Lesson 6: Student/Youth Due ProcessTopic: What rights do students possess under the Fourth Amendment? Background: The Fourth Amendment provides that all citizens shall be protected against unreasonable search and seizures. There is a large body of case law which explains how the Fourth Amendment applies to persons suspected of criminal conduct. There is somewhat less, but nonetheless substantial legal authority which extends this protection to students. The leading Supreme Court decision on search and seizure by school personnel is New Jersey v. T.L.O., 469 U.S. 325 (1985). The Supreme Court held that fourth amendment protections exist for students in public schools as well as for adults suspected of criminal activity. However, the warrant and probable cause requirement was found to be too restrictive to apply in the educational arena. Instead, the Court established a more flexible standard for search and seizure of students in public schools. First, the warrant requirement was eliminated. Second, the probable cause requirement was replaced by a lesser standard of reasonable suspicion. Thus, school officials need only establish that a search is based on a reasonable suspicion of misconduct. In this lesson, the class will consider the law of search and seizure as it applies to adults and as it applies to students. This will be accomplished through a role-play adapted from several Supreme Court decisions and a short play originally prepared by high school students. The role-play will examine Wolf v. Colorado later overruled by Mapp v. Ohio, and explore issues pertaining to the admissibility of illegally obtained evidence. Known as the "exclusionary rule," the class will then determine how this rule applies to students in public schools. Finally, the lesson will consider related cases and demonstrate how courts have decided student search and seizure questions since T.L.O. Objectives: Given several Supreme Court decisions concerning search and seizure questions and the exclusionary rule under the Fourth Amendment, students will be able to:
Materials: Handout 6A "Mapp v. Ohio" Handout 6B "A Fine Kettle of Fish" Handout 6C "New Jersey v. T.L.O." Handout 6D "Open Role-Play Based on New Jersey v. T.L.O." Handout 6E "Edited Version of New Jersey v. T.L.O." Handout 6F "The Exclusionary Rule and Student Search & Seizure Law" Time Required: 1-2 class periods Procedures: Distribute Handout 6B "A Fine Kettle of Fish." Select several students to perform the play. Students should read along as the play is being performed. During the intermission between Acts II and III, have students explain their answers to the following questions:
Distribute Handout 6D "Open Role-Play Based on New Jersey v. T.L.O." After the performance has concluded, have students explain their answers to the following questions:
Distribute Handout 6E "Edited Version of New Jersey v. T.L.O." Have students read the opinion and explain their answers to the following questions:
Distribute Handout 6F "Exclusionary Rule." After students have read the Handout and completed the activity, have them explain their answers to the following questions:
Performance Assessment: Write a letter to the editor discussing whether you think students should have the same rights or different rights than adults under the Fourth Amendment. In your letter, refer to the cases we have just studied and explain whether you think it is fair that school officials can search students without a warrant. Further Enrichment: Based on multiple intelligence theory. Linguistic: Hold a press conference involving T.L.O.'s lawyer, T.L.O. and a lawyer representing the state of New Jersey. Each of the above will make a brief statement presenting his/her view. Following this, students portray members of the press and ask questions. Make up a story involving you and a friend involved in a search and seizure. Be prepared to tell the story. Mathematical/Logical: (Categorization focuses on this intelligence) Make a list of conditions that the T.L.O. case finds should exist for a search and seizure of students to take place and put these in the first category. Make a list of conditions that you believe should exist for a search and seizure of students to take place and put these in the second category. The categories should be side by side. Use of heuristic approaches such as analogies. Review the meaning of metaphors and analogies and then give students a statement such as: Search and Seizure of one's locker is like ________ Spatial: Students should visualize in their mind the events in Wolf, Mapp, and T.L.O.
Handout 6A: STUDENT/YOUTH DUE PROCESS
Handout 6B: STUDENT/YOUTH DUE PROCESS
"A Fine Kettle of Fish"
Act I, Scene I: Late in the evening of May 23, 1957: Officer Hans Fuzz has just returned home from patrol and is talking to his wife, Fanny. Hans: "Well, tonight we had a little excitement o the job! We busted a woman on pornography." Fanny: "Really! How did you catch her?" Hans: "We were looking for a man connected with a recent bombing when we got a tip that he was hiding in her house. She called her lawyer and wouldn't permit us to enter the house. We got a warrant and when we presented it, she grabbed it and shoved it down her dress. What could I do but get it out of there?" Fanny: "You mean to tell me that you went down her dress to get the warrant! I can't believe it! There must be a law against that!" Hans: "She was acting in a very suspicious manner so we knew that something was going on." Fanny: "You think that is a good enough reason to search her?" Hans: "But Fanny, she didn't cooperate with us; all we wanted was to look for that bombing suspect." Fanny: "Well, I'm to tired now to listen to all the details - - I've been helping Junior cram for his law boards. You can finish telling me in the morning."
