Your 4th Amendment Rights

The 4^th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees freedom from unreasonable search and seizure. This means that law enforcement agents need probable cause, and a warrant in most cases, to search your person or belongings. If there is no probable cause and you are searched illegally, any evidence collected from the search will be excluded from evidence at trial. This has come to be called the Exclusionary Rule.

Probable Cause – There must be enough evidence that a reasonable person would believe a crime was committed. This evidence is presented to a judge who must agree before authorizing the search by granting a warrant.

The purpose of the 4^th Amendment is to protect people from being abused by a powerful government. There are strict rules that government agents must follow to search you and seize evidence.

Contrary to popular belief, the right to privacy is not specifically mentioned in the U.S. Constitution. Over the years, the courts have interpreted the 4^th Amendment, along with other Amendments such as the 9^th, to protect privacy in many situations.

Do you have the same rights at school?

While you don’t shed your Constitutional rights when you go to school, they must be balanced with the rights of your classmates, as well as the responsibility of the school to provide a safe environment and a quality education.

Consider these questions as you study the case histories that follow:

Am I protected from unreasonable search and seizure at school?
Does the school need probable cause to search me or my belongings? Does the school need a warrant?
What can my school search, and when?

Case Studies

Police officers in Kansas City, Missouri went to the house of Mr. Fremont Weeks and used his hidden key to enter and search his home. While there, they took papers, letters, books, and other items. They did not have a search warrant. These items were used in court to find Mr. Weeks guilty of sending lottery tickets through the U.S. mail.
If probable cause is not used to get a search warrant, is the resulting warrantless search a violation of the 4^th Amendment?
Mr. Weeks was found guilty in a criminal jury trial in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri. The guilty verdict was based on the evidence collected from his home. Mr. Weeks then asked the U.S. Supreme Court to review the case.

What do you think the Supreme Court Decided?

Decision
Quote
Learn more

The judgment of the district court was reversed. The evidence collected during the illegal search was in violation of the 4^th Amendment and was thus inadmissible at the trial. In a criminal investigation, in order for a search to be legal, there must be probable cause. The probable cause must be used to gain a search warrant. If not, the search will be illegal and evidence collected as a result of the search can’t be used in court. The Weeks decision was the birth of a new legal doctrine – The Exclusionary Rule.
“If letters and private documents can thus be seized and held and used in evidence against a citizen accused of an offense, the protection of the Fourth Amendment, declaring his right to be secure against such searches and seizures, is of no value, and….might as well be stricken from the Constitution. The efforts of the courts and their officials to bring the guilty to punishment, praiseworthy as they are, are not to be aided by the sacrifice of those great principles established be years of endeavor and suffering which have resulted in… the fundamental law of the land.” by author of opinion, Justice William R. Day
- The Oyez Project
- The opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court
- The official version of the opinion can be found in the U.S. Reports at your local law library. Weeks v. United States, 232 U.S. 383 (1914)

New Jersey v. T.L.O., 1985

Facts
Issue
Case History

A female student was searched at school, and the evidence collected was used by the state in her delinquency trial in juvenile court. T.L.O. are the initials of the 14-year old girl who was caught smoking in the bathroom at school. Later, in the assistant vice principal’s office, she denied smoking. The assistant vice principal demanded her purse, and found a pack of cigarettes, rolling papers, marijuana, a pipe, plastic bags, a large amount of money, and a list of students who owed her money. The evidence was used by the New Jersey Juvenile Court to find her guilty of delinquency.
Does a warrantless search of a high school student by a school official violate the 4^th Amendment?
New Jersey Juvenile Court admitted the evidence and found her guilty of delinquency. She appealed, and the New Jersey Appellate Court affirmed that the evidence was legal and thus admissible. She appealed again, and the New Jersey Supreme Court reversed, saying the search was unreasonable and the evidence must be suppressed. The state of New Jersey then asked the U.S. Supreme Court to review the case.

What do you think the Supreme Court Decided?

