Tuesday, April 12, 2011

When You Break the Law, Being Searched is Not a Flaw


          How would you feel if you were searched? Would you feel embarrassed? Humiliated? Angry? Nervous? Thousands of students are searched every year, some illegally, inappropriately and immorally. When is it acceptable to search a student? And when is it improper? Schools have responsibility to provide a safe and effective learning environment. Students have a right to privacy. Wisdom is required to balance these often competing objectives. It is my belief that administrators should only perform searches when they have reasonable suspicion that a student is breaking the law, and not just school rules. For example, a student brings an iPod to school, against school rules. With the laws today, the school could search that student with reasonable suspicion. Is that really necessary? First of all, I would like to state that student searches are essential in daily life, but sometimes they can get out of hand. Second, there are many examples of searches that are appropriate, and these cases all happen when there is something illegal that is being searched for, not just against the school rules. And last, in cases where searches are conducted for  things are not against the law, the searches here are normally not tolerable.
            Imagine a life without student searches. Students wouldn’t be as afraid to bring knives or guns to school. More fights would break out. Drug dealing would become a whole lot easier for kids. As it is, 100,000 students bring guns to school daily in the U.S. 160,000 students skip classes because they fear physical harm, and in 2 years, handguns killed more Americans than were killed in Vietnam during the entire war. However, those numbers would go up drastically if students didn’t fear a teacher catching them. It is obviously a plus to have student searches. More than 60% of teens said that drugs were sold, used or kept at their school. Would you want your child at a school where students kept their drugs? Student searches try to eliminate that. Of course, you still need reasonable suspicion (a justified suspicion that is based on facts) to search someone, but if they are guilty, you can probably find that. Student searches are on the side of the common good. It is clear from this evidence that student search and seizure is one tool that school administrators should be able to use to keep students safe. The question is, under what circumstances should they be permitted.
            Sometimes, having a student searched is the best thing that can happen. In some situations it can even save lives. For example, in North Carolina, a student told the principal that Jason Murray had something in his book bag that he shouldn’t. The principal questioned Jason and asked if there was anything inappropriate in his book bag and at first he lied and denied that he had a bag, but once it was proven he did have one, he said there was nothing illegal in it. The principal then asked to search Jason’s bag, but he refused. The principal decided to contact the dean of students and the school resource officer. Eventually the officer cuffed the student, and the principal searched his bag, deciding that he had enough reasonable suspicion. After searching the bag thoroughly, he found a pellet gun and called Jason’s father. The court ruled that it was acceptable to search his bag here, because the lie about not having the bag, and the tip from the other student combined was enough to have reasonable suspicion. If they hadn’t searched him, somebody could have been severely injured. These cases happen daily all around the U.S. As you can see, it was a good idea to search this boy because he was breaking the law, and not just school rules. Another example of this is when a student with the initials of S.W. was walking through the halls of his school with another student. When he passed by the principal’s office, the vice principal noticed the smell of marijuana on him. The vice principal took him into the weight room and asked him if he “had anything on him”. S.W. replied that he didn’t. The vice principal then asked if S.W. “minded if he searched him,” and once again S.W. replied that he didn’t. The vice principal did indeed find marijuana on him. At first, I found this a little odd, because first of all, why would S.W. consent to the search, if he knew he had marijuana on him? It was perfectly acceptable to search S.W. in my opinion. The vice principal had reasonable suspicion, and he even had permission to search the student. Like the case before this, the person who got searched had something that was against the law and not just school rules.
            Now, imagine that instead of looking for something illegal, you were looking for something that was just against the school rules, such as Advil, an iPod, or a phone. Does your perspective change? Mine certainly does. An example of this would be the Safford vs. Redding case. Savana Redding, a 13 year-old honor student, attending Safford Middle School, in Arizona, was strip searched for being suspected of carrying prescription strength ibuprofen in her possession. A student at Safford Middle School turned in a white pill, later identified as ibuprofen, and said that he got it from a girl named Marissa Glines. When Glines was asked to empty her pockets, the principal found many other pills. When asked where she got these, she said that Savana had given them to her. He then pulled Savana out of class and brought her and the secretary into his office, and they searched her together. They didn't find anything. Then he took her into the nurse's office and strip searched her. He did all of this without calling Savana's mother. Eventually, the Supreme Court did rule that that was illegal, but it shouldn’t have even had to go to the Supreme Court in the first place. The district court should have ruled that this search was illegal. What is most likely, a middle school girl has Ibuprofen because she is trying to overdose, or because she has a headache? In my opinion, this search was not reasonable at all. Another example of an unreasonable case, is when a 12-year-old honor student named Richard Wade was suspected of having his phone out in his “football class”, after another classmate said that he had heard Wade’s phone go off. At the particular school that he attended, cell phones were against school rules, and so the teacher asked to search him for his cell phone. Eventually Richard Wade just handed over the phone to make things easier for everyone. I think that it is shocking that they would actually search a student because of a cell phone. A cell phone isn’t going to hurt anyone, and it doesn’t put the safety of others at risk, so why bother searching him? As you can see, in both of these unreasonable cases, the students have been searched for something that is just against the school rules and not against the law.
            In conclusion, I believe that students should only be searched under one condition. You must have reasonable suspicion that the student is breaking the law, and not just school rules. It is not necessary to search students for iPods, phones, Ibuprofen or other items that are not harmful or illegal. It will only embarrass them, and make them have an aversion to school. The decision of when to conduct a student search in school should focus on the forest, not the trees. Its primary goal should be to secure student and teacher safety, not to manage student behavior through over-control and fear. If it’s not against the law, student searches cause more harm than good.



