Replies

In post #55, I took the time to cite (I thought you were the one who loves proof of claims) the court ruling on the 4th amendment as it applies to public schools. I even underlined the pertinent part.

You chose to ignore this, and you continue to reference the language of the 4th without acknowledging the court's interpretation as it applies to public schools. Then, you give me a totally irrelevant example of some drug dealer on a residential street.

Schools. Public schools. That's what we're talking about.

I see no reason to provide you with references, cites, court cases, etc. in the future if you choose to ignore them to make your point (which is obviously false and without foundation. Ironic).

From #55 the case as you listed:

"Public Schools
In New Jersey v. T.L.O. [469 U.S. 325 (1985)], the Court set forth the principles governing searches by public school authorities. The Fourth Amendment applies to searches conducted by public school officials because ''school officials act as representatives of the State, not merely as surrogates for the parents.'' [469 U.S. 336 (1984)]. However, ''the school setting requires some easing of the restrictions to which searches by public authorities are ordinarily subject.'' [469 U.S. 340 (1985)]. Neither the warrant requirement nor the probable cause standard is appropriate, the Court ruled. Instead, a simple reasonableness standard governs all searches of students' persons and effects by school authorities (469 U.S. at 343)."

This case is relevent to searches only. No where does it talk about the violations of these students constitutional right to feel secure in their persons and their constitutional right to not be unlawfully siezed. I agree that this documentation provided by you does negate the 4th's protection to students regarding searches. I don't agree with the case, but it does provide a frame for the school administrations behavior regarding searches.

In post #56 I stated: "I am repeating it because the decision addresses searches but not the other elements. How about feeling secure in their persons? How about seizure?"

This to me is not ignoring your post presenting the case. In fact it acknowledges that the case addresses searches. If the case addresses the other two elements then I am not seeing it. If it does, I need you to point it out to me and explain it.

More from your post #55:

"School searches must also be reasonably related in scope to the circumstances justifying the interference, and ''not excessively intrusive in light of the age and sex of the student and the nature of the infraction.'' (469 U.S. at 342)."

I would say that this comment supports my claim that this specific action was not reasonably related in scope to the circumstances and that they did excessively intrude in light of the number of students involved vs. the number of students threatened, seized and searched.

If I am not understanding the case or your comments then by all means provide me the clarification. However, I did not ignore the case or your comments as you seem to think I have.