# data[].attributes.body
As a middle school teacher and future Assistant Principal I have observed the roles of those that I have worked with and the role of an educator has seemed to change in more ways than one over the last 3-4 years according to others around me. This is only my second year out of college, and second year teaching, so my impression of the education field has only pertained to that of COVID-19 times which contain in person and virtual school. The intention of this assignment is to inform teachers and other staff of the importance of the legal and ethical principals which apply to such a broad topic of search and seizure. It is normal for schools to have policies in place which state that students can not have phones out or apple watches...this is the most common issue involved with search and seizure.  I believe that making teachers and staff aware of not only the state laws, but the local laws and policies as well is very beneficial to help avoid any misconceptions about which rules are to be followed.

# data[].attributes.body
The highest law relating to search and seizure states that "everyone has the right..." which does not put a limit on the age of who has the rights under this amendment which means that students of all ages in the education system have rights. The most recorded issue dealing with search and seizure in schools is when students have cell phones when they are not supposed to according to district policy. Teachers and administrators have to understand the legal laws and policies that pertain to search and seizure in and outside of the school walls so that they do not violate a students rights.

An emerging issue with the topic of search and seizure is administrators taking students phones up and withholding them until the student pays $15 or until a 1 week time period is up. There is controversy being brought up by students, as well as parents about the "right" a school has to do such a thing (seize the phone) with something that is not legally theirs to keep. Some lawyers have been brought in to determine the legalities of whether a school is allowed to do this since it is stated in the school handbook.

# data[].attributes.headline
Slide 3: Professional Association- National Youth Rights Association

# data[].attributes.subject
Slide 3: Professional Association- National Youth Rights Association

# data[].attributes.body
According to the National Youth Rights Association (NYRA) there must be evidence for a search consisting of either probable cause, reasonable suspicion or suspicion less or random searches. Each of these forms of evidence have their own reasoning as to what is legal and ethical and what is not under the law. The link provided contains links to specific court cases that have involved search and seizure with students in an educational setting which discusses the cause for search, as well as what was searched.

Mandal, S. (n.d.). Search and seizure. NYRA. Retrieved December 1, 2021, from https://www.youthrights.org/issues/student-rights/search-and-seizure/.

https://www.youthrights.org/issues/student-rights/search-and-seizure/

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Like searches, the seizure, or confiscation, of personal property is limited by the Fourth Amendment. Despite this, nearly every school has a policy of taking certain items belonging to students. Most commonly, this includes cell phones, but school have confiscated anything from stuffed animals to permanent markers. Unfortunately, this practice is rarely challenged even though taking someone's property without their permission or without reasonable cause violates their property rights. In some cases, schools will even charge a fee for returning the item, and collect thousands of dollars each year. Schools may also not return items to the student at all, yet students do not have any legal recourse if the school loses students' property after it is confiscated. Unless students are breaking the law or infringing on another's right to education, students should be allowed to retain all personal items.

Are School Searches Legal?

When courts try to determine whether a school search violates the Fourth Amendment they consider a variety of factors:

1. The evidence for the search: In most cases, the school must be able to state specifically what they are looking for and have a good reason for believing they will find it in the place they are looking. Unfortunately, what determines a "good" reason is not always clear.

2. The item being looked for: In general, the more dangerous an item is, the more invasive courts will allow a search to be.

3. What is being searched: Depending on whether the school is searching your locker, your backpack, or under your clothes, it needs to comply with different requirements.

4. The person doing the search: Different rules apply to the search depending on whether it is conducted by a teacher or principal, a school resource officer, or a police officer.

The evidence for the search

Courts have determined the legality of searches using three different criteria:

Probable cause: This is the highest standard required for a search and requires the police to have sufficient evidence that you committed a crime and that there is a substantial chance that they will find evidence of that crime by searching you or your belongings. However, school officials do not need probable cause in order to search you or your belongings at school. In fact, even police officers are rarely required to have probable cause if they are working on behalf of the school. They can use the much weaker standard of reasonable suspicion.

