Students’ Rights and Responsibilities
271
●● Dogs may be used to sniff lockers and cars. Generalized canine sniffing of students is permitted only when the dogs do not touch them. ●● Strip searches usually are unconstitutional and should not be conducted unless available evidence clearly indicates that a significant threat to student safety is present. ●● School officials may perform a pat-down search for weapons if they have a reasonable suspicion that students are bringing dangerous weapons to school. ●● School officials may conduct searches on field trips, but the usual standards for searches still apply. ●● School officials’ judgments are protected by government immunity if the search is not knowingly illegal.
Video Surveillance and Search Because videos can help with searches to identify those who have threatened or might threaten the safety of students and staff, school officials increasingly have been installing cameras and other means of surveillance. On the other hand, extensive video surveillance can violate Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable search and seizure. Thus, the constitutionality of video surveillance hinges on its continuing reasonableness in a given situation. Few cases examining this issue have reached the courts, but in one instance, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that it was not permissible to have ongoing scrutiny of athletic locker rooms.49
Drug Testing as a Form of Search Some school board members and other policy makers have urged administrators to introduce random testing of student athletes’ urine to detect marijuana, steroids, and other illegal substances. Historically, such testing was viewed as a potentially unconstitutional search. In 1995, however, the US Supreme Court ruled that this type of drug search is not necessarily unconstitutional even without specific reason to suspect a particular individual. A majority of the justices concluded that school officials have reasonable grounds to be especially concerned with drug use among athletes, who presumably set an example for other students. Since then, the Supreme Court has also permitted drug testing of students engaged in other activities. Students in violation of disciplinary policies involving the possession, sale, or use of prohibited substances on school property or at schoolsponsored or school-sanctioned activities can be subject to appropriate disciplinary sanctions.50
9-3g Classroom Discipline and Corporal Punishment Classroom discipline was the issue in a case involving a sixth grader who was placed in a time-out area of the classroom whenever his behavior became disruptive. The student had a history of behavioral problems, and the teacher had tried other methods of discipline without success. While in time out, the boy was allowed to use the restroom, eat in the cafeteria, and attend other classes. His parents sued, charging that the teacher’s actions (1) deprived their son of his property interest in receiving a public education; (2) meted out punishment disproportionate to his offense, in violation of his due-process rights; and (3) inflicted emotional distress.
Richard S. Vacca, “Student Search and Seizure,” CEPI Education Law Newsletter (March 2008), available at www.cepi.vcu.edu/publications/newsletters; Amy M. Steketee, “The Legal Implications of Video Surveillance Cameras,” District Administration (February 2012), available at www.districtadministration.com; and Andy Sevilla, “Elementary Student, Bus Driver Shot with BB Gun,” Hays Free Press (October 22, 2014). 50 Richard S. Vacca, “Search and Seizure,” CEPI Education Law Newsletter (April 2010), available at www.cepi.vcu.edu/publications/newsletters; and “Frequently Asked Questions about Drug Testing in Schools,” September 2014 posting by the National Institute on Drug Abuse, available at www.drugabuse.gov. 49
Copyright 2017 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