Sunday, April 3, 2011

Stakeholders

There are two sides to every story. The same is true for student searches. Some people think student searches are good, and are welcomed in the community, while others think that they are unacceptable.


                                                                            Police
                                                                              VS.
                                                                           Laywers

Student Searches = Good: Most people that think student searches are a positive thing would be people such as parents, principals, police men, most students etc. Pretty much everyone who believes in the common good like student searches, because they protect the students in the school, as long as those searches are reasonable in the circumstances. Also, it will eliminate the amount of contraband brought into the school if the students know that the teachers will search you if necessary. Students aren't normally willing to take that risk. There is also the controversy of whether administrators should be allowed to search student lockers. The pro's for this side would be that if they didn't allow that, the students would feel that they had a safe place to hide illegal substances, or weapons, so searches of student's pockets and backpacks wouldn't be very useful. They would just hide everything in their locker. Plus, lockers are school property, so they should be allowed to search them whenever. However, these people only think that searches are good, when they are reasonable for that specific case. Overall, according to some people, teachers/administrators should be allowed to search students because if not, contraband will become more frequent, and schools could become dangerous.

Student Searches = Bad: Even though most people do think reasonable student searches are good, there are still some people who think they are bad, such as certain types of lawyers, students and others. It's a lawyers job to protect the rights of a student, and it's hard when administrators are always searching them. Some students do like the safeness that student searches provides for them, but other students don't like it when teachers/administrators search them, especially when they didn't do anything wrong. For example, the Savana Redding Case. Savana and her mom did not like that search, because nobody did anything wrong, and she was still being searched. Other people think that student searches are bad, because it breaks the trust that the teachers and the students should have between them. Why would a student go to a teacher for help about something illegal, when they know that the teacher might search them?

All in all, student searches are good most of the time, as long as they are reasonable, and not minimally intrusive or overly intrusive for a specific case. However, sometimes they can be considered bad, when talking about a students relationship with the school.

Pro's and Con's of searching student's lockers.
Pro's and Con's of drug testing

My Interview

Mr. McClellan teaching his students
 My interview was very interesting. Mr. McClellan taught me a lot of things that I didn't know. He used to be a trial attorney, but is now a teacher at Mount Mansfield High School, where he teaches Law. Although, he didn't know too much about student searches, he knew everything about searches and seizures. While I was interviewing him, he would tell me stories about the different cases that he would be involved in, which made it extremely interesting. One thing surprised me was that police officers can stop and frisk anytime, anyone, anywhere. He said sometimes said that they are able to find evidence this way. He also described in detail the procedure that you would have to take to get a search warrant. His stories made it seem much more real, because that kind of stuff doesn't happen in Vermont, so it's hard to imagine it. The most interesting part of the interview though, was when he went to his basement and got a bunch of old search warrants, and packets that he used to study when he was in college. They are extremely interesting and its fascinating to see the different types of format that they are in, and what crimes went on. I know that it doesn't really relate to student searches, but it was amazing none the less.

