Request For Student Voluntary Participation: Fill & Download for Free

No, it’s not illegal.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." Before 1985, doubt existed about whether this right applied to students in the public schools. Schools argued that administrators acted in loco parentis—in the place of the parent—while students were at school. In 1985, the U.S. Supreme Court determined that the Fourth Amendment applies to students in the public schools (New Jersey v. T.L.O., 1985). The Court concluded, however, that the school environment requires an easing of the restriction to which searches by public authorities are normally subject. School officials, therefore, do not need probable cause or a warrant to search students.The Court articulated a standard for student searches: reasonable suspicion. Reasonable suspicion is satisfied when two conditions exist: (1) the search is justified at its inception, meaning that there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that the search will reveal evidence that the student has violated or is violating the law or school rules, and (2) the search is reasonably related in scope to the circumstances that justified the search, meaning that the measures used to conduct the search are reasonably related to the objectives of the search and that the search is not excessively intrusive in light of the student's age and sex and the nature of the offense.In New Jersey v. T.L.O., a teacher's report of a student smoking in the bathroom justified a search of the student's purse. Since this landmark decision, several cases have debated what constitutes reasonable suspicion:Four students huddled together, one with money in his hand and another with his hand in his pocket, does not provide reasonable suspicion (A.S. v. State of Florida, 1997).An anonymous phone call advising an administrator that a student will be bringing drugs to school, coupled with the student's reputation as a drug dealer, creates reasonable suspicion to search the student's pockets and book bag (State of New Hampshire v. Drake, 1995).A report made by two students to a school official that another student possesses a gun at school constitutes reasonable suspicion to search the student and his locker (In re Commonwealth v. Carey,1990).An experienced drug counselor's observation of a student who appears distracted and has bloodshot eyes and dilated pupils justifies taking the student's blood pressure and pulse (Bridgman v. New Trier High School District No. 203, 1997).The fact that the search of all but one student in a class fails to reveal allegedly stolen property gives school officials reasonable suspicion to search that student (DesRoches v. Caprio, 1998).The odor of marijuana in the hall does not provide reasonable suspicion to search all students' book bags, purses, and pockets (Burnham v. West, 1987).Although the legal standard for reasonable suspicion is clear, the application of it in different contexts is not always as clear. The Court has even noted thatarticulating precisely what reasonable suspicion means . . . is not possible. Reasonable suspicion is a commonsense, nontechnical conception that deals with the factual and practical considerations of everyday life on which reasonable and prudent men, not legal technicians, act. (Ornelas v. United States, 1996, at 695)Probable Cause and Student ConsentSchool officials need only reasonable suspicion to search students in public schools, but sworn law enforcement officials normally must have probable cause to search students. Probable cause to search exists when "known facts and circumstances are sufficient to warrant a man of reasonable prudence in the belief that contraband . . . will be found" (Ornelas v. United States, 1996, at 696). But are law enforcement officials assigned to schools to maintain safety subject to the reasonable suspicion standard or the higher probable cause standard? The answer depends on whether the court views law enforcement personnel assigned to the school as school officials or law enforcement officials.When the police or school administrators act at one another's request, they run the risk of becoming one another's agents. Such a relationship could change the standard necessary to conduct a student search. Some courts treat police officers as school officials subject to the lower standard of reasonable suspicion when they search students at the request of school administrators (In the Interest of Angelia D.B., 1997). Other courts hold that school officials conducting a search on the basis of information from the school resource officer are acting as agents of the police and are, therefore, subject to the higher standard of probable cause (State of New Hampshire v. Heirtzler, 2000). The mere presence of a sworn law enforcement officer during a search by a school administrator does not trigger the need for probable cause (Florida v. D.S., 1996).School officials and sworn law enforcement officers may conduct a search without reasonable suspicion or probable cause if the student voluntarily consents to the search. Voluntariness is determined on the basis of the circumstances—including the student's age, education level, and mental capacity—and the context of the search. When consent is granted, officials may conduct the search only within the boundaries of the consent. If a student consents to the search of her purse, for example, an administrator may not search her locker unless the search of the purse provides probable cause or reasonable suspicion to search the locker. School