Reasonable suspicion: This is the usual standard used for any kind of search conducted against students at school. Reasonable suspicion does not require a search warrant and only requires that a police officer show that it was reasonable to believe that a search could turn up evidence of a crime, based on facts. Normally, this standard can only be used in a few circumstances, such as during arrest or if you are being frisked for weapons.

Suspicionless or random searches: In a few situations, neither reasonable suspicion nor probable cause is required for a search. Outside of schools, the courts have only allowed random searches in specific circumstances such as at airports and international borders, in circumstances where there are elevated risks or national security interests at stake. However, the US Supreme Court has ruled that many types of random searches are constitutional when performed against students on school campuses, even though there are no elevated risks or national security interests at stake.

What is being searched

In general, the more intrusive a search is, the more evidence will be required to justify it. This basically means that the school must have a stronger reason for a searching your body than for searching your belongings and they must have a stronger reason for searching your belongings than for searching your locker.

Strip searches

A strip search is one of the most invasive searches performed at school and it is often conducted illegally. In the case of Safford Unified School District v. Redding (US Supreme Court, 2009), an eighth grade student, Savana Redding, was strip-searched by school officials because another student said she might have ibuprofen hidden in her underwear, which violated the school's policy. Savana sued her school and NYRA joined an amicus brief in her defense. The Court found that strip searches are "categorically distinct" and must meet stricter requirements than other searches, due to the deeper invasion of the student's privacy. For such a search to be permissible, evidence must show that dangerous or illegal items are hidden there. Suspicionless strip searches are almost always illegal and schools can pay hefty settlements for violating the rules.

Searches of outer clothing and pat-downs

Legal standards for pat-downs in school are unclear, especially since many searches referred to as pat-downs are actually partial strip searches. It is therefore unclear whether random pat-downs of students that only involve outer clothing are actually illegal. Successful challenges of pat-downs usually happen when 1) the school official groped the student during the search, or 2) the "pat-down" was suspicionless and involved removing clothing.

Video recording

Schools have also severely violated students' right to privacy by video recording students without their knowledge while changing in a locker room. Because students have a reasonable expectation of privacy in changing rooms, such searches are considered illegal, such as in Brannum v. Overton County School Board (Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, 2008).

Personal belongings

School officials only need reasonable suspicion that there is a crime before searching a student's belongings. In the landmark case of New Jersey v. T.L.O. (US Supreme Court, 1985), the Court ruled that school administrators do not need to have a search warrant or probable cause before conducting a search because students have a reduced expectation of privacy when in school.

Nevertheless, there are limitations on schools searching students' belongings. For example, in the case of Burnham v. West (Eastern District Court of Virginia, 1987), the court concluded that the odor of marijuana in the hall does not provide sufficient reason to search all students' book bags, purses, and pockets. It should be noted, however, if an object or item is in plain view, a teacher can take it or search it without reasonable suspicion. Because of this, some schools have required students to only use clear backpacks so that their possessions can be seen.

These standards also apply to parked cars on campus, as in State v. Slattery (Court of Appeals of Washington, 1980).

Student lockers

For the most part, federal law allows locker searches because lockers are considered school property and students shouldn't expect anything they put in there to be kept private. This pertains to other school property, such as desks. However, individual states and school districts may have policies that give greater protection to items in students' lockers, where the locker is seen as the equivalent of a personal bag, but such cases are uncommon.

Metal Detectors

Although schools need reasonable suspicion to single out a student with a metal detector, they are allowed to search the school premises with a metal detector or randomly select students with a metal detector without cause. A metal detector search is often considered a body search, but it is also considered minimally intrusive. Courts have upheld the use of metal detectors at schools and other places such as courthouses and airports.

Cellphone searches

In recent years, NYRA and other civil rights groups have fought for student rights by challenging cell phone searches that were not justified, as in the case of Boca Raton Community High School. For many years the high school had a policy of searching through the text messages, photos, emails, and voicemails of student cell phones that were confiscated during class. Thanks to the efforts of NYRA's Southeast Florida chapter, the school changed its cell phone policy; cell phone searches can now be conducted only when there is reasonable suspicion.

