# data[].attributes.headline
Write down 1 fact you found in your research + an interpretation. Make sure to add the link to your source at the end of your post

# data[].attributes.subject
Write down 1 fact you found in your research + an interpretation. Make sure to add the link to your source at the end of your post

# data[].attributes.headline
Federal laws apply to everyone in the country

# data[].attributes.subject
Federal laws apply to everyone in the country

# data[].attributes.headline
State laws apply to everyone who resides in the state

# data[].attributes.subject
State laws apply to everyone who resides in the state

# data[].attributes.headline
City laws apply to people who live or work in a particular city, town, or village.

# data[].attributes.subject
City laws apply to people who live or work in a particular city, town, or village.

# data[].attributes.body
"Lower courts are beginning to grapple with challenges to students’ Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure as it relates to the digital environment, cell phones in particular. "

The first trail ruled that the school was in the right to search the students purse and the evidence can be used in trial. The appeal (a later case against the original ruling) said that the school is a representative of the government and cannot actually search the students purse.

# data[].attributes.body
June 25, 2009&#151; -- The Supreme Court ruled today that school officials' strip search of a then-13-year-old Arizona teen suspected of possessing a painkiller violated the girl's constitutional rights, despite the school district's zero-tolerance policy for drugs.

The court said, however, that school officials are protected from personal liability in the case.

The ruling is a partial victory for Savana Redding, who had been summoned from her middle school classroom and was asked to strip down to her underwear as school officials searched for prescription strength ibuprofen.

The decision could redefine student privacy rights and outline important guidelines for school officials as they seek out dangerous contraband, like drugs, weapons or alcohol.

An 8-1 majority of the Court found that the search was unconstitutional. Justice David Souter, writing for the majority said, "Savana's subjective expectation of privacy against such a search is inherent in her account of it as embarrassing, frightening, and humiliating. … Here, the content of the suspicion failed to match the degree of intrusion."

"The strip search of Savana Redding was unreasonable and a violation of the Fourth Amendment," the court ruled.

The Court emphasized that the intrusiveness of the search was not justified because Savana was not suspected of carrying dangerous drugs. "The Fourth Amendment places limits on the official, even with the high degree of deference that courts must pay to the educator's professional judgment."

# data[].attributes.body
The girls felt like their rights were violated because of their article being "public speech" but with their article being a school assignment they lost their court case, the supreme court decided that students involved in school papers are not public and are controlled by the school and only the schools.

"In a 5-3 ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the principal's actions did not violate the students' free speech rights. The Court noted that the paper was sponsored by the school and, as such, the school had a legitimate interest in preventing the publication of articles that it deemed inappropriate and that might appear to have the imprimatur of the school."

# data[].attributes.body
Six percent of schools required
clear book bags or banned book
bags altogether, but this practice
ranged from 2 percent of primary
schools, to 13 percent of middle
schools, and 12 percent of
secondary schools. Between 3
and 4 percent of primary schools
reported performing one or
more random metal detector
checks on students, using one
or more random dog sniffs to
check for drugs, and performing
one or more random sweeps for
contraband (not including dog
sniffs). In comparison, 15 percent
of secondary schools reported
random metal detector checks,.

# data[].attributes.body
The minor who was a stalker was aware of his actions and didnt seem to change them. He had no remorse towards them.

"The conviction of a man who made extensive online threats to a stranger, saying free speech protections require prosecutors to prove the stalker was aware of the threatening nature of his communications."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/06/27/supreme-court-true-threat-stalking/

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The Supreme Court building in Washington on Tuesday. (Minh Connors/The Washington Post)

The Supreme Court on Tuesday reversed the conviction of a man who made extensive online threats to a stranger, saying free speech protections require prosecutors to prove the stalker was aware of the threatening nature of his communications.
Keeping up with politics is easy with The 5-Minute Fix Newsletter, in your inbox weekdays.
In a 7-2 ruling with Justice Elena Kagan writing for the majority, the court emphasized that true threats of violence are not protected by the First Amendment. But to guard against a chilling effect on non-threatening speech, the majority said, states must prove that a criminal defendant has acted recklessly, meaning that he "disregarded a substantial risk that his communications would be viewed as threatening violence."

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined in part by Justice Neil M. Gorsuch, agreed with the outcome but expressed concern about the risk of cracking down on speech that is unintentionally threatening. She worried that the rulingcould lead, for instance, to a high school student going to prison for sending another student violent music lyrics.