officials and law enforcement officers are not required to advise students that they have a right to refuse to give consent to search. Some school policies or state regulations, however, may require that they advise students of their rights.Some school policies require students to provide consent to a search or risk discipline. In at least one federal circuit, the court has upheld this policy (DesRoches v. Caprio, 1998). In this case, all but one student consented to a search of their personal belongings. The search of the consenting students revealed nothing. Pursuant to school board policy, DesRoches was suspended for 10 days for failure to consent to the search. The student claimed that his Fourth Amendment rights were violated because the administrator did not have reasonable suspicion to search him. The court held that when the search of all other students in the class failed to reveal the stolen item, the administrator had reasonable, individualized suspicion to search DesRoches. Therefore, his discipline for failing to consent to a legal search was upheld.Individual Versus Random SearchesSchool officials conduct individual searches when they suspect that a student or a small group of students possesses evidence of a violation of the law or school rules. Such searches are subject to the reasonable suspicion standard. Officials conduct random or blanket searches not because of individualized suspicion, but as a preventive measure. Examples of random searches include the use of metal detectors in school entrances and sweeps of parking lots and lockers. The legality of a random search depends on whether the school has a compelling interest or special need that warrants the use of a search without suspicion. The most common need articulated by schools is the prevention of drug abuse.Perhaps the most controversial random search is the use of drug-sniffing dogs in schools. The right of school officials or police to use dogs to detect drugs in students' belongings is well established. In fact, most courts conclude that such detection is not a search because the dogs merely sniff the air around the property and that students do not have an expectation of privacy in the air around their belongings.One federal court has recently held that the use of drug-sniffing dogs on a student's person requires individualized, reasonable suspicion. Prevention of drug abuse, according to this court, does not justify the dog sniffing the person because it intrudes on the expectation of privacy and security (B.C. v. Plumas Unified School District, 1999). This case changed practices in many school districts—those schools no longer use the dogs to sniff around students.Drug-testing programs are another form of a random search. In 1995, the Supreme Court upheld a drug-testing program for student athletes because the school had a documented drug epidemic; participation in athletics was optional; the athletes had a lessened expectation of privacy because they participated in communal showering; the athletes had a heightened risk of injury; the athletes were the leaders of the drug culture; the testing procedure was minimally intrusive; and the consequence of a positive test was not discipline but treatment (Vernonia School District 47J v. Acton, 1995).As schools try to expand drug-testing programs beyond the facts in Vernonia, courts have struggled in a number of cases to determine what is constitutional:Todd v. Rush (1998) and Miller v. Wilkes (1999) upheld drug testing for students participating in any extracurricular activity.Willis v. Anderson (1998) struck down drug testing for students suspended for certain disciplinary infractions such as fighting.Joy et al. v. Penn-Harris Madison School Corporation(2000) upheld a drug testing program for students who drive to school or engage in extracurricular activities.Earls v. Board of Education of Tecumseh Public School District (2001) struck down a drug-testing policy for students participating in extracurricular activities because no special need existed other than for athletes. The opinion notes, however, that schools need not wait until drug use is epidemic before implementing a testing program.Tannahill v. Lockney Independent School District (2001) struck down a drug-testing policy for all middle and high school students for lack of a compelling state interest (there was no documented drug abuse program for students in this locality).Until the Court provides guidance on drug-testing programs beyond the facts of Vernonia, schools should consider the following questions before instituting a drug-testing program: How serious is the drug problem in the tested population? Have less intrusive means to combat the problem been exhausted? Did parents give consent to the search? Is the testing procedure reliable and minimally intrusive? Are the consequences of a positive search result discipline, denial of privileges, or treatment?The primary purpose of student searches is to maintain a safe learning environment. Discipline and conviction are two secondary purposes. Usually, law enforcement personnel conduct searches to reveal evidence of a violation of the law. The seized evidence then can be used in a criminal trial to convict the student of a crime. School administrators conduct a search to gather evidence for school discipline. At times law enforcement and school administrators may, therefore, have different purposes for a potential search. One crucial difference in their purposes is the ability to use the results of an illegal search in a disciplinary hearing