Social media accounts

Schools often try to force students to give school administrators the passwords to their social media accounts. One student successfully sued her school after she was forced to log in to her Facebook account in the principal's office. In that case, S.S. v. Minnewaska Area School District (District Court of Minnesota, 2012), the school had to pay damages and revise its social media privacy policy.

Drug-sniffing dogs

The use of drug-sniffing dogs on private property or to prolong traffic stops requires reasonable suspicion. However, because students in school have "no reasonable expectation of privacy," random searches by drug-sniffing dogs are legal in schools.

In addition to being an invasion of privacy, these searches are not particularly effective. Studies indicate that drug-sniffing dogs are prone to false alerts which lead to unjustified searches. As a drug detection method, they can be barely more accurate than a coin flip. Drug-sniffing dog programs are also expensive, costing the school district $12,000 to $36,000 per year -money that is needed elsewhere. Despite these problems, some school districts continue the practice of using drug-sniffing dogs.

Drug-testing

In the landmark case of Vernonia v. Acton (U.S. Supreme Court, 1995), the Supreme Court ruled that the random drug testing of high school athletes does not violate the reasonable search and seizure clause of the Fourth Amendment. In Board of Education v. Earls (U.S. Supreme Court, 2002), the Supreme Court upheld the Student Activities Drug Testing Policy of the Tecumseh, Oklahoma school district, asserting that the policy of requiring all students participating in competitive extracurricular activities to submit to drug testing was useful to the school district in detecting and preventing drug use. However, students are being forced to undergo drug testing without probable cause. These tests are also prone to give false positives.

Nevertheless, students often consent to random drug screening in an effort to preserve their privileges such as being able to participate in sporting events or having the liberty of driving their cars to school. The fact that students are punished for refusing makes this coerced consent, which is not meaningful consent.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Fourth Amendment of the Constitution guarantees the right of everyone "to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures." This means that if the government (and government institutions like public schools) wants to search your belongings, or take them away from you, they must have a good reason ...

# data[].attributes.body
According to the New York Times, in 2017 at Worth County High School in Georgia there was an incident which included around 900 students being placed on lockdown and they were searched without any probable cause. Nine of the students sued the sheriffs and deputies whom were involved in the search that was later labeled in the lawsuit as "unreasonable, aggressive, and invasive.
-The article states the law and what is required before anyone can be searched.
-The article also mentions the correlation between the school administrators and the authorities who conducted the search.

Fortin, J. (2017, June 13). 'how far can they go?' police search of hundreds of students stokes lawsuit and Constitutional questions. The New York Times. Retrieved December 1, 2021, from https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/13/us/georgia-police-patdown-students.html.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/13/us/georgia-police-patdown-students.html

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Worth County High School in southwestern Georgia. Credit... WALB

Worth County High School was buzzing with late-year activities on April 14. Seniors had recently taken their group photo for the yearbook and were days away from voting for their prom king and queen.

But on that Friday, beginning around 8 a.m., dozens of police appeared on campus and announced that the school was on lockdown, which lasted until about noon. In that time, police officers searched all, or nearly all, of the approximately 900 students at the school, in Sylvester, Ga., in the southwest part of the state.

On June 1, with the help of the Southern Center for Human Rights and Horsley Begnaud, L.L.C., a law firm, nine of the students sued the sheriff and his deputies, alleging that they lacked the jurisdiction to carry out the body searches, which the lawsuit called "unreasonable, aggressive, and invasive."

"I've never seen a sheriff do something this obviously unconstitutional, on such a broad scope, in my practice," said Mark Begnaud, a lawyer representing the students.

The case is still in its early stages as the suit awaits a response from the defendants. But it's already stirring debate over a constitutional question: To what extent, if any, are students' rights to privacy curtailed while they are at school?

The pat-downs were exceptionally intrusive and conducted with "zero cause," Mr. Begnaud said.

