Redding vs. Safford
Savana Redding was 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 she 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 her class and began to question her. She denied everything and said she didn't know what he was talking about. He asked if he could search her back pack, and she agreed. He brought the secretary in, 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 with out calling Savana's mother.
Eventually, when she did find out, she sued the school right away, and brought the case to district court, saying that it violated her rights in the fourth amendment. The District Court said that there was no violation of the fourth amendment, and one three judge panel of the ninth circuit agreed. But then, in a rehearing, instead of just having one panel listen to the case, the entire 9th circuit listened, and they all agreed that it did violate the fourth amendment. The defendants appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court ruled 8-1 that the search did violate her rights in the fourth amendment. Justice Sorter sated:“We conclude that the school officials violated Savana’s Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure. The strip search of Savana was neither “justified at its inception, … nor, as a grossly intrusive search of a middle school girl to locate pills with the potency of two over-the-counter Advil capsules, reasonably related in scope to the circumstances giving rise to its initiation.”
New Jersey vs. T.L.O.
T.L.O. was a student at Piscastaway Township High School. On March 7 1980, T.L.O. and her friend were caught smoking in the bathroom by a teacher. Although you were allowed to smoke at this school, some sections, such as the bathroom were off limits. The teacher then brought them over to the principal's office where he questioned them a little. T.L.O.'s friend admitted to smoking right away, but T.L.O. herself denied it and told them that she had never smoked in her entire life. The principal then demanded to see her purse. While searching it, he found a pack of cigarettes in it, and when pulling this pack out, he noticed rolling papers, which he connected with dealing marijuana, and so he then proceeded to search her purse much more thoroughly, and found a small amount of marijuana, empty plastic bags, a lot of money in $1 bills, an index card with student names on it that seemed to be students that owed her money and two letters that implicated her selling marijuana.
The principal then called the police and her mother, who then drove her to police station. When they got there, she admitted to dealing marijuana for a short time, and that she would get a years probation, but then the Supreme State Court overturned that sentence and said that her fourth amendment rights had been violated. New Jersey then appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 in favor of New Jersey. They said that you only need reasonable suspicion to search somebody, because of in loco parentis. It was reasonable to believe that she had cigarettes in her purse, because a teacher, who would be considered a reasonable person said to have seen them. The principal wasn't searching her purse for evidence of her selling drugs, just that she was smoking, and he found that, but while he did the drug evidence was in plain view. Plain view is an exception to the warrant requirement in the fourth amendment. In conclusion, while the principal was performed a reasonable search for cigarettes, he saw the drug evidence in plain view, which therefore justified a further search. The Supreme Court overturned the New Jersey Supreme Court's ruling.
No comments:
Post a Comment