The Courts and the Constitution

1. The Courts and the Constitution TM

2. If you were responsible for selecting all of the judges in Florida, what would you look for? • Knowledge • Skills • Disposition/Qualities TM

3. How are judges different from other elected officials such as legislators? TM

4. Should judges be influenced by political pressures when deciding a case? • Would you want a judge to make a decision based on the law or how the public might react to the decision? • Should judges do what is legally right or should they do what is popular? TM

5. CHECKS ON JUDGES MUST FOLLOW: CONSTITUTION STATUTES RULES HIGHER COURT DECISIONS ACTIONS REVIEWABLE TM

6. So, a judge cannot decide a case based on how he/she feels about an issue TM

7. Today, you will be a justice on the U.S. Supreme Court and decide a real case. TM

8. But first – You need to know the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. TM

9. FOURTH AMENDMENT UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION “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 persons or things to be seized.” TM

10. The School Strip Search NOW THE CASE: Read and highlight or circle the important facts. TM

11. The School Strip Search Were the Fourth Amendment rights of S.R. violated? TM

12. The Trial Court Redding, the school district, and Asst. Principal Wilson will appear in a federal district court before a judge. TM

13. In addition to the Fourth Amendment, what else might a judge need to know? TM

14. Other similar cases and how they were decided – Case precedent: New Jersey v. T.L.O., 469 U.S. 325 (1985). • Students caught smoking in the school restroom TM

15. New Jersey v. T.L.O • When T.L.O. denied that she had been smoking, asst. principal searched her purse. • Cigarettes and rolling papers consistent with marijuana use found. • Deeper search of purse revealed trace of marijuana, a pipe, empty plastic baggies, a large amount of money, a list of students who owed T.L.O. money, and two letters that implicated T.L.O. in marijuana dealing. TM

16. New Jersey v. T.L.O. • United States Supreme Court upheld the search of T.L.O.’s purse. • Court articulated that standard for school search is reasonable suspicion, not the higher standard of probable cause. • Legality of a student search is to be based on reasonableness of the search under all the circumstances. TM

17. New Jersey v. T.L.O. • A search of a student will be upheld if it is justified at its inception (i.e., at the beginning of the search). • A search is justified at its inception when there are reasonable grounds to believe that the search will reveal evidence that the student has violated or is violating school rules or the law. TM

18. New Jersey v. T.L.O. • A search of a student will be upheld if it is also permissible in scope. It must be: • reasonably related to the objectives of the search; and • not excessively intrusive in light of the age and sex of the student and the nature of the infraction. TM

19. How are the facts in New Jersey v. T.L.O. similar or different from the Redding case? How have other courts applied the T.L.O. decision in the context of school searches? TM

20. Cornfield v. Consol. High School District, 991 F. 2d 1316 (7th Cir. 1993) • Teachers and their aides suspected that Cornfield, a student in a behavioral disorder program, was concealing drugs in his underwear. • A teacher and the school dean took Cornfield to the school restroom where they ordered him to completely remove his clothes and change into a gym uniform. • Cornfield’s body and clothes were inspected but no drugs were found. TM

21. Cornfield v. Consol. High School District, 991 F. 2d 1316 (7th Cir. 1993) • Cornfield filed a federal civil rights action against the school district, the teacher, and the dean alleging that the search violated his Fourth Amendment rights. • The federal trial court dismissed the case against the defendants, concluding that the search was consistent with the Fourth Amendment. • The appellate circuit court affirmed applying the two-part test from New Jersey v. T.L.O. TM

22. Cornfield v. Consol. High School District, 991 F. 2d 1316 (7th Cir. 1993) • The search was reasonable at its inception because there were factors indicating that Cornfield might be concealing drugs in his underwear, including: • Cornfield had previously been discovered with a live bullet at the school • A bus driver had previously reported that Cornfield smelled of marijuana. • One student had previously observed Cornfield smoking marijuana. • A teacher’s aide informed the teacher that Cornfield had admitted to her that he had previously hidden drugs in his underwear during a police raid at his mother house. • Cornfield had a suspicious bulge in his clothing that had not been observed before. TM

23. Cornfield v. Consol. High School District, 991 F. 2d 1316 (7th Cir. 1993) • The search of Cornfield was reasonable in scope: • The search was conducted behind the locked door of the boys restroom and both of the school officers present were male. • The school officers did not touch Cornfield, but observed from a certain distance away to ensure that Cornfield could not conceal any drugs. • The school officers did not force Cornfield to stand naked before them, but allowed him to change into a gym uniform. TM

24. Hedges v. Musco, 204 F.3d 109 (3d Cir. 2000) • Teacher observed Hedges acting out of character and noted physical signs consistent with drug or alcohol use (flushed face, eyes glassy, pupils dilated). • Hedges escorted to nurse, who observed that Hedges appeared to be under the influence of drugs or alcohol. Nurse determined that Hedges’ blood pressure was elevated and her eyes were bloodshot. TM

25. Hedges v. Musco, 204 F.3d 109 (3d Cir. 2000) • A search of Hedges’ backpack revealed a plastic bottle which contained three white pills and one brown pill. Hedges advised that the pills were diet pills. Students were prohibited from possessing medication of any kind. • When asked for phone numbers to reach her parents, Hedges could not remember them. • Hedges was required to give blood and urine samples to test for drugs or alcohol in her system. Both tests ultimately reported negative results. TM

26. Hedges v. Musco, 204 F.3d 109 (3d Cir. 2000) • Hedges’ parents filed a federal civil rights action against the school principal (Musco) and other school officials alleging that Hedges was subjected to a search of her bodily fluids in violation of the Fourth Amendment. • The federal district court dismissed the case against the defendants and the Hedges appealed. • The appellate circuit court affirmed the dismissal applying the two-part test from New Jersey v. T.L.O. TM