"Deputies inserted fingers inside of and pulled up girls' bras, touching and partially exposing their bare breasts; they touched girls' underwear by placing hands inside their waistbands or reaching up their dresses; and they cupped or groped boys' genitals," the human rights center said in its statement.

The legal complaint said the defendants, Worth County Sheriff Jeff Hobby and 29 of his deputies, had been looking for illegal drugs (they found none) and had a "target list" of 13 students, only three of whom were on campus that day.

One student, identified in the lawsuit only by the initials J.E., was patted down from his chest to his ankles, according to the complaint. It added that he, like many others, was "squeezed" and "cupped" around his groin.

The student, 16, whose family requested anonymity because he is a minor, didn't want to criticize the department as a whole, "as long as they keep me protected and keep the community in great shape," he said in a phone interview. "But Sheriff Hobby hasn't been able to do that his last two terms in office, and it's kind of getting a little old, you know?"

Worth County Sheriff Jeff Hobby Credit... WALB

The sheriff's office would not comment on the case and referred all questions to a lawyer, Raleigh Rollins, who did not respond to requests for comment.

The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution guarantees people's right to be "secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures," and a series of court decisions has laid the groundwork for interpreting what "unreasonable" means when it comes to minors on school grounds.

A key question is whether school administrators have more leeway than law enforcement in deciding whether to search students, said Richard S. Vacca, a senior fellow with the Commonwealth Educational Policy Institute at Virginia Commonwealth University.

"School folks can't be deliberately indifferent to something that could be harmful, dangerous or disruptive. They've got to do something," he said. "But how far can they go?"

One influential decision on the subject came from the Supreme Court more than three decades ago. In 1980, a high school student's purse was searched by a vice principal after she had been accused of smoking cigarettes in the bathroom. The administrator found evidence that she was selling marijuana.

The student took issue with the search, and her case eventually made its way to the Supreme Court, which decided in 1985 that the search was "not unreasonable." Justice Lewis F. Powell Jr. wrote in an opinion that "students within the school environment have a lesser expectation of privacy than members of the population generally."

Dr. Vacca said that while the Worth County lawsuit could potentially lead to another influential court decision, one key detail makes this case simpler than others of decades past: Worth County law enforcers, not school administrators, are the ones who stand accused of violating students' rights.

He added that events like school shootings have raised new questions in recent years about the relationship between school administrators and police. "Where are the boundaries? I think it's getting murky," he said. "We've got to have some help."

As the case unfolds, it could hinge on whether school administrators permitted the officers to conduct the search in the way that they did. The school's principal, Harley Calhoun, had been notified that the police would conduct a search, according to the complaint.

Mr. Calhoun referred questions to the school board's lawyer, Tommy Coleman.

"I don't think that the principal has the authority to stop law enforcement from conducting what they think is a search," Mr. Coleman said, adding that Mr. Calhoun had no idea the search would be so broad, and so invasive.

"The entire search was orchestrated, planned and carried out by the sheriff's department - by the sheriff," Mr. Begnaud said. "It's our understanding that there was no cooperation by the school board whatsoever."

Sheriff Hobby could not be reached for comment. But in the days following the search, he told WALB 10, a local news outlet, that it was legal because administrators were present.

J.E., the student, said an administrator was present during the search and did not interfere with the police. But he added that no matter who was responsible for the searches, he was most concerned about how the students were affected - especially the girls and the special education students who, he said, had a worse experience than he did.

"As long as justice is served, then I'm fine," he said. "But if justice is not served, then I'm going to fight until we can get justice."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
'How Far Can They Go?' Police Search of Hundreds of Students Stokes Lawsuit and Constitutional Questions (Published 2017)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Worth County High School was buzzing with late-year activities on April 14. Seniors had recently taken their group photo for the yearbook and were days away from voting for their prom king and queen. But on that Friday, beginning around 8 a.m., dozens of police appeared on campus and announced that the school was on lockdown, which lasted until about noon.