Justices Clarence Thomas and Amy Coney Barrett dissented from the majority, with Barrett writing that the standard set by the court on Thursday gives "preferential treatment" to a broad range of threatening speech and makes it more difficult for law enforcement to address actual threats.

"A delusional speaker may lack awareness of the threatening nature of her speech; a devious speaker may strategically disclaim such awareness; and a lucky speaker may leave behind no evidence of mental state for the government to use against her," Barrett wrote. "The Court's decision thus sweeps much further than it lets on."

His online messages terrorized her. But were they actual threats?

The case concerned a Colorado law used to convict Billy Raymond Counterman of stalking and causing "emotional distress" to Coles Whalen, a singer-songwriter he had never met. Counterman, who had previously been convicted of making threats to others, served four years in prison in the Whalen case.

The court's interest involved the question of when statements, especially those made online, can be considered "true threats" not protected by the First Amendment.

Counterman contended that the state must show that the speaker intends the messages to be threatening. Colorado, backed by the Justice Department and a majority of states, says it should be enough that a "reasonable" recipient feel that physical harm could be imminent, on the basis of the context of the circumstances.

The case returns to the lower courts, where prosecutors could decide to retry the matter under the new standards set by the Supreme Court's decision.
Skip to end of carousel
(Chloe Cushman for The Washington Post)
End of carousel
Whalen testified at Counterman's trial, and told The Washington Post in an interview, that she was terrified by Counterman's relentless pursuit. She said she never knew whether her stalker would be in the crowd at her performances. The worry affected her mental health, caused her to cancel concerts and hampered her career and even caused her for a time to give up performing, she said.

For years, when she blocked Counterman from her Facebook page, which she used to publicize her appearances and her work, he formed new profiles and continued sending the messages.

Whalen eventually sought help from a lawyer, who researched Counterman's background and told her of his previous convictions. "I was already scared, but then I was terrified," Whalen said in the interview. "I thought, 'Why did I wait so long?'"

Among the messages presented at Counterman's trial:

" I'm currently unsupervised. I know, it freaks me out too, but the possibilities are endless. "

" F--- off permanently. "

"You're not being good for human relations. Die. Don't need you. "

The Supreme Court last confronted the true-threats question in 2015, when justices reversed the conviction of a Pennsylvania man who had made violent and graphic statements against co-workers and his estranged wife. Anthony Elonis said his postings were therapeutic rants. The court found that federal law required more evidence about Elonis's intent but left the First Amendment question unsettled, opening the door for this lawsuit.

In Counterman's case, the justices were revisiting the limits of free speech. The majority cited the court's past rulingsin explaining why it shares Counterman's concerns about deterring or silencing protected types of speech and expression.

"Our decisions have often insisted on protecting even some historically unprotected speech through the adoption of a subjective mental-state element," Kagan wrote. "We follow the same path today, holding that the State must prove in true-threats cases that the defendant had some understanding of his statements' threatening character."

In addition, the majority held that to lose constitutional protections for what they say, speakers must "recklessly" disregard the threatening nature of their speech. That means, Kagan wrote, that the speaker knows that others could consider the statements as threatening violence and makes them anyway.

Sotomayor said she was concerned about overzealous prosecutionand for that reason would set a higher bar than recklessness for proving that certain speech is a "true threat."

"True threats encompass a narrow band of intentional threats," she wrote. "Especially in a climate of intense polarization, it is dangerous to allow criminal prosecutions for heated words based solely on an amorphous recklessness standard."

Sotomayor noted that different corners of the internet have "considerably different norms around appropriate speech" and that online posts may lack the usual context clues, such as tone and expression.

A jury's determination about "when angry hyperbole crosses the line will depend on amorphous norms around language, which will vary greatly from one discursive community to another," Sotomayor wrote. "Unfortunately yet predictably, racial and cultural stereotypes can also influence whether speech is perceived as dangerous."

In dissent, Barrett rejected the recklessness standard set by the majority as "not grounded in law." She listed some potential negative consequences of the court's ruling, including scenarios in which a person threatens to bomb an airport or to shoot up a courthouse.

"The speaker might well end up barred from the location in question - for good reason," wrote Barrett, joined by Thomas. "Yet after today, such orders cannot be obtained without proof - not necessarily easy to secure - that the person who issued the threat anticipated that it would elicit fear."

