The court stated, "Instead, a simple reasonableness standard governs all
searches of students' persons and effects by school authorities."
You say, "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."
First of all the students themselves weren't searched for drugs, even though they could have been. They were certainly "secure in their persons" with regard to the 4th amendment.
Second, the students were not "seized" -- they were detained during the search. If drugs were found, the drugs would have been seized per the 4th amendment.
Given the circumstances, I believe the school authorities did what they could to restrict the search (6:40am raid, only the main hallway, "20 administrators and teachers helped steer other students away"). They temporarily detained about 4% of the students. They didn't search the students or their lockers -- only their book bags. I really don't see the actions as a 4th amendment issue.
"First of all the students themselves weren't searched for drugs, even though they could have been. They were certainly "secure in their persons" with regard to the 4th amendment."
How secure do you feel looking down the barrel of a gun? Considering the fact that students are told regularly that guns kill, they would feel even more of a threat. In addition, a drug sniffing dog is searching the entire area for an odor. That odor detection is not able to eliminate the students themselves and stick to the backpack only.
"Second, the students were not "seized" -- they were detained during the search. If drugs were found, the drugs would have been seized per the 4th amendment."
A person is seized as soon as they submit to the assertion of the police authority. The students were not free to leave at any time they were seized. This is shown when the story talks about the "cuffing" of the students that did not cooperate, then the others were not free to leave and they submitted to the authority of the police. Look up California v. Hodari D., 499 U.S. 621. Therefore you end up with this group of police seizing 107 people while suspecting 10 people of committing a crime. This seizure failed to bear any fruit (evidence) that could prove that any crime occured. That alone should show that this action was not based on simple reasonableness.