mandate all or a class of students to submit to blood and urine tests for drugs, but recently are changing ? In Japan, the permissible scope of mandatory test for all students as part of medical check-ups at the beginning of school year. |
|
f. | Sweep searches |
Sniff searches using dogs. Lower courts have been divided on it, but In Jennings v. Joshu Independent School District (19089 it was permitted. |
|
g. | Metal detector searches |
Opinion of the Attorny General(August 30, 1994) Syllabus:"It is constitutionally permissible for school officials to use a metal detector to determin if students are carrying weapons into school; however, the school district should adopt policies to ensure the reasonableness of the metal detector search." |
Section 2. |
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, school administrators and officials may conduct reasonable searches on school property of lockers,desks,vihicles, and personal belongings such as purses, bookbags, wallets,and satches with or without probable cause. |
Section 3. |
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, school principals or their designees may conduct reasonable searches of the person and property of visitors on school premises. |
Section 4. | No school administrator or official may conduct a strip search. |
Section 5. |
Notwithstanding any other provision of this act, all searches conducted pursuant to this act must comply fully with the "reasonbleness standard" set forth in New Jersey v.T.L.O., 469 U.S.328 (1985). All school administrators must receive training in the "reasonableness standard" under existing case law and in district procedures etablished to be followed in conducting searches of persons entering the school premises and of the students attending the school. |
Number of Answer: |
Elementary school students ( Age: 10 & 11)..... 17,108
|
|
Junior high school students ( Age: 12,13 & 14)..26,943
|
||
Senior high school students ( Age: 15,16 & 17)..29.377
|
||
----------------------------------------------- | ||
|
73,428
|
A, " Yes " |
Elementary school boys ( Age: 10 ) ........73.6 %
|
Elementary school girls ( Age: 10 ) ........79.3 %
|
|
Junior high school boys ( Age: 13 ) ........68.3 %
|
|
Junior high school girls( Age: 13 ) ........79.2 %
|
|
Senior high school boys ( Age: 16 ) ........54.6 %
|
|
Senior high school girls( Age: 16 ) ........72.4 %
|
A. " Yes " |
Elementary school boys ( Age: 10 ) ........48.4 %
|
Elementary school girls ( Age: 10 ) ........49.4 %
|
|
Junior high school boys ( Age: 13 ) ........70.9 %
|
|
Junior high school girls( Age: 13 ) ........75.5 %
|
|
Senior high school boys ( Age: 16 ) ........79.2 %
|
|
Senior high school girls( Age: 16 ) ........81.6 %
|