I wasn't exactly sure who to interview at first, but then I talked to my mom and she thought of a lawyer. I can't remember who exactly it was, but as it turned out, he was a real - estate lawyer, which wasn't exactly helpful for me. She then suggested Mr. McClellan. My mom is friends with his wife, so she called her and asked what kind of lawyer he used to be and Mrs. McClellan said that he would be perfect for an interview. I then gathered his contact information and emailed him, asking him if he wanted to meet in person, or just do it over the phone and when he would want to do it. We decided that Thursday would work well. Coming up with the questions was not as hard as I had originally thought. Panel Day had made me think of a lot of questions, because I hadn't really understood some of the answers at Panel Day. It was really nerve racking at first, and I wasn't sure what it would be like, but after a while it was good. I only asked 2 questions, and from those he went on to talk about a variety of things. Overall my interview was an hour long, which I hadn't been expecting, but it went by very quickly. I think that if my interview had been over the phone, it would have been much harder because the interviewee wouldn't know when you are trying to take notes. Whenever I wrote anything down, which was pretty frequent, he would pause to give me time. Overall I surprisingly enjoyed the whole experience of interviewing Mr. McClellan.

Panel Day Reflection


                                   
Bud Allen
Personally, I thought that Panel Day was very helpful and contained a lot of new and interesting information. Most kids in my room had very interesting questions that I hadn't really thought about before. Because of Panel Day, I am much more familiar with the terms that are used often during student searches, such as probable cause, reasonable suspicion etc. Also, I understand the difference between probable cause and reasonable suspicion more clearly. Josh Flore summed it up very nicely by saying "Reasonable Suspicion is when you find the item that you're looking for 51% of the time. Probable Cause is when you find it 90-95% of the time." This really put it into perspective for me.

Josh Flore
The three experts that were on our panel, were Josh Flore (a police offier), Bud Allen (defense attorney), and Daniel Shepardson (house administrator). It was clear that Bud Allen was for the students, and believed that they should have as many rights as everybody else. He emphazized that if you know your rights well, you will be able to stay out of trouble. Bud Allen when defending a case would always be on the side of the student, and would think that the police had somehow conducted an illegal search. Josh Flore, was on the other side of this spectrum. He would say that the police were always doing the right thing. It was interesting when at one point, Bud Allen said something about how the UVM cops weren't real police officers. Josh Flore replied, "They train with us, we go to the same school, how are they not real cops?" It was entertaining to see them go back and forth about this. 

Daniel Shepardson
Daniel Shepardson was sort of the middle ground between these two extremes. He thought that they shouldn't get the police involved, unless it was truly necessary, but the students shouldn't necessarily get as many rights as an adult would. When searching a kid, he would take into account the safety of the suspect, the safety of the rest of the students, what they were really searching for etc, before making the decision to call the police. The school wants to keep the police away as much is possible, he said. 

A lot of questions that were asked were very interesting, such as the one about searching a teacher instead of a student. Nothing really surprised me about their answers. It was all pretty much what I suspected. I did learn a lot more about the real searches and seizures instead of just student searches, from Officer Flore. He talked a lot about car searches, and what officers could and could not do. Because of him, I now know when you can refuse a car search, and when you can't etc, not that I will ever be in that situation, but it's always good to know. It was also interesting to see what Shep thought about CVU and its student searches. He believes that we will never have to have drug testing for athletes. He stated, "the students and the teachers in this school have good relationships, so that won't be necessary."

Overall, Panel day was extremely helpful in seeing the different sides, between a lawyer and a police officer, and then seeing how student searches relates directly to your school.

Sunday, March 27, 2011

Questions for Panel Day

1.How do college seraches differ from High School searches? For example, can you search student's dorm rooms like you can search high school students lockers?

2. Do high school students that are 18 or older have more rights regarding student searches than other high schoolers?

3. What are most of you searches for? If it's drugs, what kind?

4. To you, when does reasonable suspicion change into probable cause?

5. How does the number of student searches in Vermont compare to the number in other states?

Interviews

1.Andy McClellan - Teacher (Government and Law) at MMU, fomerly Trial Lawyer
   Phone Number: 802-985-4918
   Email: aliceandy@myfairpoint.net

2. Lianne Tuomey - Chief/Director of UVM Police Services
    Email: Lianne.Tuomey@uvm.edu
    Phone Number: 802-656-3473

3. Brian Ricca - Rice Associate Principal for Academic Affairs
    Email: ricca@ricehs.org
    Rice's Phone Number: 802-862-6521 Ext. 204