• FreeAdvice has a new Terms of Service and Privacy Policy, effective May 25, 2018.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our Terms of Service and use of cookies.

4th Amendment Right Violation?

Accident - Bankruptcy - Criminal Law / DUI - Business - Consumer - Employment - Family - Immigration - Real Estate - Tax - Traffic - Wills   Please click a topic or scroll down for more.

gilkeyj

Junior Member
North Carolina

My son was searched by a resource officer, and his bag was searched by an assistant principal.

My son was in the bathroom at school when a teacher saw him and found out he was skipping a class. We are assuming (hopefully not making a mistake) that that particular teacher went and told the Assistan Principal (AP) that he was skipping and the next thing he knows the resource officer told him she (the AP) wanted to see him. He found her and she immediately said to him, "where is your back pack?" He responded "Why?". This was asked and answered the same way about 5-6 times. She took him to her office and she asked again where is the book bag and he again asked why, and she said she needed to search it, and he again asked why. With no response on his last question of why, he told her that she cannot search his stuff. She and the resource officer told him yes they could. Then he argued back and said "no you can't". Then she asked again where the back pack was and he said "upstairs" and "you cannot search my book bag". Then she said let's go upstairs and they began to walk out of the office and he told her she needed to call his mother. And she said "I will call her after school". He said "Well you cannot search my private property". She responded " yes I can". After this kind of bantering for about 2 minutes, she followed him up the stairs and he still requested that she call me (his mother) because he is under age (16). She said laughed under her breath facetiously. Then they walked into the classroom, he took his book bag out of the cabinet and said "here!" and dropped it on the floor. She picked it up and told him to fix his attitude. He stepped to the side, and she unzipped the book bag and started searching and then the resource officer told him "someone's cell phone was stolen". And then he told my son to empty his pockets and put his hands on the desk. And then he searched my son.

Now I know my son was wrong for skipping but, they also have camera's in the school and could have looked at my son's every move. There were other students in the vicinity. His book bag was upstairs, not ever close to where the item went missing. He told them both no to the search several times. He requested that they call me first. He let reminded them that he was under age. No one was in immediate danger. And he DID NOT have the stolen item. He did not steal anything!!!!

I guess I have three questions. First: Isn't this a violation of his 4th amendment right? Second: Do I have a case? Third: What kind of consequence would be imposed on the school if the above is true?
 


gilkeyj

Junior Member
Ok?

I will beg to differ with you. In Jersey vs. TL.O the court ruled that public schools have the same obligation to make sure the 4th amendment is not violated since they themselves represent the state.
 

justalayman

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

". . . The warrant requirement, in particular, is unsuited to the school environment . . . . [T]he legality of a search of a student should depend simply on the reasonableness, under all the circumstances, of the search . . . 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. "



—Justice Byron White, speaking for the majority


really? without reading the entire decision, that seems to say differently.
 

justalayman

Senior Member
here is a bit more:

New Jersey v. T.L.O.

Docket: 83-712
Citation: 469 U.S. 325 (1985)
Petitioner: New Jersey
Respondent: T.L.O.
Case Media

Oral Argument
Oral Reargument
Written Opinion


Abstract

Oral Argument: Wednesday, March 28, 1984
Oral Reargument: Tuesday, October 2, 1984
Decision: Tuesday, January 15, 1985
Issues: Civil Rights, Juveniles
Categories: education, fourth amendment, searches and seizures
Advocates

Lois DeJulio (on behalf of the Respondent)
Allan J. Jones (on behalf of the Petitioner)
Lois De Julio (Argued the cause for the respondent)
Allan J. Nodes (Argued the cause for the petitioner)


Facts of the Case

T.L.O. was a fourteen-year-old; she was accused of smoking in the girls' bathroom of her high school. A principal at the school questioned her and searched her purse, yielding a bag of marijuana and other drug paraphernalia.

Question

Did the search violate the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments?

