Constitution Annotated from the U.S. Congress
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.
This website offers analysis of what the Fourth Amendment means and the history of how it came into being enshrined in the U.S. Constitution.
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development (ASCD)
ASCD provides this article for schools to balance the students’ right to privacy against the needs of schools to maintain the safety of the students. It discusses reasonable suspicion, probable cause, student consent, individual versus random searches, and preventive searches.
Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts
T.L.O was a student at a New Jersey high school. A teacher found T.L.O and another student smoking cigarettes in the school restroom and brought the two students to school administration. When questioned, one student admitted to smoking, but T.L.O. denied the allegations. The administrator demanded to search T.L.O’s belongings to find cigarettes. Upon searching through T.L.O’s purse, the administrator found cigarettes and cigarette rolling paper and now suspected T.L.O. of smoking marijuana as well as cigarettes. The administrator also found a small bag with a grass-like substance, a pipe, cash, and a list of students who owed T.L.O money. The administrator then called the police, and the police called T.L.O’s mother. T.L.O. confessed to selling marijuana at the police station.
T.L.O. faced delinquency charges in Juvenile Court. The Court denied T.L.O’s motion to keep the confession and evidence from the search out of the proceedings. T.L.O was found delinquent and appealed the case to the U.S. Supreme Court. The Supreme Court’s majority decided that the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures is not limited to police and other members of law enforcement–it also applies to public school officials. However, school officials do not need to obtain a warrant to search a student’s belongings when the need to maintain an appropriate educational environment is greater than the student’s right to privacy.
The Supreme Court established a test: was a search justified at its inception? Or was it reasonably related in scope to the circumstances that justified the search in the first place? According to the Supreme Court, T.L.O’s search was justified at its inception given the teacher’s report of T.L.O smoking and violating school rules which allowed for a reasonable suspicion that T.L.O. had cigarettes.
Constitution Annotated from the U.S. Congress
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
This website offers analysis of what the First Amendment means and the history of how it came into being enshrined in the U.S. Constitution.
American Civil Liberties Union
The ACLU provides a comprehensive list of students rights in schools, as well as ways to ensure a student’s rights are not infringed upon.
Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts
Students attending a public school in Des Moines, Iowa, planned to wear black armbands in protest against the Vietnam War. The principal, upon learning of the protest, warned the students that they would be suspended if they wore their armbands as it would disrupt classes. Some students wore their armbands and were suspended; their parents then sued the school. The parents argued that the school violated the students’ right to free speech.
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Iowa ruled in favor of the school. The students then began an appeals process that ended with the Supreme Court of the United States. The Supreme Court’s 7-2 majority decided that teacher and students do not “shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression” upon entering the school. The majority found that the suspicion of disruption was not enough to warrant suspension. In a dissent, two judges argued that the school did have a legitimate concern for disruption in the classroom as the armbands did distract students from learning.
Individual 
Newly Admitted NYS Attorney 
Fan 
Public Service 
Friend 
Contributing (Gift Membership) 
2024 Society Calendar - "New York Courts of Yesteryear: How we Began and Where We Are" 
Library 
Patron 
Student