Fourth Amendment in the Schools

The Fourth Amendment in the Schools

Though the Fourth Amendment’s protection of privacy has been one of the most cherished freedoms for the average citizen, this protection has not fully extended to students as recent court decisions demonstrate. What these cases illustrate beyond the tension between security and freedom is how the founders could not have anticipated many of these scenarios central to these cases. Does the right to privacy remain the exclusive domain of adults? The cases presented below trace the thinking of the Supreme Court on this question.

New Jersey v. T.L.O. (1985)

A teacher found T.L.O., a fourteen-year-old girl and student, smoking cigarettes in the high school bathroom. This violated school rules, and the teacher brought the student to an administrator who questioned the student. During the questioning, the administrator accused T.L.O. of lying and demanded to see her purse to find the cigarettes. The administrator found a pack of cigarettes and cigarette rolling papers. Knowing that these rolling papers can be used for marijuana, he suspected T.L.O. might be smoking marijuana too. A further search of T.L.O.’s purse uncovered a bag with a grass-like substance, a pipe, a roll of cash, and notes with other students’ names who appeared to owe T.L.O. money. Based on this evidence, the administrator called the police.

T.L.O. and her mother went to the police station where T.L.O. admitted to selling marijuana. Given her age, T.L.O. appeared in Juvenile Court. Despite her lawyer’s attempt to suppress her confession and the evidence from the search on Fourth Amendment grounds, the judge sentenced her to one year of probation. The Appellate Division in New Jersey agreed there had been no Fourth Amendment violation but vacated the initial judgement and sent the case back to Juvenile Court to determine if T.L.O. had voluntarily waived her Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.

In the appeal to the New Jersey Supreme Court, the Court held that the actions of the school administrator did not violate T.L.O.’s Fourth Amendment rights. The Court did decide the administrator overstepped his authority by searching through T.L.O.’s purse since possessing cigarettes did not violate school policy. A desire to show T.L.O. had lied did not justify the full search of her purse.

When the case reached the U.S. Supreme Court, in a 6-3 decision, the Court held that Fourth Amendment protections do apply in school settings. Furthermore, the Court held that the school’s action in this case did not violate T.L.O.’s Fourth Amendment rights. The Supreme Court did not determine whether unlawfully seized evidence should be suppressed.

Vernonia School District 47J v. Acton (1995) This case involved student athletes in Oregon who school officials discovered using illicit drugs. Concerned about the possibility of this drug use contributing to sports-related injuries, the district adopted a Student Athlete Drug Policy authorizing random urinalysis of student athletes in this district. The district banned James Acton, a football player, from participating in football when he and his parents refused to consent to testing for James. James’ family sued the Vernonia district arguing the drug testing violated James’ Fourth Amendment rights as it was an “unreasonable search.”

In a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court concluded there was no violation. The majority opinion noted they assessed the search in an attempt at “balancing the intrusion on the individual’s Fourth Amendment interests against the promotion of legitimate governmental interests.” The Court concluded that since the student athletes are under State supervision during school hours, they are under more control than the general population. The Court further concluded the concern over injury outweighed the privacy of these athletes.

Safford United School District v. Redding (2009) Based on a tip that she might have ibuprofen, which violated school policy, school officials conducted a strip search of Savana Redding, an eighth grader at Stafford Middle School. Savana filed suit in the District Court for the District of Arizona where the case was dismissed. Savana’s initial appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit was similarly denied. However, in a hearing before the entire Court of Appeals, the court held the school district had violated Savana’s Fourth Amendment rights and the scope of the search and its intrusion was not a reasonable search under the circumstances.

The Fourth Amendment in the Schools (cont.)

The Supreme Court, in an 8-1 decision, affirmed that Savana’s Fourth Amendment rights had been violated. The majority opinion noted these types of searches must be “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.” Savana’s case also raised the question of individual school officials being liable for damages. The Court ruled the school officials were not liable, though Justices John Paul Stevens and Ruth Bader Ginsburg disagreed. Stevens wrote, “It does not require a constitutional scholar to conclude that a nude search of a 13-year-old child is an invasion of constitutional rights of some magnitude.”

Robbins v. Lower Merion School District (2010)

In what is better known as “the webcam case,” Blake Robbins and his family successfully sued the Lower Merion County School District for using the camera on his schoolissued laptop to take “thousands of webcam photographs and screen shots from student laptops.” The school officials claimed they were trying to locate missing computers. However, Blake first learned of this practice when his assistant principal falsely accused him of selling drugs. An official from the Electronic Privacy Information Center argued, “This was not a safe or secure or even rational thing for the school to be engaged in.” At the time of the case, Pennsylvania Senator Arlen Specter introduced legislation to make this type of act a federal crime. In 2010, the school district settled a civil suit for $610,00.00. Blake Robbins will receive $175,000.00 from a trust fund established in his name. The Future of the Fourth Amendment in Schools

Though recent decisions have generally supported the Fourth Amendment rights of students, the overwhelming student use of technology and embrace of social media platforms continue to complicate these protections. A 2017 report by PBS NewHour noted that Harvard had revoked the admission of ten incoming freshmen for posting violent and racist material to a private Facebook group. This same report reported how a Facebook “altercation” between two students at Dysart High School in Surprise, Arizona resulted in a fight at their school. Safety remains a prime concern for these schools, some of which have been sued by families who did not take action based on social media posts and cyberbullying. These concerns, while important, are navigated on a slippery slope to ensure safety while also respecting student’s Fourth and First Amendment rights. Further development or changes in technology will likely make this process more difficult to accomplish.