Jane Doe v. Little Rock School District Norm Balke – EDL 274 – October 2017 Jane Doe v. Little Rock School District

Question Can school districts conduct random and suspicionless searches of students’ belongings?

Facts of the Case Jane Doe was a secondary student in the Little Rock School District. One day, she and her classmates were asked to remove everything from their pockets, place their backpacks and purses on their desks in front of them, and leave the room. During that time, school officials searched through the students’ belongings.

Facts of the Case School officials discovered marijuana in a container in Jane Doe’s purse. Little Rock School District’s policy was to regularly conduct searches in this manner. Ms. Doe, individually and on behalf of her classmates who were in school during the 1999-2000, claimed that this method of searching students was unconstitutional.

Findings of the Case The Eastern District Court of Arkansas judged for the Little Rock School District In 2004, The United States Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit judged for Jane Doe

Educational Implications There is always a need to balance privacy and personal security vs. the government’s need for order. Student privacy is limited, because the State is responsible for discipline, health, and safety in the schools. But it is NOT non-existent!

Educational Implications Relevant cases included Board of Education of the Indep. Sch. Dist. No. 92 of Pottawattamie County v. Earls, New Jersey v. T.L.O., and Vernonia Sch. Dist, 47J v. Acton. All were ruled for the school districts. In all those cases cites, the intrusiveness of the searches we deemed appropriate. “School personnel rifling through the personal belongings is more intrusive than searches with a metal detector or dogs.” “Subjecting students to full-scale, suspicionless searches eliminates virtually all of their privileges…(regarding their)…belongings…no evidence…would justify so considerable an intrusion.”

Educational Implications Additionally, it was shown in the cases cited that there was enough evidence for there to be a search. In Earls, it was shown that the school faced a drug problem, and in Vernonia, an investigation showed evidence of drug use by athletes. Both helped the school districts’ cases. Doe did not have sufficient evidence that a full-scale search was indicated. “While all schools have an interest in reducing weapons and controlled substances, that interest in itself is not enough for random full-scale searches of belongings.” For these type of searches to occur, there MUST be sufficient evidence documented!

Educational Implications The Little Rock School District did specify in their student handbook that random searches may occur. That in itself is not enough. “The LSRD may not deprive its students of privacy expectations protected by the fourth amendment simply by announcing that the expectations will no longer be honored.” Having policies in writing helps, but it is not enough!

Educational Implications It is possible that a search of participants of an extracurricular activity could have be lawfully searched in this manner, as by virtue of being in extracurricular activities, your expectation of privacy is diminished. It is possible that this search could have been more lawful if there was a more compelling reason for it, outside of simple concern about drugs or weapons in school. However, the judge in this case did mention that this type of search was never appropriate. Less intrusive = Better Specific rationale for search = Better