US Supreme Court Ruling on Student Rights

The United States Supreme Court recently decided that public school officials are now limited in their ability to search students for drugs or other harmful items.  In Safford United School District v. Redding, the Supreme Court ruled that school official searches of the inter-clothing and undergarments of a student, in other words a strip search, will be pretty much prohibited from here on out under the United States Constitution.

The Court did not change the right of public school officials to search students’ back packs, notebooks, and other belongings along with their outer-clothing and pockets based upon reasonable suspicion.

This is a particularly difficult problem for school officials and for students and their parents.  It is also a good example of how difficult these cases are.  Certainly, the school officials want to provide a safe school environment for their students, faculty, and staff.  On the other hand, the United States Constitution protects all people, including students, from unreasonable searches and seizures.  This case points out the difficult issues that Courts, prosecutors, and defense attorneys face on these issues. 

The bottom line here is that students do enjoy some Constitutional protection from unreasonable searches and seizures, and they are not susceptible to the whims of school administrators.  Student searches by school officials require, at a minimum, at least reasonable suspicion of illegal activity before any search can be conducted. 

New South Dakota Supreme Court Decision on Voluntary Statements

Last week we talked about the protection the 4th Amendment gives you from warrantless searches by police officers.  Now nothing has changed in that department, but what you might not know is that there are a certain set of events which trigger this 4th Amendment protection.  In other words, there are certain circumstances where you aren’t protected from search and seizure.

On June 24, 2009, the South Dakota Supreme Court ruled in State v. Iversen that the stop and arrest of James Iversen was constitutional.  Iversen was convicted of driving or controlling a vehicle with a prohibited blood alcohol level. What makes this case unique is that at the time of the stop, at 1:30 am, Iversen was in his parked pickup with his headlights off and his engine running.  Because there had been some theft in the area recently, a police officer pulled his patrol car behind Iversen, and focused his spotlight on Iversen’s pickup.  When the officer approached the truck, Iversen voluntarily rolled his window down.  At this point the officer smelled alcohol, and initiated his arrest.

So why was the officer authorized to perform this arrest?  Here was a man simply sitting in a parked car with his engine on.  The SD Supreme Court ruled that, in fact, Iversen was free to leave at any moment.  Because he voluntarily rolled his window down, he allowed himself to be questioned, giving the officer reasonable suspicion for an arrest.  Remember, if you are not under arrest, you may leave without talking to police. 

New US Supreme Court ruling on warrantless vehicle searches

On April 21, 2009, the United States Supreme Court decided a very important case that directly affects your individual rights.  Arizona v Gant establishes an important controlling precedent regarding police performing warrantless searches.  This decision holds that the Fourth Amendment requires police officers to demonstrate an actual and continuing threat to their safety, or a need to preserve evidence related to the crime of the arrest in order to justify a warrantless search of a vehicle after the driver and occupants have been arrested and secured.