Kagan acknowledged the competing interests in protecting speech and prosecuting true threats. The court's approach, she wrote, finds a middle ground by offering "'enough "breathing space" for protected speech,' without sacrificing too many of the benefits of enforcing laws against true threats."

The case is Counterman v. Colorado.
View 3 more stories

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Supreme Court says a conviction for online threats violated 1st Amendment

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The case concerned a Colorado law used to convict Billy Raymond Counterman of stalking and causing "emotional distress" to a singer-songwriter he had never met.

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
Four on Fourth: Four Cases that Impact the Fourth Amendment (Search & Seizure) in Schools - BRCSM

# data[].attributes.body
Search of Student Car Parked on School Property: State of New Jersey v. Thomas E. Best.
Brandt, the assistant principal of Egg Harbor Township High School, received a report of a student suspected of being under the influence of drugs. Brandt met with the student, who admitted he ingested a green pill that eighteen-year-old defendant Thomas Best gave him during fifth-period auto shop class.

randt and another assistant principal, Ted Pugliese, interviewed Best, who denied any wrongdoing. Brandt explained to Best that a student claimed he received a green pill from Best. Brandt then searched Best and found three white capsules in his pants pocket, but no green pills. Best admitted that he sold a pill to a student for five dollars, but claimed that the pill was merely a nutritional supplement. Brandt subsequently searched Best’s locker but discovered no pills.
“the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures,”

I learned that you shouldn't do drugs at school because it can lead to bad things and go to court.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
By Benjamin Scungio & Stephanie Cote

While the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees "the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures," these actions have long been a problem for both school authorities and law-enforcement officers. The safety of students and staff and the need to maintain order to promote learning are important objectives on school campuses. Still, students do not leave their constitutional rights at the schoolhouse door.

Schools today are facing issues not imagined when the courts first addressed search and seizures of students and their belongings. School violence appears in media headlines on a seemingly weekly basis. The prevalence of student cell phones on campus, and the depth of information they can store, presents new questions of how far a school search can go.

Student search and seizure cases are highly fact-dependent. However, the standard remains that school officials must have reasonable suspicion to search a student and/or his or her possessions and that, as the level of intrusiveness of the search increases, so must the school officials' justification that the search is necessary to preserve a safe learning and working environment.

The courts have addressed these issues and four seminal cases are discussed here.

1. Defining the Rights of Students: New Jersey v T.L.O.

WHAT HAPPENED: T.L.O. was a 14-year-old female student at a New Jersey high school. A teacher found T.L.O. and another student smoking cigarettes in the girls' restroom in the school building in violation of school rules. The teacher brought the two students to a school administrator, who questioned each of them. The second student admitted to smoking cigarettes. T.L.O. denied the allegations. The administrator then accused T.L.O. of lying to him, and demanded to see her purse in an attempt to find the cigarettes. Among other things, when the administrator opened her purse, he found a pack of cigarettes, and cigarette rolling paper.

Due to the fact that the administrator knew that cigarette rolling paper is used to smoke marijuana he now suspected T.L.O. of marijuana use. He further searched T.L.O.'s purse, and found a small plastic bag containing a grass-like substance and items that could be drug paraphernalia, including a pipe, a wad of money, a piece of paper with the names of students who apparently owed T.L.O. money, and a letter that appeared to implicate T.L.O. in dealing marijuana. The administrator contacted the police who, in turn, contacted T.L.O.'s mother. Her mother brought T.L.O. to the police station, where she confessed to selling marijuana.

WHAT THE COURTS SAID: In a juvenile court, T.L.O. argued that her Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable searches and seizures had been violated. The court sided with the school, and T.L.O. took her case to the New Jersey Supreme Court. In this case, the Supreme Court found that a public school official is subject to the Fourth Amendment but is not required to adhere to the same principles as law enforcement officials.

WHAT IT MEANS FOR SCHOOLS: Take-aways from this case highlight that a search must be reasonable at its inception, the scope must be reasonably related to the purpose of the search and the search must not be excessively intrusive in light of the age and gender of the students involved.

