Concordia UNIVERSITY chicago Student: | Jill Stovercrf_stoverjr@cuchicago.edu18580 Cunningham Arbela Rd Richwood, Ohio 43344 | Day Telephone: | (740) 361-4361 | Evening Telephone: | (740) 361-4361 | | | Assignment Title: | Assignment #5 | Date of Submission: | 8/24/14 | Assignment Due Date: | 8/24/14 | | | Course: | EDL 6231: School Law | | | Semester/Term: | Summer | Course Instructor: | Dr. A. Donald Hendricks | | |
Certification of Authorship: I certify that I am the author of this paper and that any assistance I received in its preparation is fully acknowledged and disclosed in the paper. I also have cited any sources from which I used data, ideas, or words, either quoted directly or paraphrased. I certify that this paper was prepared by me specifically for the purpose of this assignment, as directed.
Student’s Signature: Jill Stover

Module #5

Student Searches

EDL 6231: School Law

The topic chosen for this project is student searches in schools. As the dean of students this past spring, this topic came up multiple times because of suspicions or reports from parents and students of drug use. We arranged for the K-9 unit at our school two different times this past spring. One time was for a search of bags that belonged to students who were packed and ready to go on an overnight trip with our Vo-ag student group. There were rumors and suspicions that drugs were coming with the students in their bags, so to make sure it did not the K-9 unit came in to search the bags. Planning out the process seemed very stressful at the time but it went pretty smooth once it all got started. Students walked in the door, dropped their bags off in the gymnasium and then went to sit in the cafeteria. Due to our board policies we could only search their bags and vehicles that they brought onto school property. Luckily we did not find anything drug related, one student did confess about bringing a bottle of alcohol in his bag.
Perhaps the most controversial random search is the use of drug-sniffing dogs in schools. The right of school officials or police to use dogs to detect drugs in students' belongings is well established. In fact, most courts conclude that such detection is not a search because the dogs merely sniff the air around the property and that students do not have an expectation of privacy in the air around their belongings.
One federal court has recently held that the use of drug-sniffing dogs on a student's person requires individualized, reasonable suspicion. Prevention of drug abuse, according to this court, does not justify the dog sniffing the person because it intrudes on the expectation of privacy and security (B.C. v. Plumas Unified School District, 1999). This case changed practices in many school districts—those schools no longer use the dogs to sniff around students. The most difficult aspect of this topic would be the suspicion; how do administrators determine what is liable suspicion without making the student feel targeted or profiled? Four students huddled together, one with money in his hand and another with his hand in his pocket, does not provide reasonable suspicion (A.S. v. State of Florida, 1997). The odor of marijuana in the hall does not provide reasonable suspicion to search all students' book bags, purses, and pockets (Burnham v. West, 1987).
Our school’s board policy on search and seizure seems to be presented clearly and specifically. The wording straight from the policy handbook has been included. After reading this and learning about personal student searches. With my experience, there has only been searches involving belongings and school property; the policy states that the student’s person can be searched with reasonable suspicions. Also personal searches must be done by authorizes within the same gender, with witnesses determined by the principal, and then parents are to be notified immediately if their child has been searched. As a current administrator personal searches seem very rare or for extreme cases between students and a group of school personnel. Personal searches can wait until law enforcement feel they are deemed necessary for the student.
5771 - SEARCH AND SEIZURE
Pursuant to Board of Education Policy 5771, the following guidelines shall be used when school administrators have reason to suspect that an illegal or dangerous substance or object or stolen property may be in the possession of a student: | A. | All requests or suggestions for the search of a student or his/her possessions shall be directed to the principal or the person in charge of the students while out of the District. | | B. | Wherever possible, before conducting the search, the building administrator shall notify the student, request his/her consent to the inspection if other than his/her locker, and inform the student that s/he may withhold consent. Such consent, if offered, shall be given voluntarily and with the knowledge that it could have been withheld. The principal shall conduct the search, however, with or without the consent. | | C. | Wherever possible, an adult third party shall be present at any search of a student or his/her possessions. | | D. | The principal may conduct a student search upon reasonable suspicion to suspect the presence of an illegal or dangerous substance or object, or anything contraband under school rules. | | E. | The principal shall be responsible for the custody, control, and disposition of any illegal or dangerous substance or object taken from a student, whether during a student search or otherwise. | | F. | Wherever possible, the student shall be present at any search of his/her possessions. | | G. | The principal shall be responsible for the prompt recording of each student search. The record shall be in writing and shall include the reasons for the search, the persons present, the objects found, and the disposition made of them, and shall be kept in a secure location in his/her office. | | H. | Whenever the search is prompted by the reasonable suspicion that possession of a substance or object immediately threatens the safety and health of the student or others, the principal shall act with as much speed and dispatch as is required to protect persons and property in the school while keeping clearly in mind the student's rights and the potential consequences of inappropriate or hasty action. |
Reasonable Suspicion
As used in this section, "reasonable suspicion for a search" means grounds sufficient to cause an adult of normal intellect to believe that the search of a particular person, place, or thing will lead to the discovery of evidence that the student: | A. | has violated or is violating a rule or behavioral norm contained in the student handbook; | | B. | has violated or is violating a particular law; | | C. | possesses an item or substance which presents an immediate danger of physical harm or illness to students and staff or District property. |
Lockers and Other Storage Areas Provided for Student Use | A. | All lockers and other storage areas provided for student use remain the property of the District. These lockers and storage areas are subject to inspection, access for maintenance, and search pursuant to these guidelines. A student using the locker or storage area has, by statute, no expectation of privacy in that locker or storage area or the contents contained therein (See Form 5771 F1). No student shall lock or otherwise impede access to any locker or storage area except with a lock provided by or approved by the principal. Unapproved locks will be removed and destroyed. | | B. | The principal may search student lockers and storage areas and the contents contained therein at any time for any justifiable reason. | | C. | The principal may, at any time, request assistance of the law enforcement agency having jurisdiction over the facilities of the District. The law enforcement officer must have probable cause, however, to conduct a search of the lockers and storage areas and the contents contained therein. |
Desks and Other Storage Areas
A desk or any other storage area in the school provided for student use as well as the contents contained therein, may be searched when the principal has reasonable suspicion for a search.
Vehicles
| A. | Any vehicle brought on District premises by a student may be searched when the principal has reasonable suspicion to justify the search. | | B. | One of the conditions for granting permission for a student to bring a student-operated vehicle onto school premises is written consent by the student driver, the owner of the vehicle, and the parent of the student to allow search of that vehicle. Refusal by any of the parties to provide or allow access to a vehicle at the time of a search request shall be cause for terminating the privilege without further hearing. | | C. | Searches of vehicles of staff members or visitors shall be conducted by law enforcement personnel. |
Student
| A. | The personal search of a student may be conducted by the principal when s/he has reasonable suspicion for a search of that student. Authorized searches of the student's person are: |

