Essay On Should Students Have The Right To Be Protected Against Unreasonable Searches

Firstly, the arming of students, faculty and staff should be prohibited because its unsafe. The debate on whether staff, faculty and students should carry firearms on campuses has been going for years now. Some colleges have debated that a law should be passed were staff and faculty should carry firearms on campus, but other colleges have dismissed this case because it is dangerous and unsafe. According to Jesus Villahermosa’s essay “Guns don’t belong in the Hands of Administrators, Professors, or Students” he states, “I agree that allowing guns on campuses will create problems, not solve them.” This statement is true because not everyone is capable to handle a gun or even use one. Also, according to the website The Campaign to Keep Guns off

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated… We all know the fourth amendment. It's the amendment that guarantees our safety within our homes and our personal belongings. Yet, how much do you know about the fourth amendment? The fourth amendment is full of history, controversy, and discussion, even in modern day.

School safety is always a major concern that is an important aspect for the adults and students. In history, various situations such as the Columbine shooting have raised concerns involving weapons on campuses that result in injuries or even death. A solution that some have implemented is the addition of metal detectors. However, schools should not install metal detectors because they require money and supervision, can be avoided to allow weapon entry, and alter the feel of a school environment negatively for the students.

In the Opinion Announcement of Morse v. Frederick, Justice Roberts said, "...students do not shed their First Amendments rights at the schoolhouse gate... The rights of students at {a} school are not the same as the rights of adults in the community at large" (Morse). The point he is getting across is that even though students still have their first amendment right at school it is more filtered as they are required to follow school policy (Morse). In the case of Morse v Frederick, his first amendment was not broken as he was promoting illegal drug use at a school event which is explicitly prohibited at school no matter if at school grounds or not (Morse). From this case, it is further understood that students still have some right to be free

As school administrators encountered many issues in balancing between providing safe school environment and meeting the requirements of the new law, Many case laws had been established by the judicial decisions in particular cases such as Goss v. Lopez (1975), Stuart v. Nappi (1978), Doe v. Koger (1979), Jackson v. Franklin County School Board (1985), Honig v. Doe (1988) which clarified many discipline questions pertaining to special education. In 1997 Congress passed thorough amendment to the IDEA and embeded detailed statutes to address disciplinary issues of students with

Students today live their day-to-day lives in constant fear of what seems inevitable. The United States has one of the highests rates of school shootings in the world. Society has become so desensitized to these shootings that they are no longer shocked to hear about another school falling victim to it. Even when students take a stand against gun violence, the only solution offered to them is a proposition to arm teachers. However, bringing more guns into a school will only further deteriorate the situation. Teachers should not be armed in schools because the could not handle a real situation, and the liability is too much of a risk.

Facts: A high school freshman (T.L.O) had her purse searched by the Assistant Vice Principal at her school because a teacher found her and another student smoking in the lavatory. The Assistant Vice Principal uncovered cigarettes and marijuana.

Chapter three does a good job pointing out that compulsory attendance laws served as an impetus for challenging schools over both their segregationist and exclusionary policies toward students of differing race and ability (Yell, 2016, p. 36). At the time our government was sending a very ambiguous message to students and their families. On one hand, the law of the land dictated that students must attend school, conversely schools continued to exclude students with disabilities. This inherent contradiction let to parent advocacy groups challenging schools for the fair and equal treatment of their children.

In conclusion, after contemplating the cases’ distinctive historical background, the sharply divided arguments that prompted the courts’ ruling, and the wide-reaching impact of that ruling, it is evident that this case was a turning point in American history. Despite differing opinions, the Supreme Court stuck to the Constitution in their decision that the government is not responsible for protecting children from their

GOSS v. LOPEZ, Supreme Court of the United States, 1975. 419 U.S. 565, 95 S.Ct. 729, 42, L.Ed.2d 725 deals with students that were suspended. The Columbus Ohio Public School System (CPSS) was sued by students. Nine students claimed that they were suspended without being given a hearing before their suspension, or even after their suspensions were over. Ohio law requires that the parents of suspended students are to be notified within 24 hours of the suspension, and the principal must state the reasons for the suspension. Six of the nine students attended school at Marion-Franklin High School. They were suspended for disruptive and disobedient behavior. Two others, Dwight Lopez and Betty Crome, attended Central High School and McGuffey Junior High School. They were suspended for an incident in the school lunchroom that caused some property damage. Again, all students claimed their rights to the due process clause of the 14th amendment were violated. The major purpose of the due process clause is for a person to be heard. It basically gives a person the chance to defend accusations that are being made against them. It clearly states that students must be given some type of prior notice, and they must be given some type of arena to hear and defend those accusations.

The case of Florida versus Jardines was heard before the Supreme Court on October 31, 2012 and a decision was made on March 26, 2013. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Jardines. This case challenged the fundamental core of the Fourth Amendment, which protects against unreasonable search and seizure. The ruling of this case has impacted how law officials handle searches and the use of drug dogs. This case also challenged the boundary line of where personal property starts. This case is regarded as one of the influential cases in the interpretation of fourth amendment.

The public school to prison pipeline was examined in the literature review through zero-tolerance policies and the effects it has played on graduation rates. Zero-tolerance policies have dramatically increased students being recommended to the court system according to the literature review. The literature review has shown a need for school districts to examine zero-tolerance policies and the negative effects that it has caused on students. Fran Silverman (2005) discusses students being punished under zero-tolerance and says, “The students were disciplined under their school’s zero tolerance policy and some advocates are saying these codes of conduct have become so strict that schools are turning into criminal justice systems, or worse, jailhouses” (pg. 54). Therefore zero-tolerance policies have not had the outcome that politicians have hoped for and should be examined for the effects that they have had on our students.

53). The research used students of all ages, races, sex, and sexual orientation and identity. The subjects were not chosen based off any specific criteria other than the fact that they attend the public school system within the United States (p. 53). The study was carried out through analyzing public records data, such as the U.S. Department of Education for Civil Rights, in order to determine the number of students suspended within a time period, within what grades were they suspended in, and the reason for their suspension (p. 53-54). McCarter also incorporated research from various authors into her own in order to draw accurate conclusions of the negative consequences that zero-tolerance policies, high-stakes testing, school climate, the increased presence of SROs and their adverse effects on students (p.

Law enforcement presence in schools is a topic that has been spoken about by many researchers throughout the years and has brought up a lot of controversial thoughts and ideas. Many researchers that have conducted research that is related to this topic have mentioned how they came across studies that made them come up with conclusions about school law enforcement officers that were rather mixed than geared towards one side of the spectrum (Bracy, 2010). The studies that I looked into were very similar in that many of them looked down upon the idea of having law enforcement officers present in schools, while a small handful felt that it has more pros than it does cons.

It wasn 't just students and their parents - civil rights groups got involved, as did educators, and even juvenile judges sounded alarm at the number of young people who came out of zero tolerance with arrest records and other disciplinary millstones around their necks. The Obama Justice Department has also pressed school districts to find alternatives to arrest and expulsion.