# data[].attributes.headline
Slide 5: News Article- The Seattle Times

# data[].attributes.subject
Slide 5: News Article- The Seattle Times

# data[].attributes.body
The Seattle Times news article stated the incident which occurred to a 13 year old middle school student in Arizona who was strip searched due to false accusations.
-The search violated her privacy and her 4th amendment protections against unreasonable searches.
-The article also mentions that the federal court took the side of the school, stating that the school needed "reasonable suspicion" which they had according to school officials.
-This article proves that there are always two sides to the story, but ultimately the courts have the final say in a scenario as this one.

Staff, S. T. (2009, April 27). School went too far in searching student. The Seattle Times. Retrieved December 3, 2021, from https://www.seattletimes.com/opinion/school-went-too-far-in-searching-student/.
https://www.seattletimes.com/opinion/school-went-too-far-in-searching-student/

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Schools are rightly afforded considerable latitude in protecting students' health and safety and to thwart danger. This includes searching for drugs or weapons. But strip-searching students is a no-no.

Share story

Schools ought to maintain a clear line between enforcing zero-tolerance drug policies and violating students' constitutional rights.

An opportunity to emphasize this message comes to the U.S. Supreme Court in a case brought by a former middle-school student strip-searched by school officials hunting for prescription-strength ibuprofen.

Six years ago, Savana Redding was an Safford, Ariz., middle-school student when school officials forced her to strip to her underwear in the school nurse's office after another student claimed that Redding possessed the pain relievers. School policy prohibits bringing prescription or over-the-counter drugs to campus. No drugs were found.

The search violated Redding's privacy and her 4th Amendment protections against unreasonable searches.

It was also a humiliation few would wish on any student. Thirteen-year-olds do not want to change in front of each other for gym class, let alone strip in front of adults. Yet, according to The Washington Post, Redding was made to expose her breasts and pubic area to prove she was not hiding pills.

The honor-roll student with a spotless disciplinary record never went back to that school. She developed ulcers and later dropped out of high school. Now 19, she has taken placement tests to get into college.

A federal court sided with school officials, persuaded by a 1985 Supreme Court ruling that schools need only reasonable suspicion, rather than probable cause, to search students. But that case involved searching a student's purse. Even then, justices urged caution against intrusive searches, as well as balancing searches against a student's age, sex and the nature of the infraction.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit injects a dose of common sense in ruling for Redding.

One justice wrote, "It does not require a constitutional scholar to conclude that a nude search of a thirteen-year-old child is an invasion of constitutional rights of some magnitude." How true.

Schools are afforded latitude in protecting students' health and safety and to thwart danger. Search lockers. Root away in backpacks and purses. But stay out of 13-year-olds' underwear.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
School went too far in searching student

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Schools are rightly afforded considerable latitude in protecting students' health and safety and to thwart danger. This includes searching for drugs or weapons. But strip-searching students is a no-no. Share story Schools ought to maintain a clear line between enforcing zero-tolerance drug policies and violating students' constitutional rights.

# data[].attributes.headline
Slide 6: Constitutional Law (Federal)- Amendment IV

# data[].attributes.subject
Slide 6: Constitutional Law (Federal)- Amendment IV

# data[].attributes.body
The Constitution stated that all people have the right to be secure in their house, papers, and effects, against unreasonable search and seizures. The law must have probable cause or suspicion to search your belongings.
-This protects individual rights that people have.
-This is the highest form of law that pertains to search and seizure that protects rights.

U.S. Const. amend. IV.
https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-4/

# data[].attributes.body
The Texas Association of School Boards says that a search must be reasonable, which means that it must be justified (at the beginning of the search) and the direction of the search is related to the circumstances that were justified at the beginning of the search.
-No warrant is required for this to be done.
-There must be more than just a "hunch" though. A teacher or administrator must have proper reason behind the intention of searching a student's person or belongings.

Texas Association of School Boards, (2019). Legal Issues in Student Searches
https://www.tasb.org/services/legal-services/tasb-school-law-esource/students/documents/legal-issues-in-student-searches.pdf

# data[].attributes.body
The Court concluded that while the Fourth Amendment applies to students, it applies in a diminished capacity. The legality of a search of a student should depend simply on the reasonableness, under all the circumstances, of the search.
-This court case was built on the fact that a student's purse was searched for cigarettes based on the fact that the student was caught smoking. Upon the purse being searched, it was proven to be true that the student had cigarettes.
-It is beneficial as a teacher or administrator to understand the legalities of when it is acceptable to search a student's belongings and when it is not.

