Shasta, a 15-year-old freshman, brought her MP3 player to 4th period English class and listened to music while her teacher, Ms. Jones, checked roll. School rules prohibited possession of electronic devices in classrooms, but not in lockers, book bags, purses and so forth. Consequently, Ms Jones confiscated the MP3 player and placed it in her desk. At some point during the class period Ms. Jones

Question

was called to the office on an urgent matter. While Ms. Jones was out of the room Kyle Lacy removed the MP3 player from Ms Jones' desk and returned it to Shasta. Upon returning to class Ms Jones noticed the missing contraband. She asked the students to turn it in, but no one did. Ms Jones summoned the principal, Mr. Logons. Mr. Logons instructed everyone to open their book bags, pull out their pockets, and untuck their shirts. The search did not lead to the discovery of the MP3 player. During the search one student quietly informed Mr. Logons that Kyle had taken the MP3 player and had given it back to Shasta. Not wanting to identify the informant, Mr. Logons sent for his female assistant principal. He instructed the female AP to take Shasta and four other freshman girls individually into a storage closet and have them shake out their blouses and roll down their waistbands. However, according to Shasta the AP asked her to remove her jeans and unbutton her shirt. Shasta's parents brought suit against Mr. Logons and his female assistant principal.

Does this scenario represent a structured or ill-structured problem? Identify two characteristics of the case that support your answer.

What is the legal question(s) in this case?

Is the alleged request that Shasta remove her jeans and unbutton her shirt consistent with Bentham's principles of proportionality? Why or why not? Review the idea of a well-ordered school (Chapter 5). Would this search promote or detract from a well ordered school?

Using Safford v. Redding as a guide argue for or against qualified immunity for the principal and assistant principal in this scenario

Explain at least three appropriate steps school administrators can take to educate faculty and staff on the importance of proper student search procedures

Answer 1

Searching Shasta is an example of a search of a student that may start as reasonable but quickly slide down the slippery slope toward an unreasonable search. Taking items from a teacher's desk while the teacher is out of the room can be a serious problem. This part of the case is an example of a structured problem. The ill-structured problem emerges as the search of book bags and pockets that may be viewed as reasonable escalated to an unreasonable search. An accomplished response may include:

1. Analysis: An accomplished response would include an understanding that taking contraband out of a teacher's desk while the teacher is out of the room is a serious problem. Asking students to open their book bags and pull out their pockets may be reasonable. But, is it reasonable to take 15 year-old female students to a storage closet and ask them to shake out their blouses and roll down their waistbands reasonable under the circumstances? The contraband in question is an MP3 player. It is generally acknowledged that MP3 players, unlike illegal drugs and weapons, do not present a danger to students. If Shasta's allegations are true, most reasonable people would believe asking her to remove her jeans and unbutton her shirt would be unreasonable under the circumstances.

2. Legal Question: Did asking Shasta to remove her jeans and unbutton her shirt in search of a contraband MP3 player violate her 4th Amendment rights to be free of an unreasonable search?

3. Ethical Perspectives: In this case, an accomplished response would include the appropriate use of Bentham's principles of proportionality. For example, this case may be an example of the harm created by the search is greater than the need to recover the MP3 player.

4. Legal Knowledge: An accomplished response should include appropriate knowledge of the reasonableness standards established in TLO and use the lessons learned in Safford v. Redding.
5. Standards Based Knowledge: ISLLC Standards 5b (Model principles of self-awareness, reflective practice, transparency, and ethical behavior), 5c Safeguard the values of democracy, equity, and diversity), and 5d (Consider and evaluate the potential moral and legal consequences of decision-making) are appropriate standards.

6. Depth of Knowledge: An accomplished response should demonstrate an analysis of the legal and ethical challenges presented by the case and the synthesis of this knowledge into a coherent argument.