This is a draft that has been superceeded by this article as of 2006-09-17. This document is maintained for historic purposes.

At the behest of Dr. Reginald Mayo, New Haven Public Schools are being equipped with metal detectors and students are asked to submit to random book bag/purse searches and metal detections. It is my humble belief that this practice is both unlawful and implemented in an incredibly foolish way that provides absolutely no advantages.

First and foremost, I will decry the practice of ‘random’ searches. I observed today (2006-09-12), the first day Career Regional Hill High School began the searches upon entry, that only one out of so many students was asked to submit to a search. I observed two others in line behind me being waved through the metal detector, so I can reasonably say that one out of every four students were searched, although the actual number of students waved through per the number searched may be higher.

The benefits provided by this ‘random’ process are negligible. It is possible for a student to ‘luck out’ and smuggle a weapon into the building. One may argue that the potential of being caught is enough to stop most teens from attempting to smuggle a weapon into school, but I will counter that if a student is this angry or depraved, the chance of being caught will not have significant impact upon them.

Being asked to submit to a search would also merely serve to expedite a Columnbine-style shooting because detection of the weapons is imminent. I can think of little remedy to a situation like this, and I will concede that the searches are not being conducted for the sole purpose of preventing mass-murder.

It is also my belief that the metal detector was collapsed after a certain point in the morning. If a student is determined to smuggle a weapon in, they need only to report to school late and they will have no fear of being searched.

So once again, I believe that the practice of the random searches provides us with a learning environment no safer than one without the searches. I recognize that the ‘randomness’ of the searches is due in part to the limited resources of the school; one metal detector and set of guards for searching over eight hundred people between seven-thirty and eight ‘o clock is a daunting, but noble, task. In the end, however, is is a fruitless effort, for reasons I have already explained.

Secondly, I believe that these searches are being conducted without the grounds required, as outlined by the New Haven Public Schools Administrative Procedures handbook. Pages 43 and 44 deal with the searches of students and their personal property.

The section titled ‘Student Searches’ states that:

School authorities are authorized to conduct searches of students or their property if there is reasonable grounds at the inception of the search that indicate a particular student is in possession of an item or a substance that represents a material threat to school routine or is prohibited by school board regulations or by law.

The section goes on to define what items are considered a student’s property and when it is appropriate to search them. As defined by the handbook, purses and book bags are considered ‘personal property’.

To me, this means that if the school wishes to perform a search, they require some notion that a student is carrying contraband material with them. I am unsure as to whether or not ‘metal’, as detected by a metal detector is considered contraband or not (I will assume not!), but a bigger issue lies here.

I observed students being asked to unzip their bags and be prepared for a search before they even walked in the door. Even I was asked to do so, although I was not searched or asked to step through a metal detector. Based on this observation and the requirements for a student search, as defined by the school system’s handbook, I can conclude one of two things. Either entering the building is enough reason for the school to think I have contraband (and if this is the case, I no longer wish to make use of New Haven’s public education system), or that the school is disregarding the constitutional right to be free of unreasonable searches (and again, if this is the case, I no longer wish to attend such an institution).

A final observation I made as I walked by the scene was that students were required to submit their bags to a search prior to even stepping into the metal detector–and, for the purposes of brevity, I will not disagree that the presence of metal is enough to justify a search at the moment– then my two possible conclusions are supported.

If you are unconvinced that students are entitled under the fourth amendment to be free of unreasonable searches in a school environment, I will defer you to the Supreme Court’s decision in the case of New Jersey vs.T. L. O. Justice White stated that, in the case of the principal of Piscataway High School, “. . .we are faced initially with the question whether that Amendment’s prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures applies to searches conducted by public school officials. We hold that it does.”

In further support of my argument, the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that individualized suspicion that a student is carrying contraband is required in DesRoches v. Caprio, et al. In this circumstance, a pair of tennis shoes had gone missing and a school official searched the bags of every student in an an art class.

In DesRoches v. Caprio, Judge Murnaghan of the circuit court not only upheld New Jersey v. T. L. O., but stated that “Therefore, in the present case, there is no question but that DesRoches enjoyed a legitimate expectation of privacy in his backpack so as to trigger the protections of the Fourth Amendment.”

Again, my conclusions are supported by my observations and the rulings of federal courts. I am at an absolute loss for what possible justification Dr. Mayo had when he called for schools to implement this policy. It’s legal basis is, at best, shaky, and there is minimum benefit involved as far as student safety goes if we continue on in the manner we have done so today.

References

WTNH. “Metal detectors ordered for New Haven high schools.” September 8, 2006. September 12, 2006 http ://www.wtnh.com/global/story.asp?s=5381137.

University of Missouri-Kansas. “New Jersey vs. T. L. O.” January 15, 1985. US Supreme Court. September 12, 2006. http ://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/tlo.html.

FindLaw. “Individualized Suspicion Required For Student Searches.” December 1, 1998. September 12, 2006. http ://library.findlaw.com/1998/Dec/1/128937.html.

Franklin Pierce Law. Center. “DesRoches v. Caprio, 156 F.3d 571 (4th Cir. 1998).” September 23, 1998. Steptember 12, 2006. http ://www.faculty.piercelaw.edu/redfield/library/case-desroches4thCir.htm.

New Haven Public Schools Administrative Procedures. Connecticut: New Haven Public Schools, 2006.