Surveillance in Schools: Safety vs. Personal Privacy
Locker Searches
Introduction
The National Education Association provides the following statistics:
Every school day:
· at least 100,000 students bring guns to school.
· 160,000 students skip classes because they fear physical harm.
· 40 students are hurt or killed by firearms.
· 6,250 teachers are threatened with bodily injury.
· 260 teachers are physically assaulted.
· more Americans were killed by handguns between 1990 to 1992 (over 70,000) than were killed in Vietnam during the war (47,364). (Scrivner, n.d.)
At one time school safety was a minor focus for schools. President Ronald Reagan made school safety an issue in a 1984 radio address.(Stefkovich & Miller, 1999) Pointing out that violence in schools negatively affects learning and teaching, Reagan called on the country to begin solving discipline problems. (Reagan, 1984) School Safety became a more centralized focus of education after the many school shootings in the late 1990’s and early 2000’s. The response to these tragedies has ranged from proposals for new programs to teach children about guns to "character education" courses for students. (Tragedies spur action on school safety, 2000) Most schools have begun implementing several forms of surveillance to put a stop to the weapons and drugs that are infiltrating our schools. One method of surveillance that many schools have adopted to increase school safety and combat the distribution of drugs is the use of locker searches.
What are Locker Searches?
A locker search is simply the act of opening a locker and looking through its contents. Depending on the state, administration may choose to search one, several or all lockers. The search may begin when a drug dog indicates that there may be some contraband such as drugs in the locker, when a student reports concern of what another student may have in his locker, or when the administration calls for a random search.
A new locker has emerged on the market that will make locker searches easier. Smart lockers enable schools to follow student activity. (Smart lockers…, 2002) Smart lockers use swipe cards instead of padlocks and can be operated from a computer system located in a central office where one, or all lockers, can be opened. (Smart lockers…, 2002) The lockers can keep track of when a child is accessing his locker. Schools will even be able to track if a student is accessing his locker at a time when he should be in class and the number of times that he is using it in a day’s time. (Jonsson, 2002) “‘If a principal notices that a student is going in and out of his locker 18 times a day, that can raise suspicions,’ says Harry Popolow, senior project manager of Penco, a manufacturer of the smart lockers” (Jonsson, 2002).
Legality of Locker Searches
Many arguments have been made that locker searches are in violation of a child’s Fourth Amendment right. The Fourth Amendment states, “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” (Constitutional Ammendments…, n.d.) New Jersey v. T.L.O. was the first Supreme Court opinion to address the Fourth Amendment rights of students in public schools. (Stefkovich & Miller, 1999) In 1980, T.L.O. was found smoking in the restroom. She had been caught along with another girl. The one girl admitted her guilt and was suspended. T.L.O. denied smoking and the principal searched her purse and found a pack of cigarettes and rolling papers. He then proceeded to search the purse thoroughly and found some marijuana, a pipe, plastic bags, a fairly substantial amount of money, an index card containing a list of students who owed the respondent money, and two letters that implicated her in marijuana dealing. (New Jersey…, n.d.) The police and her parents were notified and she later admitted her guilt at the police station. Although this case defined the search of a child’s purse or bag and their Fourth Amendment right it did not go beyond the idea of a personal belonging’s search. The Supreme Court, in a New Jersey case decided in the 1990s, ruled that school officials don't need a warrant or probable cause, but merely a ''reasonable suspicion.'' (Gurr, 2002) Court rulings suggest that students should have no expectation of privacy in school lockers when the school district both owns and controls the lockers and has a written policy describing this ownership. (Student Search, n.d.) In Zamora vs. Pomero, it was determined that the search of Zamora’s locker was not a violation of his Fourth Amendment right. (639…, n.d.) Even using dogs to search lockers and students is not an invasion of personal rights as established in Doe v. Renfrow. (The Use…, n.d.)
Rep. Kirk offered an amendment to H.R. 1350 on Wednesday, April 30, 2003; it was agreed to in the House by voice vote: The amendment expresses the sense of Congress that providing special needs students with a safe and drug-free learning environment is a laudable goal. (H.R. 1350 …, 2003) It makes reference to random locker searches conducted by school administrators as an effective way to assess the gravity of the drug situation at a particular school, as well as to indicate to students that the use of drugs on school property will not be tolerated. (H.R. 1350 …, 2003) In order for a locker to be searched at school, there must be reasonable suspicion. "Reasonable suspicion" means that the person initiating the search has a well-founded suspicion -- based on objective facts that can be articulated -- of either criminal activity or a violation of school rules. (Legal Guidelines …, n.d.) Reasonable suspicion is more than a mere hunch or supposition. (Legal Guidelines …, n.d.)
