the court's evolving definition of "reasonable": Public school students Glorybeth Juarez per.4

The word "reasonable" has been changed throughout the cases that involved the fourth amendment concerning taking action with a probable cause.

The main question is to see how the word "reasonable" has changed throughout the years, but to do so, there needs to be an evaluation of a variety of cases that discuss "reasonable" that have shaped the word "reasonable" in public school settings.

New Jersey v. T.L.O., 1985

Search officials at the school did not need a warrant, the only rule that needed to be followed was having "reasonable" searches. Here it is ruled that the school has power to decide what is fair or not.

Skinner V. Railway Labor Exec. Assoc., 1989

Railway laborers needed to take drug tests for the safety of the people aboard the train and it was "reasonable" to have a urine test, but unreasonable to get a blood test. The main factor that changed how reasonable was looked in this case was the intrusive nature of getting the drug test. There was no question the laborers had to take a drug test, because safety of the people was a priority, but how intrusive the test would be was a line the railway association could not cross. The dissenting opinion also states that there wouldn't be drug exceptions, because it is all in the safety of the people, even if there isn't a probable cause.

Vernonia School District v. Acton, 1995

The school argued that they did not have probable cause but it was "reasonable" for them to do checks because they had temporary custody over the students and needed to, like the railway case, put the students safety first.

Pottawatomie School Board V. Earls,

The argument for students with a sports related activity is that if they are on drugs, it would cause safety hazards and drug tests would be mandatory but this should not go for all activities, such as choir that does not pose a risk to safety. By drug testing all students in activities, they were completing incremental intrusion, which was violating and intruding all the rights of the student.

However, it is reasonable to give drug tests because it is normal to be asked to be tested everywhere else. This also supports the claim that the activity was done out of own will, so the students are also willing to do whatever comes with the activity, which is take to take the drug tests. It was then concluded by the court that "reasonable" the test or not, the school ultimately has the temporary custody as mentioned before in the Vernonia case.

The supreme court evolved the word "reasonable" to fit for the school boards more than the students. From the cases decisions, it has been the majority opinion that support school boards' argument of temporary custody. In the last case, Pottawatomie v. Earls, it was discussed that more and more rights are taken away from students, nonetheless, "reasonable" is sometimes sacrificed to ensure total safety for all, and the school has the right to do so.

Created By
Glorybeth Juarez
Appreciate

Made with Adobe Slate

Make your words and images move.

Get Slate

Report Abuse

If you feel that this video content violates the Adobe Terms of Use, you may report this content by filling out this quick form.

To report a Copyright Violation, please follow Section 17 in the Terms of Use.