Discover published sets by community

The Court upheld the constitutionality of random drug testing of high school athletes. It held school interests in preventing drug use can outweigh an individual's right to privacy.

Even though this case pertains generally to police conduct, it established 'stop and frisk' procedures based on reasonable suspicion. This case informs school officials' actions since similar principles are applied in school settings.

Courts have often permitted school officials to search student backpacks and personal items if they have reasonable suspicion to believe the search will uncover evidence of illegal activity or a school rule violation.

This landmark decision by the U.S. Supreme Court established that school officials do not need a warrant or probable cause to conduct a search; they only need reasonable suspicion. Implies schools can search students' belongings if they suspect rules or laws are being violated.

School policies often include provisions that notify students of possible locker searches. Such notifications can reduce students' expectations of privacy and support the legality of random locker searches.

Using drug-sniffing dogs in school hallways and parking lots has been generally upheld as constitutional because it does not constitute a search of a person, and thus, does not typically infringe upon individual privacy rights.

As technology evolves, courts are challenged to balance students' privacy rights with school safety concerns. Reasonable suspicion is often required for the search of a student's electronic device.

Students may be asked to consent to searches, but this is a complex issue as minors' capacity to consent is limited. Coerced consent may invalidate a search's legality.

The use of metal detectors in schools has been upheld by courts as a reasonable safety measure. They are not considered invasive searches and do not typically require individual suspicion.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that random drug testing for high school students participating in extracurricular activities is constitutional. This sets a precedent that schools may impose drug testing as a condition for student participation.

The use of surveillance cameras in public areas of schools is generally permitted. They are seen as a deterrent to misconduct and do not usually violate privacy expectations in public school settings.

Generally, courts have held that students have limited expectations of privacy in school lockers and desks. School officials may search them with reasonable suspicion, as they are seen as school property.

This legal doctrine allows schools to act in the capacity of the parent during school hours. This extends to the authority to search students if their safety and the educational environment are at risk.

This case determined that a strip search of a middle school student violated the Fourth Amendment. It elaborated the limits of school searches and emphasized the need for searches to be reasonably related in scope to the circumstances.