Many states have adopted legislation that allows for random searches of lockers. Suspicionless searches are not designed to catch offenders, but rather serve to prevent students from bringing or keeping dangerous weapons, drugs, alcohol, and other prohibited items on school grounds. (Moore & Milliken, 1999)
At what point does it become an invasion of students’ privacy? The NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF ATTORNEYS GENERAL SCHOOL SEARCH REFERENCE GUIDE 1999 justified the right of schools to conduct random locker searches saying: “In Commonwealth v. Cass, 709 A.2d 350, 357 (Pa. 1998), the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania recently listed several reasons that justified the school official's ‘heightened concern’ as to drug activity in the school. These factors include:
· information received from unnamed students;
· observations from teachers of suspicious activity by the students, such as passing small packages amongst themselves in the hallways;
· increased use of the student assistance program for counseling students with drug problems;
· calls from concerned parents;
· observation of a growing number of students carrying pagers;
· students in possession of large amounts of money; and,
· increased use of pay phones by students. ”
Some of these factors seem a bit vague to start a random search of school lockers under the suspicion that there might be the distribution of a controlled substance or a weapon. Is it right to put all students to a search because there happens to be an increase usage of the pay phone? Has the administration asked any questions as to why there has been an increased use? It may be something as simple as a phone in contest that students are trying to win. Unless the administration chooses to ask more questions before conducting a random search, some students’ personal privacy will be infringed upon. A random locker search should only be conducted if there is an immediate threat to the student body. Sam Davis, dean of the University of Mississippi School of Law and an expert on constitutional issues surrounding school searches said, ''The court over the last 15 to 20 years has really gone with preserving the government's interests over the individual's. There's really no question that students have less constitutional rights in a public school setting than they do outside.'' (Gurr, 2002) Wendy Wagenheim, ACLU legislative affairs director, said searches should only be conducted under reasonable suspicion. She went on to say, “An entire generation is being raised and trained in schools not to understand or appreciate the fundamental values of privacy and personal freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures that distinguish our society from a police state.” (Panel ponders…, 2000)
Implementing Locker Searches
A random locker inspection program does not involve direct law enforcement. (Moore & Milliken, 1999) A law enforcement agency may provide training for the administration but should not be present when random searches are conducted. All students and members of the school community, including parents and legal guardians, should be afforded notice in writing of the nature and purpose of the locker inspection program. (Moore & Milliken, 1999) Moore and Milliken recommend announcing the locker search procedure to the students in their homeroom or a school-wide assembly. They say “The whole point of the exercise (which is to deter drugs and weapons entering the school), after all, would be lost if the program were kept a secret.”
To prevent suspicions of bias and profiling, a “neutral plan” should be created. The plan should explain in precise detail how individual lockers or groups of lockers will be selected for inspection, taking into account that it is probably not feasible to open and inspect every locker in the school building every time that an inspection is undertaken. (Moore & Milliken, 1999) The neutral plan must be followed to the letter.
Drawbacks/Benefits
The main drawback to locker searches is the loss of privacy that students may feel. A locker is the only place in school that they can call their own. Many students decorate their lockers to reflect their own unique personalities. To have someone come in and search through their lockers and belongings to them is an invasion of privacy. There is also the issue of time. In order to do a school-wide search calls for the students to take time out of their classes to open their locker for the inspector. It is disruptive to the teacher and the class.
When drug-sniffing dogs come in to search the lockers, it often requires that the halls be clear of students. This too can cause problems. The search must be conducted while students are in class. Once they see or hear what is going on in the hallway, their attention will no longer be on the classroom material but on what is happening in the hall.
Even with all of the questions that surround the rights of students and their privacy when locker searches are conducted, there is still support for them to occur. In a poll of 600 people that was conducted in May of 1999 by Talmey-Drake Research & Strategy of Boulder for the Denver Rocky Mountain News and News4. Periodic locker searches were OK with 69 percent and 47 percent said they favor random searches of students. (Weber, 1999)
Though there are several drawbacks, the benefits far outweigh them. By conducting locker searches, the administrators lay the ground work for safer schools. It deters students from bringing contraband and weapons to school.
Recommendations
Each individual school knows which forms of surveillance best fit his/her needs. Locker searches are one way for schools to attempt to control the use of drugs and end violence in their school. When making the decision to implement locker searches in your school, several things must be considered.
Is conducting locker searches the best method of surveillance for your school? Does it meet the needs of your students and faculty? Is it physically conceivable to implement them in your buildings? How will your students and parents react to this intrusion of privacy? If after considering these questions you determine that locker searches are a method of surveillance you will be implementing in your school, there are two more things to think about.
