School Resources & Training Institute
Legal and Liability Article
Database
For assistance with
this database contact us at information@school-training.com or
at 800-365-0119.
Return to SR-TI Article Index
PATC Article Detail
Title:
Random Searches Violate Rights
Author:
Jack Ryan
ID:
LL101
Issue:
SU1-5
Issue Date:
2004-09-01
Edition:
School
Type:
Article
Body:
In Doe v. Little Rock School District, 380 F.3d 349 (8th Cir. 2004), the United States Court of Appeal considered a case involving regularly-conducted random [and suspicionless] classroom searches. Jane Doe a secondary school student filed suit on behalf of herself and all secondary school students in the Little Rock public schools.
The search at issue involved ordering students to empty their pockets and placing all of their belongings, including their backpacks, on their desks. The students were then ordered to leave the room and stand in the hall outside of the classroom. School officials would enter the classroom and search the belongings of each of the students. During one of these regularly conducted searches, school officials discovered marijuana in Jane Doeís purse. In the ensuing lawsuit, the school district acknowledged the practice of regularly conducting this type of search. The trial court had dismissed Doeís lawsuit concluding that the search constituted a minimal intrusion on a studentís lowered expectation of privacy in the school setting when balanced against the schoolís interest in maintaining discipline, health and safety in secondary schools.In overturning the trial courtís dismissal the United States Court of Appeal for the 8th Circuit noted that children do have a diminished expectation of privacy in the public school setting. This does not mean, however, that they have no expectation of privacy.After concluding that students retain some expectation of privacy, the court turned to the random and suspicionless searches that occurred here. The court found that these searches were well beyond a ìminimal intrusion,î noting that ìstudents often carry items of a personal or private nature in their pockets and bags, and many students (whether or not they are carrying contraband) must surely feel uncomfortable or embarrassed when officials decide to rifle through their personal belongings.î The court went on to assert: ìWhatever privacy interests the LRSD students have in their personal belongings that they bring to school are wholly obliterated by the search practice at issue here, because all such belongings are subject to being searched at any time, without notice, individualized suspicion, or any apparent limit to the extensiveness of the search.îThe court distinguished the random searches in this case from the random and suspicionless drug testing cases. The court noted that in the drug testing cases, the fruit of the searches, a positive drug test, was not used against the students in a criminal [or delinquency] proceeding. Here, the fruits of the search were used against Doe in a criminal proceeding. Doe had been convicted of a misdemeanor as a result of her possession of marijuana.In conclusion, the court found that the school district failed to demonstrate the existence of any special need to conduct the searches at issue in the case. The school district had advanced general concerns about drugs and guns in schools but did not point to any specific experience at the school to support a specific concern. The court distinguished a previous decision they had made in upholding a school-wide search of all male 6th-12th graders where there was specific information regarding a gun in the school and there were fresh knife-cuts on school bus seats.[Thompson v. Carthage School District, 87 F.3d 979 (8th Cir. 1996).] In that case the search was justified by the specific and articulated government concerns regarding student safety.The court overturned the trial court and allowed Doeís lawsuit to proceed.?
Citation 1:
Citation 2:
Citation 3:
Keywords:
Other Information: