Web Quest: Your Fourth Amendment Rights
This Web Quest will help you learn more about your Fourth Amendment rights—protection against unreasonable searches and seizures. Start by reading the text of the Fourth Amendment, then compare and contrast two U.S. Supreme Court decisions that concern student searches at school. For more background information, refer to and click on the cases in Key Historical Cases below.
Fourth Amendment
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 the persons or things to be seized.
New Jersey v. T.L.O., 469 U.S. 325 (1985)
Facts: A teacher took a girl (whose initials were T.L.O.) to the office after having observed her smoking in violation of school rules. The assistant principal asked her if she smoked, and she answered no. He opened her purse and found a pack of cigarettes. Continuing to rummage, he found rolling papers, marijuana, and a list of students who were buying marijuana from T.L.O. She was sent to juvenile court, where the marijuana was used as evidence against her. T.L.O. was convicted of delinquency.
Issues: Does the Fourth Amendment apply to teachers, as it does to law enforcement officers? If so, was the assistant principal's search reasonable?
Vernonia School District 47J v. Acton , 515 U.S. 646 (1995)
Facts: Vernonia school district in Oregon served 700 students at three elementary schools and one high school. In response to rising discipline problems and suspicions that student athletes were glorifying drug use, the district created a drug-testing program. Any student who wished to play sports had to sign a consent form for a mandatory urine test at the beginning of the season, followed by random tests. James Acton, a seventh grader, refused to sign a consent form on the grounds that testing violated his Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable search and seizure.
Issue: Did the drug-testing program violate students' Fourth Amendment rights by testing all athletes regardless of whether there was reason to believe that individual students were using drugs?
Key Historical Cases
Mapp v. Ohio , 367 U.S. 643 (1961)
The exclusionary rule, which prohibits prosecutors from using evidence that was seized in violation of the Fourth Amendment, applies to state as well as federal prosecutions.
Katz v. United States , 389 U.S. 347 (1967)
Because the Fourth Amendment "protects people, not places," it governs the use of electronic eavesdropping devices, and it does not matter whether the device is physically placed within any particular enclosure.
Terry v. Ohio , 392 U.S. 1 (1968)
The Fourth Amendment does not require police to obtain a search warrant before stopping and "frisking" a suspect for weapons.
New Jersey v. T.L.O. , 469 U.S. 325 (1985)
An assistant principal did not violate the Fourth Amendment when he searched a student's purse. A simple "reasonableness" standard governs all searches of students' persons and effects by school authorities.
Vernonia School District 47J v. Acton , 515 U.S. 646 (1995)
Schools may conduct random urinalysis drug testing of student athletes.
Minnesota v. Carter , 525 U.S. 83 (1998)
Police officer did not violate the Fourth Amendment by peeking in an apartment window through a gap in the closed blind.
Current Fourth Amendment Cases
Atwater v. City of Lago Vista (No. 99-1408) (Argued Dec. 5, 2000)
Issue: Custodial Arrest for Seatbelt Violations
Case: Gail Atwater was handcuffed and taken into custody by a Lago Vista, Tex., police officer who observed her driving without a seat belt; her two young children also were not wearing seat belts. The maximum penalty for violating the Texas seat belt law is a $50 fine. The Supreme Court must decide whether the Fourth Amendment prohibits the police from making a custodial arrest of a person for an offense that carries only a fine upon conviction.
Decision: Pending
Web Site: Transcripts of oral arguments
City of Indianapolis v. Edmond (No. 99-1030) (Argued Oct. 3, 2000)
Issue: Drug Checkpoints
Case: Since 1967, the Supreme Court has upheld a number of searches and seizures despite the absence of individualized probable cause or reasonable suspicion. Two of these instances involved the use of roadblocks to check for the presence of illegal aliens or for signs of impaired driving.
Decision: The Court held that drug checkpoints violate the Fourth Amendment because their primary purpose is indistinguishable from the governmental general interest in crime control.
Web Sites:
Ferguson v. City of Charleston (No. 99-936) (Argued Oct. 4, 2000)
Issue: Warrantless Drug Testing of Pregnant Women
Case: This case involved a Fourth Amendment challenge to a drug-testing policy implemented at a South Carolina public hospital. Under the policy, pregnant women were tested—without warrants or probable cause—for cocaine use. Positive test results were shared with law-enforcement officials, and some women were arrested and threatened with prosecution if they did not complete drug treatment.
Decision: The Court held that these drug tests were unconstitutional searches.
Web Sites:
Kyllo v. United States (No. 99-8508) (Argued Feb. 20, 2001)
Issue: Thermal Imaging Scans
Case: A thermal imager is a cameralike device that records and depicts infrared radiation so as to display escaping heat. In this case, the police used it to help them develop probable cause to believe that marijuana was being grown inside a home. The Court considered whether that scan was an unreasonable search and seizure under the Fourth Amendment.
Decision: Pending
Web Sites: Transcripts of oral arguments
Florida v. Thomas (No. 00-391) (Argued April 25, 2001)
Issue: Automobile Searches
Case: The question before the Court is whether police may always search a car without a warrant after arresting its occupant, or whether police cannot automatically conduct such a search if the person gets out of the car before the initial contact with police.
Decision: Pending
Web Sites: Oral argument transcripts are pending.
Illinois v. McArthur (No. 99-1132) (Argued Nov. 1, 2000)
Issue: House Searches
Case: A drug suspect is likely to destroy any drugs in his home if he knows the police are planning to search it. This case presented the question of whether the Constitution permits a police officer to "impound" a drug suspect's home while a fellow officer leaves the scene to obtain a search warrant.
Decision: The Court held that there was no Fourth Amendment violation so long as the police had probable cause to believe marijuana was hidden in the home.
Web Sites:
Saucier v. Katz (No. 99-1977) (Argued March 20, 2001)
Issue: Excessive Force
Case: The Fourth Amendment's ban on unreasonable seizures requires police to use only reasonable force when making an arrest. The question in this case is whether a police officer can be liable for using unreasonable force if he reasonably but mistakenly believed the force he used was justified.
Decision: Pending
Web Sites: Transcripts of oral arguments
Research Sites
- ABA Law Day Resources
- ABA Public Education: Rules on Search and Seizure
- Keep Schools Safe
- A Web site sponsored jointly by:
- Student Rights, A Reference Handbook
by Patricia H. Hinchey
(Enter author's name after arriving at site) - JusticeTalking
Listen online to a discussion about a Supreme Court case in which a police officer peeked in the window of a private home, witnessed drug packaging, and made arrests without obtaining a warrant. At issue was whether the police surveillance violated the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable search and seizure. Originally broadcast Oct. 15, 2000.
Students Home