Supreme Court Philosophies on Search and Seizure for students

How This Custom Writing Service Works

1. Place your order

Provide all instructions about the type of paper, length, deadline and pay.

2. Thorough research

Our team of professional writers conduct in-depth research on the topic to extract information from relevant sources.

3. Writing and proofreading

The experienced writers knit together all ideas into an original paper. Our editors go through the paper to correct any errors.

4. Product Delivery

You get your completed paper in your email. In case you need any corrections, we do ammendments free of charge.

Step 1 of 2

  • Price: $0.00

Why Buy Dissertations from us?

100% Original writing

No plagiarism. Original content written from scratch just for you. and custom free plagiarism report

Affordable writing service

Get your paper at a cheaper price than our competitors. Save money.

Timely delivery of orders

Never miss your submission deadlines again. We keep time & help you smile.

24/7 Customer support

Contact customer support or your writer any time for updates, drafts, etc. Call, Text, Whatsapp.

100% Private & Confidential

Your connection is private, your personal & payment information is secure

Need help placing your order?

Let nothing stop you from enjoying the best writing services. Save your time and focus on other aspects of your studies as professional writers work on your paper.

Supreme Court Philosophies on Search and Seizure for students

Supreme Court Philosophies on Search and Seizure for students

The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides that “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” (Kim, 2017). The courts have ruled in various cases that the ultimate goal of this provision is to protect people’s right to privacy (including electronic devices) and freedom from unreasonable intrusions by the government. Majority of students are minors who lack some of the most fundamental rights of self -determination and are subject to the control of their guardians. However, their fourth amendment rights need to be protected especially concerning computer, internet, and the phone. There are circumstances when students might need privacy, and at the same time be protected from unwarranted government search as envisaged in the Fourth Amendment (Kloster, 2012). This article examines the Supreme Court philosophies on the Fourth Amendment as it relates to schools and students in the 21st century.

The big question that arises from the fourth amendment jurisprudence is whether a search has occurred and whether the search is only limited to physical intrusion or all forms of police surveillance. The Initial Fourth Amendment case law hinged on citizen’s property rights. In determining whether a particular type of government-initiated electronic surveillance is a “search” within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment, the Warren court made a ruling in Katz v. United States, 389 U. S. 347 (1967). In Katz, Government agents had intercepted the contents of a telephone conversation by attaching an electronic listening device to the outside of a public phone booth. The Court rejected the argument that a “search” can occur only when there has been a “physical intrusion” into a “constitutionally protected area,” noting that the Fourth Amendment “protects people, not places. Because the Government’s monitoring of Katz’ conversation “violated the privacy upon which he justifiably relied while using the telephone booth,” the Court held that “constituted a `search and seizure’ within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. Katz case expanded the principle of the Fourth amendment from just protection from physical intrusion to the right to privacy.

In New Jersey v. TLO, (1985) the Burger court was to define whether the Fourth Amendment Rights would be violated if a search was conducted by a school official. A high school teacher observed two girls smoking in a lavatory. One of them was 14 year old T. L. O. and was the respondent in the case. Since smoking in the school compound was an offence, the girls were taken to the administrator, where they met with Assistant Vice Principal Theodore Choplick. After a serious questioning , T. L. O.’s companion admitted that she had committed an offence. However, T.L.O claimed that she does not smoke and denied smoking in the school compound. The court concluded that the Fourth Amendment also relates to searches carried out by school officials, and ruled that a school official may properly conduct a search of a student’s person if the official has a reasonable suspicion that a crime has been or is in the process of being committed or reasonable cause to believe that the search is necessary to maintain school discipline or enforce school policies.  The School authorities are not required to obtain a search warrant neither do they need to have a probable cause. It is obvious that reasonable suspicion is a lower standard than the probable cause required for a police search.

In the case of Board of Education of Independent School District No. 92 of Pottawatomie County v. Earls, et al. (Drug testing students) (2002) the Rehnquist Court ruled that the ability of schools to rid their campuses of illegal drugs outweighs an individual’s right to privacy. This landmark ruling gives school authorities the right  to test students who are involved in competitive extra-curricular activities for drug use, without any particular suspicion of wrongdoing. The Student Athlete Drug Policy adopted by School District 47J in the town of Vernonia, Oregon, permits random drug testing of students who participate in the District’s school athletics programs. The key issue to be addressed is the nature of the privacy interest upon which the search in question intrudes. The Fourth Amendment does not protect all forms of privacy, but just those that society recognizes as legitimate.