27. Hedges v. Musco, 204 F.3d 109 (3d Cir. 2000) • Hedges’ behavior and appearance provided the teacher with reasonable suspicion to send Hedges to the nurse, and for the nurse to check her vital signs. • These factors coupled with (1) the discovery of the prohibited pills in Hedges backpack; and (2) the fact that Hedges could not remember her parents’ daytime phone numbers provided principal Musco with reasonable suspicion to order a further search in the form of blood and urine samples. TM

28. Hedges v. Musco, 204 F.3d 109 (3d Cir. 2000) • The bodily fluids “search” of Hedges was not excessively intrusive given her age, sex, and the nature of the infraction. • The urine sample was produced in an enclosed lavatory stall with a female monitor outside solely to listen for signs of tampering. • Blood tests are commonplace and involve nearly no risk or trauma. TM

29. Phaneuf v. Fraikin, 448 F.3d 591 (2d Cir. 2006) • A student reported to the school gym teacher that Phaneuf told her that she (Phaneuf) possessed marijuana and planned to hide it in her pants during a mandatory bag search that would occur before an off-campus school trip. • The gym teacher reported the tip to the principal. • Phaneuf was taken to the nurse’s office. TM

30. Phaneuf v. Fraikin, 448 F.3d 591 (2d Cir. 2006) • When informed of the tip, Phaneuf denied the allegation, but the gym teacher and the principal believed that she was lying. Phaneuf had a history of discipline problems, though none involved drugs. • The principal ordered the nurse, Fraikin, to search Phaneuf’s underpants. When Fraikin hesitated, Phaneuf’s mother was called to conduct the search. While waiting for the mother, the principal searched Phaneuf’s purse and found cigarettes and a lighter. TM

31. Phaneuf v. Fraikin, 448 F.3d 591 (2d Cir. 2006) • Phaneuf’s mother was advised that if she did not participate in the search, school officials would call the police. • Phaneuf was required to pull down her bra, lower her skirt to the floor, and pull her underpants away from her body. The search did not reveal marijuana. • Phaneuf subsequently filed a lawsuit in state court alleging that Fraikin and other school officials violated her Fourth Amendment rights by conducting the strip search. TM

32. Phaneuf v. Fraikin, 448 F.3d 591 (2d Cir. 2006) • The defendants (the school officers) removed the case from state to federal court. • The federal district court held that the search was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment pursuant to New Jersey v. T.L.O. • The federal appellate court reversed and held that the strip search of Phaneuf violated the Fourth Amendment. TM

33. Phaneuf v. Fraikin, 448 F.3d 591 (2d Cir. 2006) • The federal appellate court did not reach the second prong of the T.L.O. test because it concluded that the strip search was not justified at its inception (i.e., the strip search failed on the first prong of T.L.O.). • The tip was insufficient to justify a strip search because • no evidence was offered to demonstrate why the principal felt the tipster was trustworthy • no meaningful inquiry or corroboration of the tip occurred TM

34. Phaneuf v. Fraikin, 448 F.3d 591 (2d Cir. 2006) • Phaneuf’s past disciplinary problems were not sufficient to justify the strip search because none of her prior problems involved the use of drugs • The “manner” of Phaneuf’s denial of the allegation was not sufficient to justify the strip search because the record provided no evidence to demonstrate how her manner of denial was suspicious or how it led the principal and the gym teacher to believe that she was lying. TM

35. Phaneuf v. Fraikin, 448 F.3d 591 (2d Cir. 2006) • The cigarettes in Phaneuf’s purse were not sufficient to justify the strip search because tobacco use was of limited relevance to whether (1) Phaneuf brought marijuana to school; and (2) whether Phaneuf was smuggling marijuana in her clothing. TM

36. The School Strip Search Now, back to our Question: Were the Fourth Amendment rights of S.R. violated? TM

37. Arguments Before the Federal Trial Court Did the strip search of S.R. violate the Fourth Amendment? Yes or No? Why? TM

38. What did the real trial court decide? • What happens next? TM

39. What is an Appeal? TM

40. FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURTS OF APPEALS • 3 judges sit to hear case. • Decision • What is next? TM

41. FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURTS OF APPEALS • The entire circuit court decides to rehear the case (this is known as a rehearing en banc). • Decision of the entire court • What happens next? TM

42. The United States Supreme Court TM

43. The U.S. Supreme Court 9 Justices TM

44. Now you are Justices on the U.S. Supreme Court. Here is the question before the court… TM

45. The School Strip Search Constitutional Question Is the Fourth Amendment violated when a school official orders a strip search of a student to recover over-the-counter pain medication and prescription-strength ibuprofen? TM

46. The School Strip Search Individually answer the question – Yes or No based on the facts of the case, the constitution, and case precedent. -Give 3 reasons in writing. TM

47. The School Strip Search If you answer “Yes” – you are deciding for April Redding, S.R.’s mother. _____________________________ If you answer “No” you are deciding for the school district and Assistant Principal Wilson. TM

48. The School Strip Search Constitutional Question Is the Fourth Amendment violated when a school official orders a strip search of a student to recover over-the-counter pain medication and prescription-strength ibuprofen? TM

49. The School Strip Search • Get into Groups of 5 • Choose a Chief Justice • Chief Justice Maintains Order • Poll the Justices. How did each one answer the question and why? • Try to come to a unanimous decision. • You have 10 minutes to discuss then take a final poll TM

50. The School Strip Search After each Court decides: • Bring the Chief Justices to the front of the room to report on the decision of each group • Tally results and announce TM