A clear-cut policy on locker searches that all parents and students are aware of and have access to is a necessity. If a child is aware that a search of his locker can occur in his building, then the courts will stand behind the school provided the school is not infringing upon the students’ privacy as stated by the laws of that state. A model policy may be found at http://www.michigansafeschools.org/lockers.htm. In general, the more invasive the search, and the less reasonable cause, the more risky the search. (Womack, 2001)
The use of “Smart” lockers would be an excellent addition to the school. By having access to the number of times a student uses his locker in a day’s time, school officials can better attain reasonable suspicion. If that child is going to his locker 20 times in a day and only has six classes, it would raise some concerns. The next step would be to see what times he is using his locker. If the visits are at times when he should be in class, it again contributes to reasonable cause. This type of documentation will further support the school’s case in the search of that student’s locker. At $300 a locker, “Smart” lockers may not be the smartest choice for your school.
References
639 F.2d 662, (n.d). Retrieved on July 27, 2003, from http://attygen.state.ut.us/Schoolsearch/zamora.htm
Constitutional Amendments 1-10: The Bill of Rights, (n.d.). Retrieved July 23, 2003, from http://www.archives.gov/exhibit_hall/charters_of_freedom/bill_of_rights/amendments_1-10.html
Gurr, S. (2002, March). Safety over rights: Schools have free hand in drug sweeps. Retrieved on July 27, 2003, from http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/646279/posts
H.R. 1350 Improving Education Results for Children With Disabilities Act of 2003, (May, 2003). Retrieved on July 27, 2003, from http://www.gop.gov/committeecentral/docs/bills/108/1/bill.asp?bill=hr1350
Jonsson, P. (2002, May). Schools turn to 'smart lockers' to track student activity. Retrieved on July 27, 2003, from http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0507/p02s02-ussc.html
Legal
Guidelines for Student Searches at Public Schools: What is a "search", (n.d.).
Retrieved on July 27, 2003, from
http://myfloridalegal.com/pages.nsf/4492d797dc0bd92f85256cb80055fb97/23825cd5d8d5693685256cca0055c0f8!
OpenDocument\
MODEL POLICY ON SEARCHES OF PUPILS’ LOCKERS AND LOCKER CONTENTS, (n.d.). Retrieved on July 27, 2003, from http://www.michigansafeschools.org/lockers.htm
Moore, M. & Milliken, C. (1999). NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF ATTORNEYS GENERAL SCHOOL SEARCH REFERENCE GUIDE 1999. Retrieved on August 4, 2003, from http://www.wa.gov/ago/ourschool/2_search/Title.htm
NEW JERSEY v. T. L. O. Decided January 15, 1985, (n.d.). Retrieved on July 27, 2003, from http://www.tourolaw.edu/patch/NewJersey/
Panel ponders locker searches, (2000). Retrieved on August 4, 2003, from http://www.thehollandsentinel.net/stories/020200/new_panel.html
Ronald Reagan, The President's Radio Address to the Nation on Education, reproduced in Am. Educ., Jan.-Feb. 1984, at 2-3
Scrivner, T. (n.d.). Decade of Change. Retrieved on August 4, 2003, from http://www.mscosales.com/decade.html
Smart lockers enable schools to follow student activity, (2002, July). Minnesota Issue Watch. http://www.mnplan.state.mn.us/issues/scan.htm?Id=2296
Stefkovich, Jacqueline A, & Miller, Judith A. (1999). Law Enforcement Officers in Public Schools: Student Citizens in Safe Havens? [electronic version] BYU Education & Law Journal, 1, 25. Retrieved July 23, 2003, from http://www.law2.byu.edu/jel/v1999_1/html/stefkovich.htm#N_35_
Student Search and Seizure, (August/September, 1998). PLUK News. http://www.pluk.org/pn4.html#13
Tragedies spur action on school safety, (2000). Retrieved July 23, 2003, from http://www.educationreport.org/pubs/mer/article.asp?ID=2887
The use of Narcotic Detector Canines, (n.d.). Retrieved on July 27, 2003, from http://www.cass.net/~w-dogs/lcase.htm
Weber, B. (August, 1999) Making Schools Safe. Retrieved on August 5, 2003, from http://denver.rockymountainnews.com/shooting/0822back3.shtml
Womack, S. (2001). Student Rights and Responsibilities. Retrieved on August 5, 2003, from http://education.atu.edu/people/swomack/StuRights/
Project Creator Contact Information:
Kathy Davis,
John Kelsey,
Dia Langellier,
Misty Mapes, and
Jeff Rosendahl
Course -
EPS 313
CTER program at
UIUC
Course Instructor -
Nicholas Burbules