Tinker V Des Moines Case Study
May it Please the Court, A seventeen-year old student at Central High School in Bristol, Virginia by the name of Suzie sent her boyfriend, Cyrus, inappropriate photographs of herself. Once the relationship ended Cyrus sent the photographs to upperclassmen boys at their high school. The boys are now noticing Suzie for ways that both Suzie as well as her parents are not okay with. To attempt to eliminate the problem Suzie’s parents included Mrs. Sheevers, the school Principal, in the problem. After Cyrus denied the accusation of sending out the photographs to other boys, Mrs. Sheevers commanded the school officer to search Cyrus’ phone for any trace of the pictures. Not finding the phone, the principal then searched Cyrus’ school locker where she found the phone with the pictures on it. In response to this Cyrus was then suspended for two weeks. Although the Virginia Statehouse Court and the Federal District Courts verdict was that the Bristol School District is not guilty, the appeal at the Supreme Court granted Cyrus a
…show more content…
Writ of Certiorari. The constitutional question is, was the search of Cyrus’ phone as well as locker violating his Fourth Amendment rights? The search of Cyrus’ cell phone as well as locker by the school Principal, Mrs. Sheever, was not a violation of his Fourth Amendment rights because the search of the phone was necessary. The examination of Cyrus’ phone was not an infringement of his Fourth Amendment rights which says says, “...against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause…” (Appleby et. al. 232). The meaning of this statement is that if a search is reasonable or if it’s a probable cause the search is legal. In the case of Riley v. California the Chief Justice says “The digital data cannot be used as a weapon to harm an arresting officer, and police officers have the ability to preserve evidence while awaiting a warrant by disconnecting the phone from the network and placing the phone in a ‘Faraday bag’” (OYEZ). Therefore, the evidence that was found on the defendant, Cyrus’, phone was not a violation because the principal as well as the officer had a probable cause.
The search of Cyrus’ locker was also lawful because the Fourth Amendment protects “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects…” (Appleby et. al. 232). However, the locker through which Mrs. Sheever found Cyrus’ phone was not his property or something of his possession. The property of which the phone was stored belonged to the school not to the students. The Bristol Student Handbook states “Student lockers are the property of the District and students have no reasonable expectation of privacy in their contents or in the contents of any other District property including desks or other containers. School authorities may conduct random searches of the lockers and their contents at any time without announcement” (Upper Arlington Schools Students’ Handbook 4). This supports the Principal in entering the boys locker as well as searching the locker. Also, from the court case of New Jersey v. T.L.O the court stated “...Fourth Amendment's prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures applies to public school officials, they may conduct reasonable warrantless searches of students under their authority notwithstanding the probable cause standard that would normally apply to searches under the Fourth Amendment” (OYEZ). With the evidence shown the entering and search of Cyrus’ locker was constitutional and didn’t break any Fourth Amendment rights.
When the defendant's body was frisked it was not a violation of his Fourth Amendment rights.
Although students do not lose their rights as they walk through the school gates, their rights are restricted for the safety of others. The court case of Tinker v. Des Moines argues the same issue of the rights of students while on school grounds. “Because the appearance of the armbands distracted students from their work, they detracted from the ability of the school officials to perform their duties, so the school district was well within its rights to discipline the students” (OYEZ). As the armbands distracted students, the inappropriate photos of Suzie distracted upperclassmen from their educational work, which also put Suzie in an uncomfortable position depriving herself the ability to focus 100% on school work. Therefore, the principal was taking away a distraction to discipline the students which can be compared to the case of Tinker v. Des
Moines. When Principal, Mrs. Sheever, searched Cyrus’ phone, the act was not a violation of his Fourth Amendment rights because the school had a probable cause. Although the search of Cyrus’ phone was done without a warrant, the school has a duty to eliminate distractions. Therefore the actions they took as well as the lengths the school went to, to find his phone was without a doubt constitutional.
Writ of Certiorari. The constitutional question is, was the search of Cyrus’ phone as well as locker violating his Fourth Amendment rights? The search of Cyrus’ cell phone as well as locker by the school Principal, Mrs. Sheever, was not a violation of his Fourth Amendment rights because the search of the phone was necessary. The examination of Cyrus’ phone was not an infringement of his Fourth Amendment rights which says says, “...against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause…” (Appleby et. al. 232). The meaning of this statement is that if a search is reasonable or if it’s a probable cause the search is legal. In the case of Riley v. California the Chief Justice says “The digital data cannot be used as a weapon to harm an arresting officer, and police officers have the ability to preserve evidence while awaiting a warrant by disconnecting the phone from the network and placing the phone in a ‘Faraday bag’” (OYEZ). Therefore, the evidence that was found on the defendant, Cyrus’, phone was not a violation because the principal as well as the officer had a probable cause.
The search of Cyrus’ locker was also lawful because the Fourth Amendment protects “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects…” (Appleby et. al. 232). However, the locker through which Mrs. Sheever found Cyrus’ phone was not his property or something of his possession. The property of which the phone was stored belonged to the school not to the students. The Bristol Student Handbook states “Student lockers are the property of the District and students have no reasonable expectation of privacy in their contents or in the contents of any other District property including desks or other containers. School authorities may conduct random searches of the lockers and their contents at any time without announcement” (Upper Arlington Schools Students’ Handbook 4). This supports the Principal in entering the boys locker as well as searching the locker. Also, from the court case of New Jersey v. T.L.O the court stated “...Fourth Amendment's prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures applies to public school officials, they may conduct reasonable warrantless searches of students under their authority notwithstanding the probable cause standard that would normally apply to searches under the Fourth Amendment” (OYEZ). With the evidence shown the entering and search of Cyrus’ locker was constitutional and didn’t break any Fourth Amendment rights.
When the defendant's body was frisked it was not a violation of his Fourth Amendment rights.
Although students do not lose their rights as they walk through the school gates, their rights are restricted for the safety of others. The court case of Tinker v. Des Moines argues the same issue of the rights of students while on school grounds. “Because the appearance of the armbands distracted students from their work, they detracted from the ability of the school officials to perform their duties, so the school district was well within its rights to discipline the students” (OYEZ). As the armbands distracted students, the inappropriate photos of Suzie distracted upperclassmen from their educational work, which also put Suzie in an uncomfortable position depriving herself the ability to focus 100% on school work. Therefore, the principal was taking away a distraction to discipline the students which can be compared to the case of Tinker v. Des
Moines. When Principal, Mrs. Sheever, searched Cyrus’ phone, the act was not a violation of his Fourth Amendment rights because the school had a probable cause. Although the search of Cyrus’ phone was done without a warrant, the school has a duty to eliminate distractions. Therefore the actions they took as well as the lengths the school went to, to find his phone was without a doubt constitutional.