New Jersey v. T.L.O, 469 U.S. 325 (1984).
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/469/325

# data[].attributes.headline
Slide 10: Administrative Law (Local)- Alamo Heights ISD Student Handbook 

# data[].attributes.subject
Slide 10: Administrative Law (Local)- Alamo Heights ISD Student Handbook 

# data[].attributes.body
Alamo Heights Student Handbook states that searches in general (for all grade levels) can be conducted in the interests of promoting student safety and drug-free schools.
-"District officials ay search students, their belongings, and their vehicles in accordance with law and district policy.  Searches of students will be conducted without discrimination, based on, for example, reasonable suspicion or voluntary consent or pursuant to district policy providing for suspicion less security procedures, including the use of metal detectors." This statement protects the district by allowing district officials to conduct a search and seizure if there is a suspicion involved.
-Schools most often conduct searches in events of drug/alcohol use, or theft.

Alamo Heights ISD. (2020-2021). Student Handbook.
https://www.ahisd.net/common/pages/UserFile.aspx?fileId=45127873

# data[].attributes.body
According to Article 1 Section 9 of the Bill of Rights "The people shall be secure in their persons, houses, papers and possessions, from all unreasonable seizures or searches, and no warrant to search any place, or to seize any person or thing, shall issue without describing them as near as may be, nor without probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation."

Tex. Const. art. I, § 9.
https://law.justia.com/constitution/texas/sections/cn000100-000900.html

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Justia US Law Texas Law Texas Constitution Art 1 - Sec 9

# data[].attributes.body
According to the Texas Administrative Code the Standard Practices for Texas Educators (SBEC) educators are to "protect the safety and welfare of Texas schoolchildren and school personnel".
-This is important because search and seizure call fall under this category and this code of ethics because it is our duty to provide a safe and secure learning environment. If someone and some thing does not allow for a a safe environment for the students and staff then action needs to be taken in order to create a safe space. This could result in a search and seizure of someone's personal items. Knowing the laws and district policies related to search and seizure can help to assure that we protect the safety and welfare of the children and staff.

19 Admin. Code §249.5
https://texreg.sos.state.tx.us/public/readtac$ext.TacPage?sl=R&app=9&p_dir=&p_rloc=&p_tloc=&p_ploc=&pg=1&p_tac=&ti=19&pt=7&ch=247&rl=1