2. Intrusiveness in a Strip Search: Stafford Unified School District #1 v. Redding

WHAT HAPPENED: After escorting 13-year-old Savana Redding from her middle school classroom to his office, Assistant Principal Wilson showed her a day planner containing knives and other contraband. She admitted owning the planner, but said that she had lent it to her friend Marissa and that the contraband was not hers. He then produced four prescription-strength, and one over-the-counter, pain relief pills, all of which are banned under school rules without advance permission. She denied knowledge of them, but Wilson said that he had a report that she was giving pills to fellow students.

She denied it and agreed to let him search her belongings. He and Helen Romero, an administrative assistant, searched Savana's backpack, finding nothing. Wilson then had Romero take Savana to the school nurse's office to search her clothes for pills. After Romero and the nurse, Peggy Schwallier, had Savana remove her outer clothing, they told her to pull her bra out and shake it, and to pull out the elastic on her underpants, thus exposing her breasts and pelvic area to some degree. No pills were found.

WHAT THE COURTS SAID: Redding's mother sued the school district and several school officials, arguing that this second strip search violated Savana's Fourth Amendment right to be protected against "unreasonable searches and seizures. The school denied that such a violation occurred; the individual school officials further argued that, as school officials, they had qualified immunity from such a lawsuit. The Supreme Court clarified that strip searches are subject to a heightened scrutiny. The evidence here was "sufficiently plausible to warrant suspicion that Savana was involved in pill distribution," a suspicion that in turn "was enough to justify a search of Savana's backpack and outer clothing."

WHAT IT MEANS FOR SCHOOLS: Although a search may be reasonable at its inception because there is a "moderate chance of finding evidence of wrongdoing," as the scope of the search becomes more intrusive, both the justification for the intrusiveness of the search and the likelihood that it will result in the discovery of evidence of wronging need to be compelling.

3. Cell Phone Privacy: GC v. Owensboro Public Schools

WHAT HAPPENED: G.C., a high school student, struggled with disciplinary problems. During his time in high school, he was disciplined several times for incidents such as using profanity in the classroom, leaving school grounds without permission, excessive tardiness, and fighting. G.C. had disclosed to school officials that he had used drugs and was disposed to anger and depression and on one occasion he told a school official that he was very upset and planned to take his life.

One day G.C. violated the school cell-phone policy and was caught texting in class. The teacher confiscated G.C.'s phone and turned the phone over to Assistant Principal Brown, who proceeded to read the text messages. She stated she read the messages to check that G.C. was not planning to hurt himself or someone else and if there was an issue he was discussing in the messages that she could help C.G. work through.

C.G. was subsequently expelled from school because of the texting incident and the other disciplinary issues. C.G. filed a lawsuit against the school alleging that the search of his phone amounted to a constitutional rights violation because Assistant Principal Brown did not possess the needed reasonable suspicion to conduct the search.

WHAT THE COURTS SAID: Court states that a student has a reasonable expectation of privacy in the content contained on a cell phone and will require school administrators to articulate a specific factual basis for examining phone content. Search of the phone content was reasonable on one occasion where the school had specific information that the phone might contain information that the student intended to harm himself, but found that on a second occasion, the school was not justified in searching the content of the phone just because the same student was texting during class time in violation of school rules. Mere use of the cell phone during class time in violation of school rules is insufficient to support a conclusion that the search of the phone's content would "reveal evidence of criminal activity, impending contravention of school rules, or potential harm to anyone in the school."

WHAT IT MEANS FOR SCHOOLS: The search of cell phone content is not needed to establish the violation of the school rule prohibiting cell phone use during class. This decision establishes that courts are more willing to limit a school administrator's discretion to conduct searches in situations where there is no imminent threat to school safety.

4. Search of Student Car Parked on School Property: State of New Jersey v. Thomas E. Best

WHAT HAPPENED: Peter Brandt, the assistant principal of Egg Harbor Township High School, received a report of a student suspected of being under the influence of drugs. Brandt met with the student, who admitted he ingested a green pill that eighteen-year-old defendant Thomas Best gave him during fifth period auto shop class. After sending the student to a doctor for medical assistance and screening, Brandt located Best in his eighth period class and escorted him to the office.

Brandt and another assistant principal, Ted Pugliese, interviewed Best, who denied any wrongdoing. Brandt explained to Best that a student claimed he received a green pill from Best. Brandt then searched Best and found three white capsules in his pants pocket, but no green pills. Best admitted that he sold a pill to a student for five dollars, but claimed that the pill was merely a nutritional supplement. Brandt subsequently searched Best's locker, but discovered no pills.