In United States v Jones (Use of GPS tracking technology) (2012), the U.S. Supreme Court led by John Roberts found that law enforcement personnel committed a search for purposes of the Fourth Amendment rights when they physically attached a GPS devise to the vehicle of a drug suspect and used it to electronically monitor the vehicle’s movements around the clock for more than a month. The ruling raised the big question of whether a search would be considered to have taken place by mere electronic monitoring of a suspects movement. Going by the thinking of the court, attaching a tracking device on a suspect’s body would constitute a search for Fourth Amendment purposes. In Safford Unified School District v Redding (Strip searching students) (2006) the same Roberts Court held that a strip search of a middle schooler violated the Fourth Amendment where the school lacked reasons to suspect either that the drugs the girl allegedly had in her possession (Ibuprofen) presented a danger or that they were concealed in her underwear. The law enforcers received information that four prescription only 400 mg ibuprofen and a 200 mg over-the-counter naproxen had been given to a classmate by the suspect. The suspect was later found not to possess any drugs. In Riley vs California the same court made a landmark ruling by stating that the police generally may not, without a warrant, search digital information on a cellphone seized from an individual who has been arrested.

The ruling in Riley vs. California by the current Supreme court was a landmark case in the digital age. The unanimous verdict by the bench will not only affect the minor crimes but is likely to have a far-reaching effect. It is likely to have an impact on searches related to tablets, computer, and data stored on the internet. The reasoning will also be extended to searches compared to students in schools. “It is the first computer-search case, and it says we are in a new digital age. You can’t apply the old rules anymore (Orin Kerr)’’. While making his ruling,the Chief Justice was keen to observe the important role that digital gadgets play in modern life. They are, he said, “such a pervasive and insistent part of daily life that the proverbial visitor from Mars might conclude they were an important feature of human anatomy (Howe, 2017)”. Technology allows citizens to carry a lot of information in their hands and the same needs to be protected.

Carpenter v. United States is another interesting case before the Roberts  Court. The much awaited ruling will seek to answer the question of whether the government violates the Fourth Amendment rights by accessing an individual’s historical cell phone locations records without a warrant (Howe, 2017). It is a fact that the future of surveillance law will depend on how the Supreme Court rules in the case and hence it becomes one of the most notable Fourth Amendment case that the Roberts Court has heard. What needs to be noted is that the case is not only about cell-site records. Although the facts of the case are formally about cell-site records, the big issue is all about how electronic monitoring triggers the Fourth Amendment and how the Fourth Amendment applies (Kerr, 2017). Technology use has increased recently across all industries including schools in the 21st Century. The changes necessitate the use of technology in the collection of evidence in criminal procedures. The ruling will definitely have a great impact on criminal procedures going forward. It is also going to have an effect on the contracts that communication companies sign with their clients and the manner in which citizens interact with their digital gadgets. The fact that the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case means that changes in technology will easily be considered in case laws in the future.

Advance in technology provides increased convenience and security at the expense of privacy. Majority of the citizens including students may find the tradeoff worthwhile but will still expect the government to protect their Fourth Amendment rights. Though the public does not appreciate the privacy that comes with new technology, they may eventually reconcile themselves to this development as inevitable. The number of students in the US is big and forms a significant percentage of technology consumers. The number is only expected to rise in the future and the current laws are definitely going to affect the relationship between government officials and students.

Going forward, it is expected that there are going to be many changes in the criminal justice system as it relates to schools and students.  It is expected that the law enforcers will be permitted to use of electronic surveillance technology that may not be in general public use. This will be necessitated by the widespread use of electronic gadgets and the internet. Increased use of the internet and especially social media were not there when the Fourth Amendment rights were enacted in the constitution. There is an increased use of social media among students and cases of cyberbullying are on the rise. The law enforcers will, therefore, need to be well equipped to enable them to collect evidence for use in criminal proceedings which will definitely call for a change in the provisions of Fourth Amendment rights. Over the years, the changes that have been made on the Fourth Amendment rights have revolved around the definition of what is a “search” and when a search is reasonable. It is expected that the changes will revolve around what is a fair search for example of a student’s Facebook or Twitter account.

Going to school does not mean that students lose their Fourth Amendment rights. However, their rights must be balanced with the rights of their coursemates, as well as the duty of the learning institution to provide a conducive environment and quality education. There are strict rules that government agents and school authorities must follow to search and seize evidence from students. This same principle is applied in accessing their cell phones and the internet.



