Peter Cruman Case Study

When an unlawful search and seizure was conducted against Cruman, his Fourth Amendment rights were violated. Peter Cruman, a high school student, was accused of being involved in a Facebook group whose goal was to traffic Marijuana on school grounds. An anonymous tip was given to the principal and because of the information received, Cruman was questioned in the principal's office for 2 1/2 hours, until he agreed to sign into his Facebook account on the Principals computer. Once Cruman allowed the principal access to his Facebook account, Crumans Fourth Amendment rights, which protect people from unlawful search and seizures, were not violated because the search was not unreasonable. A unreasonable search is defined as evidence found in a search
conducted by law enforcement without a search warrant and without probable cause, to believe evidence of a crime is present. The State of Olympus’s search did not violate Crumans Fourth Amendment rights because of reasonable suspicion and an absence of intrusiveness directed towards Cruman.
The search conducted by the State of Olympus was conducted with reasonable suspicion and therefore, the search did not violate Crumans Fourth Amendment rights. One example of a case that relates to the case of P.C. v. The State of Olympus would be the case of Klump v. Nazareth Area School District. In this case, the court held there to be no reason for the search conducted since school officials did not see any drug-related text messages until after the search was carried out. In this case, the court deemed that a search conducted on a student by school officials is only reasonable if “the official has reasonable grounds to suspect the search will provide evidence the student has violated school rules and the search is related to the reasoning for the initial search”. This case relates to the case of Peter Cruman v. The State of Olympus because the school had reason to suspect the search would provide evidence towards the school's drug issues that violated school rules, which were known about before the search. Also, the school had reasonable suspicion of Crumans involvement in the Facebook account due to the anonymous tip that was given to the principal. The information given to the principal suggested Crumans involvement in a Facebook group whose goal was buying and selling marijuana on school grounds. Therefore, the search conducted against Peter Cruman was done due to reasonable suspicion that he was breaking school rules through the trafficking of marijuana on school grounds. Another case that relates to the case of P.C v. State of Olympus is the case Hoffa v. United States. This criminal case was against Hoffa and others, and ended with a hung jury, which is a jury that cannot agree on a verdict. In a case following Hoffa's, the US government received evidence of criminal activity from a government informant, who testified that Hoffa and others had bribed jurors to get a hung jury. After Hoffa appealed, saying this information violated the Fourth Amendment, the court decided that the government can legally use information from an anonymous tip without violating the Fourth Amendment. This case connects to the case of Peter Cruman v. The State of Olympus because the principal was motivated to question Cruman after he received an anonymous tip that suggested Crumans involvement in a Facebook group whose goal was trafficking marijuana on school grounds. Because of the anonymous tip that provided reasonable suspicion, Crumans Fourth Amendment rights were not violated by the search. Since the school had reason to suspect Cruman was involved in buying and selling drugs on school grounds, the search conducted due to reasonable suspicion did not invade Crumans Fourth Amendment rights.
Crumans Fourth Amendment rights were not violated due to the fact that Cruman voluntarily cooperated with the principal.
In the case of Moreno v. Hanford Sentinel, Inc. Moreno decided to post her ideas about her local community on social media. Due to Hanford Sentinel reposting her post, Moreno and her family received threats. After Moreno sued Hanford claiming Hanford violated her right to privacy, the court decided you can only prevail of an invasion of privacy if the person demonstrated an expectation of privacy. This case supports the case of P.C. v. State of Olympus because Cruman did not demonstrate an expectation of privacy. Crumans Facebook account consisted of 30 members and since Cruman logged into his Facebook account voluntarily, it shows how Cruman did not have an expectation of privacy. Another case that connects to the case of P.C. v. State of Olympus is the case New Jersey v. T.L.O, where the vice-principal searched a student's bag due to suspicion and found she was dealing marijuana. From this, the court decided that searches are valid if done relating to the reason for the search and not overly intrusive. This relates to the case of P.C. v. State of Olympus because Cruman willingly came to the principal's office and stayed for the 2 1/2 hours. Also, Cruman was not forced to log into his Facebook account and instead logged on voluntarily. He also admitted to his drug activity without force from the principal. Since Cruman voluntarily cooperated with the principal, the search conducted was not intrusive and is therefore valid in court since it did not violate Crumans Fourth Amendment rights. All in all, Crumans search was legal due to the fact that Crumans Fourth Amendment rights were not violated because Cruman voluntarily cooperated with the principal throughout the
search.
The search conducted by the State of Olympus did not violate Crumans Fourth Amendment rights due to reasonable suspicion present and a lack of intrusiveness present against Cruman.