May it Please the Court, In this case, Suzie and her boyfriend Cyrus were both students at Central High School in Bristol, Virginia. Suzie sent some inappropriate photos to Cyrus, and after their relationship terminated, Cyrus sent the inappropriate photos to some of the other boys at the school. The upper classmen at the school harassed Suzie, which is when Suzie's parents contacted the school. The school searched Cyrus’ locker and found the phone with the images on it. They suspended Cyrus for two weeks. Cyrus, the plaintiff, sued the school, the defendant, for violation of his Fourth Amendment rights. The search of Cyrus’ cellphone by the school was not a violation of his Fourth Amendment protection against unlawful search and seizure. Cyrus’ Fourth Amendment was not violated when the school searched his locker for his phone that was believed to have inappropriate images on it. The Fourth Amendment states, “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place, to be searched, and the persons or things being seized” (Appleby et. al. 232). The search of Cyrus’s cell phone and locker were reasonable, because the school officials did not need to get a warrant because they do not have to meet the same standards as police officers. The Bristol Student Handbook states, “Administrators may search a student or his/her property (including vehicles, purses, knapsacks, gym bags, etc.) with or without the student’s consent, whenever they reasonably suspect that a search will lead to the discovery of evidence of a violation of law or school rules ” (Upper Arlington Schools Students’ Handbook 5). Since the search of Cyrus’ phone led to the discovery of the inappropriate images of Suzie, his Fourth Amendment rights were not infringed upon. Cyrus’ Fourth Amendment Right was not violated because even though the photos can be recovered, they can still be sent out to everyone in the school.
…show more content…
In the Safford v. Redding case, the school overreacted when strip searching Ms. Redding for ibuprofen, which could not cause a disruption anywhere near like the revealing photos sent by Cyrus to the upper classmen. The court ruled that the strip search for the non-prescription drugs was a violation of her Fourth Amendment rights. However, in the New Jersey v. T.L.O. case, the school did the right thing when searching T.L.O. on the spot because if they hadn’t, the marijuana could have had an immediate effect, and it could have also caused a major disruption in the learning of other students. The Cyrus v. Bristol school case has a lot more in common with the T.L.O. case than the Safford case because the marijuana would ultimately cause a disruption like the photos sent by Cyrus. The ibuprofen, however, would not have caused an immediate effect because it is really just an anti-inflammatory drug. As Justice White stated, “‘The warrant requirement’... ‘is unsuited to the school environment…[and] would unduly interfere with the maintenance of the swift and informal disciplinary procedures needed in schools’” (New Jersey v. T.L.O.). Therefore Principal Sheevers acted within the boundaries and Cyrus’ Fourth Amendment rights were not
In the Safford v. Redding case, the school overreacted when strip searching Ms. Redding for ibuprofen, which could not cause a disruption anywhere near like the revealing photos sent by Cyrus to the upper classmen. The court ruled that the strip search for the non-prescription drugs was a violation of her Fourth Amendment rights. However, in the New Jersey v. T.L.O. case, the school did the right thing when searching T.L.O. on the spot because if they hadn’t, the marijuana could have had an immediate effect, and it could have also caused a major disruption in the learning of other students. The Cyrus v. Bristol school case has a lot more in common with the T.L.O. case than the Safford case because the marijuana would ultimately cause a disruption like the photos sent by Cyrus. The ibuprofen, however, would not have caused an immediate effect because it is really just an anti-inflammatory drug. As Justice White stated, “‘The warrant requirement’... ‘is unsuited to the school environment…[and] would unduly interfere with the maintenance of the swift and informal disciplinary procedures needed in schools’” (New Jersey v. T.L.O.). Therefore Principal Sheevers acted within the boundaries and Cyrus’ Fourth Amendment rights were not