Howe. A (2017), The justices return to cellphones and the Fourth Amendment: In Plain English, SCOTUSblog, Accessed 27/10/2017.

Katz v. the United States, 389 U.S. 347, 88 S. Ct. 507, 19 L. Ed. 2d 576 (1967). Retrieved from Accessed 27/10/2017.

Kerr.O. (2017, June 5) Supreme Court agrees to hear ‘Carpenter v. the United States,’ the Fourth Amendment historical cell-site case. The Washington PostPost. Retrieved from

Kim, J (2017). Legal Information Institute. Cornell Law School. Accessed  27/10/2017

Kloster, A (2012) Supreme Court Decision in ‘Jones’ and Students’ Fourth Amendment Rights. Foundation for individual rights in education. Accessed  27/10/2017

New Jersey v. TLO, 469 U.S. 325, 105 S. Ct. 733, 83 L. Ed. 2d 720 (1985).Retrieved from Accessed  27/10/2017.

Riley v. California, 134 S. Ct. 2473, 573 U.S., 189 L. Ed. 2d 430 (2014). Retrieved from Accessed  27/10/2017.

Safford Unified School Dist. No. 1 v. Redding, 557 U.S. 364, 129 S. Ct. 2633, 174 L. Ed. 2d 354 (2009). Retrieved from Accessed  27/10/2017.

Types of Academic Papers

Research Paper
Reaction Paper
Lab Report
Book Report
Book Review
Movie Review
Synthesis Paper
Review of the Literature
Research Proposal
Thesis Proposal
Dissertation Proposal
Annotated Bibliography
Article Critique
Term Paper
Case Study
Capstone Project
Presentation Design
Mathematical Problem
Mind Game
Tricky Questions

Dissertation Chapters

Dissertation Abstract

Dissertation Introduction

Dissertation Literature Review

Dissertation Methodology

Dissertation Results

Dissertation Discussion

best essay writing services

Types of Essays

Expository essay
Analytical essay
Persuasive essay
Narrative essay
Definition Essay
Descriptive essay
Process Essay
Personal essay
Admission essay
Compare and contrast essay
Cause and effect essay
Critical analysis essay

Order Your Custom Paper Now

Step 1 of 2

  • Price: $0.00

Artificial Intelligence
Biological Sciences
Business Management
Business Studies
Chemical Engineering
Civil Engineering
Computer Science

Consumer Science
Cultural Studies
Earth Sciences
Electrical Engineering
English Language
Food Science
Gender Studies

Human Resource Management
Mechanical Engineering
Military Sciences
Museum Studies

Political Science
Public Administration
Religious Studies
Social Work
Software Engineering
Space Sciences
Systems Science
Veterinary Medicine

Write My Dissertation offers top-notch customer support services. 

When working on your dissertation paper, expect to find us online via Live Chat 24/7/265. 

Our customer support agents are always ready to listen to you and deliver a quality dissertation.

Be free to contact the customer support team if you have any questions or comments.

How To Order PhD dissertation

Could you help me write my dissertation?

Yes. That’s our work to write a dissertation.

Use the green order form to order the entire dissertation.

Instead of pay someone randomly selected from the internet, it’s good to use a reputable company like WMD which specializes in dissertation services.

It’s now easy to buy academic papers online. You can phone place order, fill out the order form, pre order product and hire someone to write your paper just like that. Expect to get great work, just like many others have, for your first order and all others.

You’ll experience the best, get your order 100% unique and delivered in time (timely delivery).

Write my dissertation delivers custom writing services to customers from all states in the USA. Our services are provided in the English language. You can find the best custom dissertation services if you are from any of the following states or territories in the United States of America: 

Alabama, Alaska, American Samoa, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Guam, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Minor Outlying Islands, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Northern Mariana Islands, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Puerto Rico, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, U.S. Virgin Islands, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, Wyoming

If you need dissertation writing help in the English language, then we’ve got you covered.

Our clients are mainly English speakers  from: Australia, New Zealand, United Kingdom, United States, Antigua and Barbuda, Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Canada, Dominica, Federation of Saint Christopher and Nevis. Others include Fiji, Ghana, Grenada, Guyana, Ireland, Jamaica, Kenya, Liberia, Nigeria, Papua New Guinea, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Sierra Leone, Singapore, South Africa, Trinidad and Tobago.