but not in a criminal proceeding.School administrators face severe threats to school safety and are simultaneously held increasingly accountable to the public and policymakers to keep students safe. To keep schools safe, most administrators err on the side of searching rather than not searching. Administrators' judgments are protected by governmental immunity as long as the search is not knowingly or willfully illegal. In fact, an administrator will not incur civil liability unless his or her conduct violates clearly established statutory or constitutional rights (Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 1982). Immunity is not dependent on whether the actual search violated the law but rather on the objective reasonableness of the search. Immunity protects administrators acting in good faith in a gray area of the law.Preventive SearchAs school practitioners navigate the murky waters of school searches, two practices may help successfully avoid legal challenge: debriefing and policy.Debriefing. After a search, administrators should meet with those individuals who are involved. Record and reflect on the crucial areas of the search and learn from the reflection. This exercise may be invaluable if the search is subsequently challenged. Document the names of the people who conducted the search; the background of the student who was searched; the alleged infraction; the way the school learned of the infraction; the basis for the search (for example, how reasonable suspicion, probable cause, or consent was obtained); the time and location of the search; the names of the people who were present at the search; and the school policies that were implicated and followed. School officials should also note whether the police were involved or present during the search.Policy. The best search policies are developed by school boards who work collaboratively with local law enforcement officials, local judges and attorneys, school staff, and community members. A sound policy can make the difference between a legal or illegal search. Sound school search policies should have a mission statement: to maintain a safe learning environment. They should outline techniques for searching students, from the least intrusive to the most intrusive means (metal detectors, canines, breath tests, urine tests, pat downs, strip searches), and they should describe the types of searches students may be subjected to while on school property or at a school function (locker searches, automobile searches, personal belongings, and personal searches). The policies should explain what happens to seized possessions; define consent searches and note how consent may be obtained and the consequences for failing to provide it; state that lockers and other school property are provided for students' use, are under the school's control, and are subject to search at all times; and require that students and parents acknowledge that they have read and understood the school search policy.Good policies can guide educators' actions, but school staff members need to remember that what constitutes a legal student search depends upon the context. Despite the lack of clarity about whether to apply reasonable suspicion or probable cause in different situations, courts are more willing now than ever to find student searches legal to preserve safety. In the final analysis, school personnel should balance the student's expectation of privacy with the school's unique need to create and preserve a safe learning and working environment.ReferencesA.S. v. State of Florida, 693 So. 2d 1095 (Fla. App. 2d Dist. 1997).B.C. v. Plumas Unified School District, 192 F.3d 1260 (9th Cir. 1999).Bridgman v. New Trier High School District No. 203, 128 F. 3d 1146 (7th Cir. 1997).Burnham v. West, 681 F. Supp. 1160 (E.D. Va. 1987).DesRoches v. Caprio, 156 F.3d 571 (4th Cir. 1998).Earls v. Board of Education of Tecumseh Public School District, 242 F.3d 1264 (10th Cir. 2001).Florida v. D.S., 685 So.2d 41 (Fla. App. 3d Dist. 1996).Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (1982).In re Commonwealth v. Carey, 554 N.E. 2d 1199 (Mass. 1990).In the Interest of Angelia D.B. 564 N.W. 2d 682 (Wis. 1997).Joy et al. v. Penn-Harris Madison School Corporation, 212 F.3d 1052 (7th Cir. 2000).Miller v. Wilkes, 172 F.3d 574 (8th Cir. 1999).New Jersey v. T.L.O., 469 U.S. 325 (1985).Ornelas v. United States, 517 U.S. 690 (1996).State of New Hampshire v. Drake, 662 A.2d 265 (1995).State of New Hampshire v. Heirtzler, No. 00-139 (Sup. Ct. filed May 2000).Tannahill v. Lockney Independent School District, 133 F. Supp. 2d 919 (N.D. Texas 2001).Todd v. Rush, 133 F. 3d 984 (7th Cir. 1998).Vernonia School District 47J v. Acton, 515 U.S. 646 (1995).Willis v. Anderson, 158 F. 3d 415 (7th Cir. 1998).[1]Footnotes[1] The Right to Search Students