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
(a) In compliance with the Texas Education Code, §21.041(b)(8), the State Board for Educator Certification (SBEC) adopts an Educators' Code of Ethics as set forth in §247.2 of this title (relating to Code of Ethics and Standard Practices for Texas Educators). The SBEC may amend the ethics code in the same manner as any other formal rule. (b) The Texas educator shall comply with standard practices and ethical conduct toward students, professional colleagues, school officials, parents, and members of the community and shall safeguard academic freedom. The Texas educator, in maintaining the dignity of the profession, shall respect and obey the law, demonstrate personal integrity, and exemplify honesty and good moral character. The Texas educator, in exemplifying ethical relations with colleagues, shall extend just and equitable treatment to all members of the profession. The Texas educator, in accepting a position of public trust, shall measure success by the progress of each student toward realization of his or her potential as an effective citizen. The Texas educator, in fulfilling responsibilities in the community, shall cooperate with parents and others to improve the public schools of the community. This chapter shall apply to educators and candidates for certification. (c) The SBEC is solely responsible for enforcing the Educators' Code of Ethics for purposes related to certification disciplinary proceedings. The Educators' Code of Ethics is enforced through the disciplinary procedure set forth in Chapter 249 of this title (relating to Disciplinary Proceedings, Sanctions, and Contested Cases) pursuant to the purposes stated therein. (d) As provided in §249.5 of this title (relating to Purpose; Policy Governing Disciplinary Proceedings), the primary goals the SBEC seeks to achieve in educator disciplinary matters are: (1) to protect the safety and welfare of Texas schoolchildren and school personnel; (2) to ensure educators and applicants are morally fit and worthy to instruct or to supervise the youth of the state; and (3) to fairly and efficiently resolve educator disciplinary proceedings at the least expense possible to the parties and the state. (e) The following words, terms, and phrases, when used in this chapter, shall have the following meanings, unless the context clearly indicates otherwise. (1) Abuse--Includes the following acts or omissions: (A) mental or emotional injury to a student or minor that results in an observable and material impairment in the student's or minor's development, learning, or psychological functioning; (B) causing or permitting a student or minor to be in a situation in which the student or minor sustains a mental or emotional injury that results in an observable and material impairment in the student's or minor's development, learning, or psychological functioning; (C) physical injury that results in substantial harm to a student or minor, or the genuine threat of substantial harm from physical injury to the student or minor, including an injury that is at variance with the history or explanation given and excluding an accident or reasonable discipline; or (D) sexual conduct harmful to a student's or minor's mental, emotional, or physical welfare. (2) Applicant--A party seeking issuance, renewal, or reinstatement of a certificate from the Texas Education Agency staff or the State Board for Educator Certification. (3) Code of Ethics--The Educators' Code of Ethics codified in this chapter. (4) Complaint--A written statement submitted to the Texas Education Agency staff that contains essential facts alleging improper conduct by an educator, applicant, or examinee, the complainant's verifiable contact information, including full name, complete address, and phone number, which provides grounds for sanctions. (5) Contested case--A proceeding under this chapter in which the legal rights, duties, and privileges related to a party's educator certificate are to be determined by the State Board for Educator Certification and/or the State Office of Administrative Hearings commencing when a petition is properly served under this chapter. (6) Disciplinary proceedings--Any matter arising under this chapter or Chapter 249 of this title (relating to Disciplinary Proceedings, Sanctions, and Contested Cases) that results in a final order or finding issued by the Texas Education Agency staff, the State Office of Administrative Hearings, or the State Board for Educator Certification relating to the legal rights, duties, privileges, and status of a party's educator certificate. (7) Educator--A person who is required to hold a certificate issued under the Texas Education Code, Chapter 21, Subchapter B. (8) Endanger--Exposure of a student or minor to unjustified risk of injury or to injury that jeopardizes the physical health or safety of the student or minor without regard to whether there has been an actual injury to the student or minor. (9) Good moral character--The virtues of a person as evidenced by patterns of personal, academic, and occupational behaviors that, in the judgment of the State Board for Educator Certification, indicate honesty, accountability, trustworthiness, reliability, and integrity. Lack of good moral character may be evidenced by the commission of crimes relating directly to the duties and responsibilities of the education profession as described in §249.16(b) of this title (relating to Eligibility of Persons with Criminal History for a Certificate under Texas Occupations Code, Chapter 53, and Texas Education Code, Chapter 21), or by the commission of acts involving moral turpitude, but conduct that evidences a lack of good moral character is not necessarily limited to such crimes or acts. (10) Intentionally--An educator acts intentionally, or with intent, with respect to the nature of his or her conduct or to a result of his or her conduct when it is his or her conscious objective or desire to engage in the conduct or cause the result. (11) Knowingly--An educator acts knowingly, or with knowledge, with respect to the nature of his or her conduct or to circumstances surrounding his or her conduct when he or she is aware of the nature of the conduct or that the circumstances exist. A person acts knowingly, or with knowledge, with respect to a result of his or her conduct when he or she is aware that the conduct is reasonably certain to cause the result. (12) Minor--A person under 18 years of age. (13) Moral turpitude--Improper conduct, including, but not limited to, the following: dishonesty; fraud; deceit; theft; misrepresentation; deliberate violence; base, vile, or depraved acts that are intended to arouse or to gratify the sexual desire of the actor; drug or alcohol related offenses as described in §249.16(b) of this title (relating to Eligibility of Persons with Criminal History for a Certificate under Texas Occupations Code, Chapter 53, and Texas Education Code, Chapter 21); or acts constituting abuse or neglect under the Texas Family Code, §261.001. (14) Neglect--The placing or leaving of a student or minor in a situation where the student or minor would be exposed to a substantial risk of physical or mental harm. (15) Recklessly--An educator acts recklessly, or is reckless, with respect to circumstances surrounding his or her conduct or the results of his or her conduct when he or she is aware of but consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the circumstances exist or that the result will occur. (16) Sanction--A disciplinary action by the State Board for Educator Certification, including a restriction, reprimand, suspension, revocation of a certificate, or a surrender in lieu of disciplinary action. (17) Sexual harassment--Unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, or other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature. (18) State Board for Educator Certification--The State Board for Educator Certification acting through its voting members in a decision-making capacity. (19) State Board for Educator Certification member(s)--One or more of the members of the State Board for Educator Certification, appointed and qualified under the Texas Education Code, §21.033. (20) Student--A person enrolled in a primary or secondary school, whether public, private, or charter, regardless of the person's age, or a person 18 years of age or younger who is eligible to be enrolled in a primary or secondary school, whether public, private, or charter. (21) Texas Education Agency staff--Staff of the Texas Education Agency assigned by the commissioner of education to perform the State Board for Educator Certification's administrative functions and services. (22) Under the influence of alcohol--A blood alcohol content of .04% or greater and/or lacking the normal use of mental or physical faculties by reason of the introduction of alcohol. (23) Worthy to instruct or to supervise the youth of this state--Presence of those moral, mental, and psychological qualities that are required to enable an educator to render the service essential to the accomplishment of the goals and mission of the State Board for Educator Certification policy and this chapter.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
(a) In compliance with the Texas Education Code, §21.041(b)(8), the State Board for Educator Certification (SBEC) adopts an Educators' Code of Ethics as set forth in §247.2 of this title (relating to Code of Ethics and Standard Practices for Texas Educators). The SBEC may amend the ethics code in the same manner as any other formal rule.