Brandt was also aware that he had previously given Best permission to drive to school to have his car serviced in the school's auto shop. Brandt asked Best where his car was parked and indicated that he was going to search Best's car. Brandt, Pugliese, and Best then proceeded to the car that was parked outside of the auto shop on school property. Before searching the car, Brandt declined Best's request to call his father. A search of the passenger compartment revealed a liquid-filled syringe, a fake cigarette with a hole in it that could be used as a pipe, a wallet, a bottle of pills apparently belonging to Rose Foster, a bag of suspected marijuana, a bag containing a white powdery substance, and a vial.

Brandt then contacted the school resource officer, Edward Bertino of the Egg Harbor Township Police Department, to advise him of the situation. Bertino, who was stationed at the school, arrived and took control of the items removed from Best's car before transporting Best to the police station. Best was arrested. He waived his right to remain silent and admitted that the contraband belonged to him.

WHAT THE COURT SAID: The Supreme Court of New Jersey held: an administrator's search of a student's car on school grounds need only meet the reasonable suspicion standard, rather than the more stringent standard of probable cause, to be constitutional.

WHAT IT MEANS FOR SCHOOLS: Schools must be careful to avoid the appearance, or reality, that they are taking actions under the direction of public law enforcement officials to avoid the higher legal standards applicable to law enforcement.

School search and seizure is an area of law that will continue to develop as courts are presented with different factual scenarios. No definitive test exists for determining what constitutes a legal search; what constitutes a legal student search depends upon the context. Schools should collaborate with their attorneys to develop search and seizure policies and procedures that balance students' rights to privacy with the need to maintain safety on campus.
This is the third in our three-part series on "Rules for Schools." Our attorneys frequently provide coaching and training to school districts, businesses and other workplaces on topics that address sexual harassment prevention, reporting of child abuse, search and seizure limits (in a school setting), and other employment and discrimination issues. Learn more about our Labor & Employment Law practice and our Education & Municipal Law practice. Or contact Ben Scungio or Stephanie Cote here to set up a training at your workplace. Access printable PDF.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Four on Fourth: Four Cases that Impact the Fourth Amendment (Search & Seizure) in Schools - BRCSM

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
By Benjamin Scungio & Stephanie Cote While the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees "the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures," these actions have long been a problem for both school authorities and law-enforcement officers.

# data[].attributes.body
In an article Tinker v. Des, a group of students were trying to show their support for a truce in the Vietnam war. They wore the armbands in school to show their support. The school got involved in this case and created a policy stating that "any student wearing an armband would be asked to remove it, with refusal to do so resulting in suspension". The group still decided to wear the armbands at school and were suspended. This caused hate and, the group sued the school for violating their 1st Amendment, for their freedom with support.

In December 1965, a group of students in Des Moines held a meeting in the home of 16-year-old Christopher Eckhardt to plan a public showing of their support for a truce in the Vietnam war. They decided to wear black armbands throughout the holiday season and to fast on December 16 and New Year's Eve. The principals of the Des Moines school learned of the plan and met on December 14 to create a policy that stated that any student wearing an armband would be asked to remove it, with refusal to do so resulting in suspension.

https://www.oyez.org/cases/1968/21

# data[].attributes.body
He said that congress shall make no laws respecting an establishment of
religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof or abridging
the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people
peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

# data[].attributes.body
"The officer began to follow Lange and soon after turned on his overhead lights to
signal that Lange should pull over. Rather than stopping, Lange drove
a short distance to his driveway and entered his attached garage."

This case talks about someone who was driving with loud music and honking his horn by a police officer. The police officer turned his police lights and the person decided to not pull over. Instead he drove a short distance to his house and pulled into his garage. The police over thought he was intoxicated and tested him. He came back positive for alcohol in his system. When he got charged for driving and being intoxicated he pleaded the 4th and said that he didn't have a warrant. The courts said that he was still in the wrong.

# data[].attributes.body
The Arizona Court of
Appeals held that the officer's conduct was not a seizure under the
standard set forth in Terry v. Ohio. The court further found that even
if it were a seizure, it was not an unreasonable one.The court applied a balancing test and held that the public's "strong and legitimate interest in the welfare of its children"' outweighed the officer's
minimal interference with the minor's liberty.