| | 1. | the student's pockets; | | | 2. | purses, briefcases, or any other object in the possession of the student; | | | 3. | a "pat down" of the exterior of the student's clothing and the removal of any item identified; | | | 4. | removal of an article of exterior clothing such as a jacket. |

| B. | Strip searches are to be conducted only by law enforcement personnel. | | C. | Personal searches should be conducted in a private room by a person of the same gender as the student and designated by the principal. At least one (1) but not more than three (3) additional staff members of the same gender as the student being searched shall witness but not participate in the search. | | | At the request of the student to be searched, an additional person of the same gender as the student designated by the student, and then reasonably available on school premises, shall witness the search. The student's parents shall be notified of the search as soon as reasonably possible. |
Use of Breath - Test Instruments
The principal may arrange for a breath test for blood-alcohol to be conducted on a student whenever s/he has individualized reasonable suspicion to believe the student has consumed an alcoholic beverage.
Use of Dogs
The Board has authorized the use of specially-trained dogs to detect the presence of drugs and devices such as bombs on school property under the following conditions: | A. | The presence of the dogs on school property must be authorized, in advance, by the principal or be pursuant to a court order or warrant. | | B. | The dog must be handled by a law enforcement officer or a contracted person specially trained to safely and competently work with the dog. | | C. | The dog is represented by the Sheriff or Chief of the law enforcement agency providing the service as capable of accurately detecting drugs and/or devices. | | D. | The dog will be allowed to examine a student's possessions, including vehicles. | | E. | The dog may be allowed to examine school property such as lockers as permitted by the building principal. Any limitation as to areas of school property to be examined by the dog shall be established by the principal at the time the use of dogs is authorized. |
Method of Search
The scope of any search should be limited by the reasonable suspicion that motivated the search. If an item is found that leads to reasonable suspicion that additional, correlated items may also exist, the search may be extended. If the initial search produces no evidence of contraband, there should be no extension of the search based on simple curiosity.
Items Found
Anything found in the course of a search which is evidence of a student violation of school rules or Federal/State laws may be seized and admitted as evidence in any suspension or expulsion proceeding if it is tagged for identification at the time it is seized and kept in a secure place by the principal until it is presented at the hearing. It may also be turned over to any law enforcement officer after proper notation and receipt
Our district has not been confronted with this topic in legal terms in the two years of my employment. My experience has been what was previously discussed, following the lead of the deputies helped follow the legal guidelines that were needed. In the case Todd v. Rush (1998) and Miller v. Wilkes (1999) drug testing for students who participate in extracurricular activities were established in schools. Joy et al. v. Penn-Harris Madison School Corporation (2000) upheld a drug-testing program for students who drive to school or engage in extracurricular activities, establishing this program for our school would be so beneficial. This way not only athletes are targeted but also students who drive to school which is considered a privilege in our district.

RECORD OF STUDENT SEARCH AND SEIZURE
Name of Student Suspect: __________________________________________________
Area Searched: ___________________________________________________________
Name of Informant(s) Filing Complaint: _______________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Date Search/Seizure Initiated: _______________________________________________
Staff Member Conducting Search: ____________________________________________
Witness(es) of Search: _____________________________________________________
Summary of Report Given by Informant: ______________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Action Taken in Conducting Search and/or Seizure: ______________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
List of Substances/Objects Seized: ___________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
-------------------------------------------------
Disposition of Substances/Objects Seized: _____________________________________

Reference:
A.S. v. State of Florida, 693 So. 2d 1095 (Fla. App. 2d Dist. 1997).

B.C. v. Plumas Unified School District, 192 F.3d 1260 (9th Cir. 1999).

Burnham v. West, 681 F. Supp. 1160 (E.D. Va. 1987)

Joy et al. v. Penn-Harris Madison School Corporation, 212 F.3d 1052 (7th Cir. 2000).

Ridgemont Local School District. (n.d.). Retrieved August 24, 2014.

Todd v. Rush, 133 F. 3d 984 (7th Cir. 1998).