# data[].attributes.headline
Slide 13: Recommendations/Best Practices for Compliance

# data[].attributes.subject
Slide 13: Recommendations/Best Practices for Compliance

# data[].attributes.body
It is crucial that every staff member on campus is aware of the laws and district policies which are related to search and seizure.
1. Develop an understanding of the Fourth Amendment and who is protected under this law, as well as what is required before attempting to perform a search and seizure.
2. Explore current and past news articles and court cases which pertain to the legalities of search and seizure. By reviewing cases that have already been brought up, you are able to create scenarios and ideas which compare to the ones you read about and you will be able to have a general idea of how to handle the situations.
3. Evaluate the local district policy, and specific school policy related to search and seizure to determine your rights based on your position within the school district (bus driver, teacher, counselor, principal, etc.).
4. Connect with local law enforcement if you have any questions regarding your rights concerning the search and seizure legalities.
5. Offer opportunities for open, monitored discussions pertaining to the topic if/when it comes up in current news, or an assignment for students who are curious. Encourage students to research the topic and determine the laws, as well as their rights as an individual who is under the age of 18.
6. Consult with your administration team if you or a student notices a health or safety issue concerning one or multiple students or staff members. It is important to know that the safety of students and staff members is top priority and if actions need to be taken to perform a search and seizure then proper protocols and precautions will be taken to ensure the safety of all individuals involved.

# data[].attributes.body
School ownership of lockers (no expectation of privacy). The school system has a written policy regarding lockers stating that the school system retains ownership of the lockers. Without a legitimate expectation of privacy, the random search of a locked is not a search under the Fourth Amendment. This is important because most middle school campuses have lockers, and the Administration teach always has access to those lockers. Setting the expectations clear for students, parents and teachers is expected upon arrival of offering students the opportunity to use a locker provided by the school.

Juvenile Law Search and Seizure, Section IV, Part E. (2003).
https://juvenilelaw.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/SearchSeizure.pdf