Conclusion

No. Citing the peculiarities associated with searches on school grounds, the Court abandoned its requirement that searches be conducted only when a "probable cause" exists that an individual has violated the law. The Court used a less strict standard of "reasonableness" to conclude that the search did not violate the Constitution. The presence of rolling papers in the purse gave rise to a reasonable suspicion in the principal's mind that T.L.O. may have been carrying drugs, thus, justifying a more thorough search of the purse.

it seems no warrant was needed. It does not require a warrant or even probable cause, merely "reasonableness". That is where the school is not held to the same "legal" standard the police are. The school is not the government.
 

gilkeyj

Junior Member
What is the reasonableness in this situation. His backpack was not even in the vicinity of the "Crime".
 

AlanShore

Member
The case--DesRoches by DesRoches v. Caprio

The judge in this case ruled that the school must have a reasonable suspicion for a search it really was not a vast different from TLO. If they had a reasonable suspicion of your son in this matter the search was in fact legal.

You have no case. But if you want spend $100,000 and take it to court go ahead but you will lose.
 

gilkeyj

Junior Member
Ok, I will concede the point if you can tell me how their suspicion was reasonable. That is the part that I am not understanding. If he was not in the vicinity and he refused to be searched and he was still searched, how can that be reasonable? There were other kids in the hall at the same time. Why was he singled out? And as I stated above, his back pack was in a cabinet on the second floor not even near the place the phone came up missing. And they didn't even tell him why he was being searched until after they had began searching.

So I am really not trying to kill a dead horse, but I am looking for what was reasonable about singling my son out of other children in the hall. She specifically came looking for him, to search his stuff and never stated what for. What is the justification for this searchd. Just because he was in the hall way?
 

AlanShore

Member
Ok, I will concede the point if you can tell me how their suspicion was reasonable. That is the part that I am not understanding. If he was not in the vicinity and he refused to be searched and he was still searched, how can that be reasonable? There were other kids in the hall at the same time. Why was he singled out? And as I stated above, his back pack was in a cabinet on the second floor not even near the place the phone came up missing. And they didn't even tell him why he was being searched until after they had began searching.

So I am really not trying to kill a dead horse, but I am looking for what was reasonable about singling my son out of other children in the hall. She specifically came looking for him, to search his stuff and never stated what for. What is the justification for this searchd. Just because he was in the hall way?

In the DesRoches case the judge ruled a school musy have "individual suspiscion" for a search. It seems the clearly did. Somone could have told them they believed it to be him, etc. But I see in no way how it was an unreasonable search.
 

gilkeyj

Junior Member
Did you miss this?

The assistant principal told me the reason they searched him was because he was in the hall. The search was forced, he told them no several times.


*Before forcing any searches, employees should investigate to determine whether individualized suspicion exists for the students who did not consent to a search. (For example, employees can ask these students where they were at relevant times, they can ask other students whether they observed the students in question, and they can observe how the non-consenting students react to questioning.) Unless school employees have reason to suspect individual students who do not consent to a search, they cannot search those students

*Doumar stressed one procedural trick school employees cannot use: They cannot first search the consenting students and then declare, if those consensual searches reveal no stolen property, that they have individualized suspicion of the students who did not consent to a search. A nonconsensual search must be justified at its inception, when school employees first decide to search, the judge explained: "One's constitutional rights cannot wax and wane according to whether others stand upon their constitutional rights. If all students had refused to give consent to be searched, Jim could not have been singled out for a search because no individualized suspicion existed as to him at the inception of the search of the class."
 

tranquility

Senior Member
Personally, and without the *substantial* research it would take to come to a qualified opinion, I don't see the search as being reasonable. As another has mentioned, there needs to be a particularized suspicion for reasonableness and none has been mentioned here.

However, where are the damages. Mere violation of Constitutional rights are not damages in and of themselves. A lawsuit is not going to be won in any event as the people involved would be protected by qualified immunity. Unless no reasonable official in a like situation could find the search reasonable, the suit wouldn't get past the pleading stage.
 

Find the Right Lawyer for Your Legal Issue!

Fast, Free, and Confidential
Top