Decision
Quote
Learn More

Students do have 4^th Amendment rights at school, but they are balanced with the school’s responsibility to maintain a safe and educational environment. The U.S. Supreme Court reversed the New Jersey Supreme Court, holding that school officials can search a student if they have reasonable suspicion. School officials do not need to have probable cause or obtain a search warrant. Reasonable suspicion is a lower standard than the probable cause required for police searches of the public at large.
“Schoolchildren have legitimate expectations of privacy…. But striking the balance between schoolchildren’s legitimate expectations of privacy and the school’s equally legitimate need to maintain an environment in which learning can take place requires some easing of the restrictions to which searches by public authorities are ordinarily subject.” by author of opinion, Justice Byron White.
- The Oyez Project
- The opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court
- The official version of the opinion can be found in the U.S. Reports at your local law library. New Jersey v. T.L.O., 469 U.S. 325 (1985)

Vernonia School District v. Acton, 1995

Facts
Issue
Case History

A school district adopted a policy authorizing random drug testing of student athletes.

There was a known drug problem in the school district. Student athletes were among the drug users and dealers. Along with the drug problem came serious student behavior issues. By 1989, disciplinary actions had reached ‘epic proportions,’ motivating the district to introduce the Student Athlete Drug Policy. James Acton, a 7^th grader, refused the testing, and his parents refused to consent to the testing. Because of this, he was not allowed to participate in football. He sued the school district for violating his rights.
Does random drug testing of a public school student by a school official violate the 4^th Amendment?
The U.S. District Court of Oregon agreed with the school district. Mr. Acton appealed to the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, which reversed, saying the drug testing policy violated the constitutional rights of students. The school district then asked the U.S. Supreme Court to review the case.

What do you think the Supreme Court Decided?

Decision
Quote
Learn More

The drug testing policy is reasonable and does not violate the 4^th Amendment rights of the students. Students do have rights at school, but those rights must be balanced with the school’s responsibility to provide a safe environment.
“In the present case, …this evil is being visited not just upon individuals at large, but upon children for whom it has undertaken a special responsibility of care and direction. …It must not be lost sight of that this program is directed more narrowly to drug use by school athletes, where the risk of immediate physical harm to the drug user or those with whom he is playing his sport is particularly high. Apart from psychological effects, which include impairment of judgment, slow reaction time, and a lessening of the perception of pain, the particular drugs screened by the District’s Policy have been demonstrated to pose substantial physical risks to athletes.” by author of opinion, Justice Antonin Scalia.
- The Oyez Project
- The opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court
- The official version of the opinion can be found in the U.S. Reports at your local law library. Vernonia School District v. Acton, 515 U.S. 646 (1995)

Safford Unified School District v. Redding, 2009

Facts
Issue
Case History

Savana Redding was a 13-year-old student. A male student reported that another girl, Marissa Glines, had given him a prescription-strength ibuprofen pill. A search of Marissa’s day planner and pockets revealed more of the pills and some weapons. Marissa then reported the day planner belonged to Savana, and that Savana had given her the pills. Savana was then searched – a search which included not only her backpack and pockets, but also inside her undergarments. She sued the school district for violating her rights.
Does a strip search of a public school student by a school official violate the 4^th Amendment?
The U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona agreed with the school district that there was no violation of the 4^th Amendment. Ms. Redding appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The Ninth Circuit en banc agreed with her claim that her 4^th Amendment rights had been violated. The school district then asked the U.S. Supreme Court to review the case.

What do you think the Supreme Court Decided?

Decision
Quote
Learn More

The strip search by school officials in this case was not legal. It was unreasonable considering the nature of the offense and the facts of the case.
“Because there were no reasons to suspect the drugs presented a danger or were concealed in her underwear, we hold that the search did violate the Constitution. In sum, what was missing from the suspected facts that pointed to Savana was any indication of danger to the students from the power of the drugs or their quantity, and any reason to suppose that Savana was carrying pills in her underwear. We think that the combination of these deficiencies was fatal to finding the search reasonable.” by author of opinion, Justice David Souter
- The Oyez Project
- The opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court
- The official version of the opinion can be found in the U.S. Reports at your local law library. Safford Unified School District v. Redding, 557 U.S. ___ (2009)