Act I, Scene II: Next morning at breakfast, Hans and Fanny are discussing an article in the newspaper about the arrest of Mrs. Mapp. Fanny: "You didn't tell me that you pushed that lady around. What right did you have to handcuff her and search her belongings? Then you find a few pieces of paper which you claim are pornography and book her on that!" Hans: "But Fanny, we had no choice; we knew she was hiding something." Fanny: "Why? Because she insisted on a warrant? Because she didn't want to let you in? You broke down her door! What kind of a job is this! You violated that poor woman's rights! (Fanny walks across the room and picks up one of Junior's law books).
Act I, Scene II: Next morning at breakfast, Hans and Fanny are discussing an article in the newspaper about the arrest of Mrs. Mapp. Fanny: "You didn't tell me that you pushed that lady around. What right did you have to handcuff her and search her belongings? Then you find a few pieces of paper which you claim are pornography and book her on that!" Hans: "But Fanny, we had no choice; we knew she was hiding something." Fanny: "Why? Because she insisted on a warrant? Because she didn't want to let you in? You broke down her door! What kind of a job is this! You violated that poor woman's rights! (Fanny walks across the room and picks up one of Junior's law books). Fanny: (Reading from the law book) "The Fourth Amendment states, "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." Hans, I don't think I can live with a man who uses his badge to bully defenseless women! I'm going to live with mother!" Hans: "But, but…"
Act II, Scene I: A reconciliation had occurred a few days later. Also, Mrs. Mapp was found guilty in the State Trial Court. It is now about four years later. Both are eating breakfast. Fanny: "See, I told you so! Mrs. Mapp, the defendant in that trumped up pornography charge, finally won her case on appeal in the U. S. Supreme Court." Hans: "I don't believe it! Maybe our search wasn't totally legal, but they should have used that porno material as evidence. Down at the precinct, the captain said that back in '49 the Wolf case ruled that illegally obtained evidence could be used at a state trial. He said that the Fourth Amendment that you quoted to me applied only to federal cases." Fanny: "Well it says here (pointing to the paper) that the Fourth Amendment protection applies to states through the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Illegally obtained evidence can no longer be admitted into state trials." Hans: "Well, that's a fine kettle of fish! I get paid to risk my life chasing these criminals and now the courts are going to let them off on some legal technicality. Next time it might be a murderer or rapist!"
Handout 6C: STUDENT/YOUTH DUE PROCESS
Handout 6D: STUDENT/YOUTH DUE PROCESS
Open Role-Play Based on New Jersey v. T.L.O.
Scene I: The girls’ bathroom in a junior high school. Two female students are smoking. A teacher will enter the bathroom and discover them. The girls will try to hide the cigarettes and both will deny smoking when questioned about it. Both students will be taken to the vice principal’s office.
Scene II: The office of the vice principal. When questioned about the incident, one of the girls will admit smoking and return to class. The other girl, T.L.O., will continue to deny smoking and state that she doesn’t even smoke. Mr. Choplick, the vice principal, will demand to search T.L.O.’s purse. T.L.O. will object but Mr. Choplick will find a pack of cigarettes and hold them up. Mr. Choplick will search further through the purse and find rolling papers, other drug related items and a list of students to whom T.L.O. has sold drugs. Mr. Choplick will gather the evidence and inform T.L.O. that he is turning it over to the police.
