Loading presentation...

Present Remotely

Send the link below via email or IM


Present to your audience

Start remote presentation

  • Invited audience members will follow you as you navigate and present
  • People invited to a presentation do not need a Prezi account
  • This link expires 10 minutes after you close the presentation
  • A maximum of 30 users can follow your presentation
  • Learn more about this feature in our knowledge base article

Do you really want to delete this prezi?

Neither you, nor the coeditors you shared it with will be able to recover it again.


EDUC 747 Group Project

4th Amendment, Search & Seizure

Michael Brom

on 10 June 2013

Comments (0)

Please log in to add your comment.

Report abuse

Transcript of EDUC 747 Group Project

4th Amendment
Search & Seizure EDUC 747 Group Project Background 2002 - Student from Safford Middle
School hospitalized

2003 - Worldwide drug problems

Aug 22, 2003 - Rowdiness at school dance

Sept. 2003 - Classmate, Jordan Romero,
acting odd and got ill

Oct. 1, 2003 - Romero and mother met with
Principal and Vice Principal New Jersey v T.L.O. (1985)
In 1980, a teacher caught two high school girls smoking cigarettes in a lavatory. They were delivered to the assistant vice principal, who questioned them. One of the girls admitted to smoking, which was a violation of school rules. The other girl, T.L.O., denied that she had been smoking and claimed that she never smoked. In private, the administrator demanded to see T.L.O.’s purse, which he opened to find cigarettes. In so doing, he found rolling paper. Digging deeper, he came across some marijuana, a pipe, a wad of money, an IOU list of students owing money to T.L.O., and some letters implicating T.L.O. in marijuana dealing. In court, T.L.O.’s parents sought to have the evidence suppressed as the administrator did not obtain a search warrant prior to obtaining it. Brad Gerstbrein
Glenda Westbury
Justin Maffei
Michael Brom "That general warrants ... to search suspected places without evidence of a fact committed, or to seize any person or persons not named, or whose offense is not particularly described and supported by evidence, are grievous and oppressive and ought not to be granted." Precedent
Cases M.M. v. Anker (1979)
A 15 year old girl in a New York City public school was subjected to a strip search by the dean of women after the student had some personal items fall from her desk to the floor, at which time she leaned over to pick up the items. The dean believed that the girl had hidden a marijuana pipe in her clothing as she picked up her belongings from the floor and suspected that the student had drug paraphernalia in her pocketbook, which led to the strip search. The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the lower court’s judgment in favor of the student, including damages, which the trial court calculated to be $7500.
Cornfield by Lewis v. Consolidated High School District 230
Brian Cornfield was a student at Carl Sandburg High School. A teacher’s aide, Kathy Stacy found Brian walking outside the school building on March 7, 1991. This was an obvious defiance of school rules. While telling her superiors of Brian’s misconduct, Ms. Stacy added that the student looked to have an unusually large bulge in his pants. This statement was substantiated by a teacher, Joyce Lawler, and another teacher’s aide, Lori Walsh. The defendants, Dean Richard Frye and teacher Richard Spencer, did not take action until the following day. Mr. Frye and Mr. Spencer pulled Mr. Cornfield aside as he was boarding the afternoon bus. The student asked that his accusers call his mother. The mother denied Mr. Frye’s and Mr. Spencer’s request for consent to search her son. The defendants proceeded, however. Upon taking the student to the abandoned locker room, they requested that the student change his clothes and put on a gym uniform. No drugs were found on the student’s person or in his clothes. The district court ruled in favor of the teacher and dean. The Seventh Circuit of the United States Court of Appeals held that the search was reasonable due to the school’s need to maintain order. However, this would not have been the case if one of the searchers had been of the opposite sex. Vernonia School District 47J v. Acton
James Acton, a 7th grader in the Vernonia School District, was denied participation in football in the fall of 1991 because he and his parents refused to sign School District’s Drug Policy because it violated their 4th and 14th amendment. The drug policy applied to all students participating in interscholastic athletics and students and parents signed a consent form if they wished to play sports. The district had enacted the policy in fall of 1989 with these purposes: (1) Prevent student athletes from using drugs, (2) Protect health and safety of students, and (3) Provide assistance programs to drug users. The federal district court upheld the policy. On appeal the Ninth Circuit court ruled it violated the state’s and the nation’s constitutions. The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the school decision to conduct random, suspicionless drug testing of student athletes. Board of Education of Independent School District No. 92 of Pottawatomie County v. Earls
The Oklahoma students, Lindsay Earls and Daniel James, and their parents brought a suit against the school district challenging the Student Activities Drug Policy, requiring all students who sought to participate in extracurricular activities must submit to random drug testing, on the grounds that it violated the Fourth Amendment and the district did not address a drug problem at the school or a promise to benefit the students or the school. The federal district court ruled in favor of the board. The parents appealed and the Tenth Circuit ruled in favor of the parents because the district had not proved an immediate nor pervasive drug culture in the school and it did violate Fourth amendment. The board appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court whose (2002) decision ruled that drug testing was not limited to student-athletes and could include students who voluntarily participated in extracurricular activities because the district’s interest was the preventing and deterring drug usage in students (Alexander and Alexander, 2012, p. 480-484). Day of Occurrence October 8, 2003 Romero tattled on Marissa Glines
Glines, in turn, tattled on Savana Redding
Redding called to office and searched "The right of the people to be secure
in their persons, houses, papers,
and effects, against unreasonable
searches and seizures, shall not
be violated, and no Warrants shall
issue, but upon probable cause,
supported by Oath or affirmation,
and particularly describing the
place to be searched, and the
persons or things to be seized."

- IV Amendment, U.S. Constitution Safford Unified School District #1 v. Redding Major Questions 1 Is there reasonable suspicion to initiate a search?
2 Is there a reasonable expectation that search will produce evidence?
3 Is there danger to the school?
4 Are students protected from strip searches by the 4th Amendment?
5 Are school officials immune from individual liability? Romans 13: 1-5 Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, for he is God's servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God's wrath on the wrongdoer. Therefore one must be in subjection, not only to avoid God's wrath but also for the sake of conscience. 18 13 [Untitled photograph of Savana Redding as 13 year old and 18 year old]. Retrieved June 6, 2013, from: http://www.thenewagenda.net/2009/07/06/sotomayor-supreme-court-justice-for-all-of-us/ The U.S. Supreme Court upheld for the administrator, ruling that getting a search warrant in such a situation would unduly interfere with the rapid and informal disciplinary measures required in a school setting. However, a search of a student must be both “justified at its inception” and “reasonably related in scope to the circumstances which justified the interference in the first place.” (Essex, 2012, p. 65). What Should Have/Could Have Been Done Keep
a secret! - Article X of the Virginia Declaration of Rights, 1776 Calling April Redding... [Untitled painting of smugglers]. Retrieved June 6, 2013 from http://www.douane-napoleon.nl/smugglers%20unloading%20contraband2.jpg References
Full transcript