1. In India, the idea of involving students in the task of national service dates back to the times of Mahatma Gandhi, the father of the nation. The central theme which he tried to impress upon his student audience time and again, was that they should always keep before them, their social responsibility. The first duty of the students should be, not to treat their period of study as one of the opportunities for indulgence in intellectual luxury, but for preparing themselves for final dedication in the service of those who provided the sinews of the nation with the national goods & services so essential to society. Advising them to form a living contact with the community in whose midst their institution is located, he suggested that instead of undertaking academic research about economic and social disability, the students should do "something positive so that the life of the villagers might be raised to a higher material and moral level".2. The post-independence era was marked by an urge for introducing social service for students, both as a measure of educational reform and as a means to improve the quality of educated manpower. The University Grants Commission headed by Dr. Radhakrishnan recommended introduction of national service in the academic institutions on a voluntary basis with a view to developing healthy contacts between the students and teachers on the one hand and establishing a constructive linkage between the campus and the community on the other hand.3. The idea was again considered by the Central Advisory Board of Education (CABE) at its meeting held in January, 1950. After examining the various aspects of the matter and in the light of experience of other countries in this field, the Board recommended that students should devote some time to manual work on a voluntary basis and that the teachers should also associate with them in such work. In the draft First Five year Plan adopted by the Government of India in 1952, the need for social and labour service for students for one year was further stressed. Consequent upon this, labour and social service camps, campus work projects, village apprenticeship scheme etc. were put into operation by various educational institutions, In 1958, the then Prime Minister Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru in his letter to the Chief-Ministers, mooted the idea of having social service as a prerequisite for graduation. He further directed the Ministry of Education to formulate a suitable scheme for introduction of national service into the academic institutions.4. In 1959, a draft outline of the scheme was placed before the Education Minister's Conference. The Conference was unanimous about the urgent need for trying out a workable scheme for national service. In view of the fact that education as it was imparted in schools and colleges, left something to be desired and it was necessary to supplement it with programmes which would arouse interest the social and economic reconstruction of the country. It was viewed that if the objectives of the scheme were to be realized, it was essential to integrate social service with the educational process as early as possible. The Conference suggested the appointment of a committee to work out details of the proposed pilot project. In pursuance of these recommendations, a National Service Committee was appointed under the Chairmanship of Dr. C.D. Deshmukh on August 28, 1959 to make concrete suggestions in this direction. The committee recommended that national service for a period of nine months to a year Deshmukh on August 28, 1959 to make concrete suggestions in this direction. The committee recommended that national service for a period of nine months to a year may be made compulsory for all students completing high school education and intending to enroll themselves in a college or a university. The scheme was to include some military training, social service, manual labour and general education. The recommendations of the Committee could not be accepted because of its financial implications and difficulties in implementation.5. In 1960, at the instance of the Government of India, Prof. K.G. Saiyidain studied national service by students implemented in several countries of the world and submitted his report under the title "National Service for the Youth" to the Government with a number of recommendations as to what could be done in India to develop a feasible scheme of social service by students. It was also recommended that social service camps should be open to students as well as non-students within the prescribed age group for better inter-relationship.6. The Education Commission headed by Dr. D.S. Kothari (1964-66) recommended that students at all' stages of education should be associated with some form of social service. This was taken into account by the State Education Minister during their conference in April 1967 and they recommended that at the university stage, students could be permitted to join the National Cadet Corps (NCC) which was already in existence on a voluntary basis and an alternative to this could be offered to them in the form of a new programme called the National Service Scheme (NSS). Promising sportsmen, however, should be exempted from both and allowed to join another scheme calle4d the National Sports Organisation (NSO), in view of the need to give priority to the development of sports and athletics.7. The Vice Chancellors' Conference in September, 1969 welcomed this recommendation and suggested that a special committee of Vice Chancellors could be set up to examine this question in detail. In the statement of national policy on education of the Government of India, it was laid down that work experience and national service should be an integral part of education. In May, 1969, a conference of the students' representatives of the universities and institutions of higher learning convened by the Ministry of Education and the University Grants Commission also unanimously declared 'that national service could be a powerful instrument for national integration. It could be used to introduce urban students to rural life. Projects of permanent value could also be undertaken as a symbol of the contribution of the student community to the progress and upliftment of the nation.8. The