Handout 6E: STUDENT/YOUTH DUE PROCESS Edited Version of New Jersey v. T.L.O. "We join the majority of courts that have examined this issue in concluding that the accommodation of the privacy interests of schoolchildren with the substantial need of teachers and administrators for freedom to maintain order in the schools does not require strict adherence to the requirement that searches be based on probable cause to believe that the subject of the search has violated or is violating the law. Rather, the legality of a search of a student should depend simply on the reasonableness, under all the circumstances, of the search. Determining the reasonableness of any search involves a twofold inquiry: first, one must consider "whether the ... action was justified at its inception," Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S., at 20; second, one must determine whether the search as actually conducted "was reasonably related in scope to the circumstances which justified the interference in the first place," ibid. Under ordinary circumstances, a search of a student by a teacher or other school official will be [469 U.S. 325, 342] "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. Such a search will be permissible in its scope when 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." From New Jersey v. T.L.O., 469 US 325 (1985)
Handout 6F: STUDENT/YOUTH DUE PROCESS Exclusionary Rule and Student Search and Seizure Law Read the following explanation The cases we have just studied have resulted in what is known as the "exclusionary rule." This means that evidence of a crime will be excluded (not be used) by a court of law unless certain requirements are met at the time of the search and seizure. These requirements form the "legal burden" of the person conducting the search and seizure. Fill in the chart based on your answers to the following questions. Legal Burden of Each
The following situations are based on actual cases tried in state and federal courts since New Jersey v. T.L.O. Read each situation and answer the question about the exclusionary rule by checking the appropriate box. Give the reasons for your answer by discussing whether the school official has met the legal burden. Burnham v. West The principal told the teachers to search all students' pockets, pocketbooks and book bags for magic markers and walkman radios. Shortly thereafter, the principal smelled pot in the hallway near the cafeteria. He then told teachers to continue the search of all students for drugs. Do you think the drug evidence should be admitted in a court of law under the exclusionary rule? _____Yes _____No Reason ______________________________________________ __________________________________________ __________________________________________
Cales v. Howell Public Schools A student was seen by a security guard hiding in the parking lot while classes were in session. When questioned, the student gave a false name. The student was taken to the assistant principal's office and told to empty her purse. The assistant principal then asked two female teachers to strip search the student who was also female and look for drugs. Do you think the evidence of drugs should be admitted in a court of law under the exclusionary rule? _____Yes _____No Reason ______________________________________________ __________________________________________ __________________________________________
Williams v. Ellington Two students were reported to the principal for drug use. They were called into the hallway and told to empty their purses. Only one student's purse contained drugs. The principal then ordered a search of both students’ books, purses, and lockers. No further drugs were found so the principal asked a female staff member to strip-search both girls. Do you think the evidence of drugs should be admitted in a court of law under the exclusionary rule? _____Yes _____No Reason ______________________________________________ __________________________________________ __________________________________________
Bridgman v. New Trier High School District No. 203 A high school freshman in a stop smoking program was behaving in an unruly manner. The supervisor of the program noticed that the student’s eyes were bloodshot, pupils dilated and handwriting shaky. As a result, the supervisor suspected drug use and escorted the student into the school nurse. Blood pressure and pulse readings were taken and were both higher than normal. The student’s mother was contacted and a drug test was requested. The supervisor then asked the student to remove his clothing except for his shirt and pants. A search was conducted. If drugs are discovered, do you think the evidence should be admitted in a court of law under the exclusionary rule? _____Yes _____No Reason ______________________________________________ __________________________________________ __________________________________________
Have the Fourth Amendment rights of the student been violated? _____Yes _____No Reason ______________________________________________ __________________________________________ __________________________________________
DesRoches By DesRoches v. Caprio A pair of sneakers belonging to a student was stolen from a classroom. After the theft was reported, a school official decided to conduct a backpack search of all nineteen students who had been in the classroom. When asked if any student objected to the search, Jim DesRoches raised his hand. He continued to object even after being told that this action would be punished with a ten-day suspension. School officials had no reason to suspect any particular student of the theft nor did they have any evidence suggesting that Jim DesRoches was involved. If the sneakers are discovered in any of the backpacks, do you think they should be admitted as evidence in a court of law under the exclusionary rule? _____Yes _____No Reason ______________________________________________ __________________________________________ __________________________________________ If evidence of any other crime is discovered in any of the backpacks, do you think the evidence should be admitted in a court of law under the exclusionary rule?
_____Yes _____No Reason ______________________________________________ __________________________________________ __________________________________________
Have the Fourth Amendment rights of Jim DesRoches been violated?
_____Yes _____No Reason ______________________________________________ __________________________________________ __________________________________________ |
