|
Abstract
|
VioLit summary:
OBJECTIVE:
The purpose of this article by James was to summarize the legal implications of violence on school campuses by examining the doctrine of reasonableness and relevant court cases.
METHODOLOGY:
The author employed a non-experimental research design in this study. Data used in the study were drawn from Supreme Court cases dealing with school officials' responses to student misconduct.
FINDINGS/DISCUSSION:
The author asserted that the doctrine of reasonableness set forth by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1984 is the standard followed by educators in cases of student misconduct. It was posited that the doctrine maintains that school officials may conduct whatever searches and seizures of student property they deem reasonable under the circumstances. The author argued that the doctrine allows a partial exemption from the 4th Amendment requirement that search warrants be obtained with probable cause because of the importance of keeping the school climate free from crime. It was suggested that determining whether or not a search is reasonable is often dependent on the seriousness of the alleged offense: the more serious the offense, the greater latitude given to school officials in their searches. The author noted that since 1984 the Court has mostly validated those cases where the school official was taking a reactive stance to crime by responding to a crime which had already occurred.
The author argued that the reasonableness doctrine is not necessarily relevant for proactive approaches for school safety, or strategies for crime prevention. He posited that, "in a proactive setting generic suspicions that some students are engaging in undesirable behavior is not only difficult to quantify, it is too difficult to balance against student expectations of privacy" (p. 195). Two categories of proactive applications of the reasonableness doctrine were distinguished. First, it was asserted that there are instances in which school officials may conduct searches in response to corroborated facts about a particular student engaging or preparing to engage in a crime on campus. The second category included those instances wherein school officials assume custodial interest to preserve the safety of all students. Custodial interest often results in generic sweeps of all students' belongings to deter students from engaging in criminal activities at school. If such a stance is to be taken, the author recommended that schools alert students of their intentions (e.g., warn them of unannounced locker searches). The author argued that generic sweep searches of lockers, desks, or persons should not be upheld in court for there is no reasonable suspicion present. Instead, he maintained that there is a generic suspicion that somewhere on campus someone must be violating school rules.
The author concluded that the reasonableness paradigm is important for all aspects of a school's safety plan, from deciding whether or not students may wear certain clothing to determining whether or not school athletes should be tested for drugs. The author praised the reasonableness doctrine for the flexibility it allows school officials depending on the severity of the presumed crime. He argued that this flexibility should provide incentive for school officials to implement plans to prevent crime on campus.
(CSPV Abstract - Copyright © 1992-2007 by the Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence, Institute of Behavioral Science, Regents of the University of Colorado)
School Violence
Student Violence
Legal Issues
Juvenile Offender
Juvenile Violence
Violence Effects
School Searches
School Safety
School Environment
School Climate
Violence Intervention
School Policy
06-03 |