details were soon worked out and the Planning Commission sanctioned an outlay of Rs. 5 crores for National Service Scheme (NSS) during the. Fourth Five Year Plan. It was stipulated that the NSS programme should be started as a pilot project in select institutions and universities.9. On September 24, 1969, the then Union Education Minister Dr. V.K.R.V. Rao, launched the NSS programme in 37 universities covering all States and simultaneously requested the Chief Ministers of States for their cooperation and help. It was appropriate that the programme was started during the Gandhi Centenary Year as it was Gandhi ji who inspired the Indian youth to participate in the movement for Indian independence and the social uplift of the downtrodden masses of our nation.10. The cardinal principle of the programme is that it is organised by the students themselves and both students and teachers through their combined participation in social service, get a sense of involvement in the tasks of national development. Besides, the students, particularly, obtain work experience which might help them to find avenues of self-employment or employment in any organisation at the end of their university career. The initial financial arrangements provided for an expenditure of Rs. 120/- per NSS student per annum to be shared by the Central and the State Governments in the ratio of 7:5 i.e. the Central Government spending Rs. 70/- and State Governments Rs. 50/- respectively per NSS student per year. An amount of Rs. 120/- per NSS student per annum on programmes to be shared by the Central and State Governments in the ration of 7:5 (i.e. Rs. 70/- per student by the central government and Rs. 50/- per student by the State Governments). Keeping the inflation in view, it is now under consideration to revise the amount for Special Camping and Regular Activities.11. The scheme now extends to all the states ad universities in the country and covers +2 level also in many states. Students, teachers, guardians, persons in authority in government, universities and colleges/schools and the people in general now realize the need and significance of NSS. It has aroused among the student youth an awareness of the realities of life, a better understanding and appreciation of the problems of the people. NSS is, thus, a concrete attempt in making campus relevant to the needs of the community. There are several instances of excellent work and exemplary conduct of NSS units which have earned them respect and confidence of the people. The special camping programmes organised under the themes of 'Youth Against Famine (1973)', 'Youth Against Dirt & Disease (1974-75)', 'Youth for Eco-Development' and "Youth for Rural Reconstruction' 'Youth for National Development and Youth for Literacy (1985-93)' 'Youth for National Integration and Communal Harmony (1993-95)' have resulted in gains both to the community as well as to the students. The theme for the year 1995-96 onwards for Special Camping is Youth for Sustainable Development with focus on Watershed Management and Water land Development'. Themes have been selected in accordance with national priorities. Also, from 1991-92 onwards NSS has launched a nationwide campaign on AIDS Awareness called "Universities Talk AIDS" (UTA) which has earned international attention and appreciation.12. Community service rendered by university and +2 level students has covered several aspects like adoption of villages for intensive development work, carrying out the medico-social surveys, setting up of medical centres, programmes of mass immunization, sanitation drives, adult education programmes for the weaker sections of the community, blood donation, helping patients in hospitals, helping inmates of orphanages and the physically handicapped etc. NSS volunteers did commendable relief work during natural calamities/emergencies such as cyclones, floods, famine, earthquake, et. From time to time all over the country. The NSS students have also done useful work in organising campaigns for eradication of social evils, and popularization of the nationally accepted objectives like nationalism, democracy, secularism, social harmony and development of scientific temper.Hope you got your answer.Source : NSS -- National Service Scheme .

It is absolutely OK to refuse.However, unlike other states that respect the rights of students as full US citizens, Texas law requires parental permission to abstain, “On written request from a student's parent or guardian, a school district or open-enrollment charter school shall excuse the student from reciting a pledge of allegiance”This law is controversial and will eventually make it to the Supreme Court as it contradicts the expressed intention of the right for students not to participate as ruled in West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette.Here’s a quote from the decision"To believe that patriotism will not flourish if patriotic ceremonies are voluntary and spontaneous instead of a compulsory routine is to make an unflattering estimate of the appeal of our institutions to free minds."West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, written by Justice Robert Jackson, 1943In 2018, a student successfully sued her Texas school district, but it was settled out of court without a ruling on the law. I’d say, if you don’t mind the limelight, sit out the Pledge without parental permission and get the college of your choice paid for with your settlement! Your legal fees will be paid for by the American Humanist Association.Contact — Boycott The Pledge