Survey of Law Case: the Use of the Fourth Amendment in Public School

A teacher at a New Jersey high school witnessed the 14-year-old respondent and a friend, smoking cigarettes in the school bathroom—a violation of school policy. The teacher took the girls to the Principal’s office where they met with the Assistant Vice Principal. The respondent denied smoking cigarettes and the Assistant Vice Principal requested to see her purse. As he searched the purse, he found not only cigarettes but rolling papers as well. Knowing that rolling papers are commonly associated with marijuana, the Assistant Vice Principal searched further in the respondent’s purse and found substantial evidence that the girl was dealing marijuana: large sums of money, drug paraphernalia, a list of other students who owed her money and two incriminating letters. Subsequently, the respondent was charged and found guilty of delinquency in Juvenile Court even though she asked that the evidence found in her purse be suppressed citing that the Fourth Amendment applied to searches by school officials. The Appellate Division of the New Jersey Superior Court affirmed the trial court’s findings but vacated the charges of delinquency and remanded the case on whether the respondent had knowingly and voluntarily waived her Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination. The New Jersey Supreme Court ruled that the respondent’s Fourth Amendment rights had been violated on the ground that the Assistant Vice Principal was unreasonable and that his desire to catch her in a lie was not justification to search her purse. The issue is the next: was the search of the respondent’s purse by school officials a violation of her Fourth Amendment rights?

The Court held that the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition of unreasonable searches applies to public school officials—it is not limited to law enforcement officers only. Furthermore, school children should be entitled to a certain degree of privacy but school officials do not need a warrant to search students under their authority. The legality of the search is dependent on the reasonableness of the search. The Court found the initial search for cigarettes to be reasonable. The second search for drug related activities was found to be reasonable as well, following the discovery of marijuana rolling paper during the initial search. The Court reversed the decision of the New Jersey Supreme Court.

The Court reasoned that the Fourth Amendment applies to searches conducted by school officials. Moreover, the Court reasoned that with respect to conducting searches, that school officials act as representatives of the State and not merely as surrogates for the parents of the students and therefore cannot claim immunity from the Fourth Amendment stricture. Balance of student privacy and school official’s responsibility to maintain an environment conducive to learning requires ease on the restrictions afforded other public authorities with regard to searches. Therefore, school officials are not subject to the requirement that searches be based on probable cause to believe that the subject of the search has violated or is violating the law. The Court additionally said that a “search will be permissible in scope when the measures adopted are reasonably related to the objectives of the search”. These search measures should not be excessively intrusive in light of the student’s age and sex and the nature of the infraction. Thus, the legality of the search is based on the reasonableness, under all the circumstances of the search. First, the teacher saw the respondent smoking and it was reasonable to assume cigarettes were in her purse, so the initial search is justified even though it is merely a violation of the school’s no smoking policy. Secondly, the search should be related in scope to the circumstances that justified the interference in the first place. The discovery of the rolling papers during the initial search gave rise to the suspicion that the respondent was carrying marijuana and this suspicion justified the further exploration that turned up additional evidence of drug-related activities. Based on this reasoning, the Court reversed the decision of the New Jersey Supreme Court.

This case is significant in that it applied the Fourth Amendment to searches in public school and by school officials. Additionally, it labeled school officials as Representatives of the State and did not exempt them from the Fourth Amendment simply because they had the responsibility of oversight for school children. Unreasonable searches and seizures were extended to school officials as well in addition to the law enforcement officials already included in the Fourth Amendment. However, a more lenient standard of reasonable suspicion for school officials replaced the ordinary standard of probable cause for law enforcement officials. What is deemed by some as unwarranted leniency for school officials, school officials have the right to search if it is crucial to maintaining school discipline or to enforce school policy. School officials need not obtain warrants for their searches as do law enforcement officials.