What are the cons of school locker searches?

Answer 1

ProsConsLockers are school property; students are merely allowed to use them as they do with sports equipment, library books, school computers, etc. Lockers can be taken back without notice, for example if they are vandalised or become smelly with rotting food. Students are or should be told that schools have the right to search their lockers - it is a part of being in a school community where you have to accept its rules and responsibilities.A sense of alienation and isolation in the school environment has been at the forefront of the rise of psychological problems amongst students - resulting in tragedies like Columbine. Denying students the security of a secure anchor in this environment, a known reference point without risk of removal or meddling, means they are more likely to be adrift and insecure.It is in the interests of all students that drugs and weapons are not in school. The best way to ensure that such contraband items are found and removed is for the school authorities periodically to search a random selection of student lockers. Even if there is a privacy issue, students yield that minor right in return for the wider benefit of safety.General searches constitute an unacceptable intrusion, a search 'without probable cause' or 'fishing expedition'. In the USA it is therefore contrary to the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution. Elsewhere it is covered by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights' guarantee against "arbitrary interference with… privacy".We trust teachers to use this power responsibly and not abuse it. Even if the policy sees a small minority misuse the search power, the cost is outweighed by the benefit of greater security and disincentive to smuggle contraband such as drugs and weapons in to school.Many belongings aren't illegal but are nevertheless potentially the source of embarrassment, for example love letters, pornography, contraceptives, or medicines. Teachers can abuse this power to inflict embarrassment on students they dislike, or may allow it to influence negatively their attitude to and treatment of the student concerned.Schools have a duty to care for their students. This responsibility is placed upon schools because the students in their charge are minors - children in the eyes of the law - who need more protection than adults. This same legal status also explains why constitutional rights to privacy, etc. cannot be applied absolutely to school students. Schools' duty of care applies both morally and legally - and they may be open to lawsuits if they don't take reasonable measures to prevent other students from bringing drugs or weapons into school, or to recover stolen property. In both these cases, searching lockers is an obvious and reasonable response to a threat to student welfare.Students should not to be considered as suspects without an adequate reason - that's their right just as much as for adults, and if it is violated, they and their families can and will sue the school.In addition to general searches of lockers, particular individuals are often suspected of activity, often quite serious, that mean teachers need to inspect their property. Without the ability to inspect lockers, young criminals will know that they can hide forbidden things there without fear. On the other hand, the possibility of a search means that students will think twice before bringing things in to school. Students may indeed find other hiding places - but this doesn't mean that they should be given total control over the most obvious hiding place in school. Other safety techniques - such as metal detectors, sniffer dogs, security guards - may be useful too, but they are not mutually exclusive to locker searches. All these things can be used in addition to, not instead of, locker searches - and indeed, a combination of all of them may yield the most secure results.It is obvious that if students are faced with the prospect of locker searches, they will just find another hiding place, or keep things on their person. The thrust of policy should not be about finding things once they are in school - it should be about stopping them getting there in the first place. Metal detectors, for example, are fair - because they check everyone (rather than singling people out) without intruding on them. Students who are singled out for searches are effectively and publicly accused of a crime. Occasionally, something incriminating may be found; almost always it won't be, but any bond of trust between school/teacher and student will be broken, and disaffection is likely to follow.The magnitude of the problem should be the basis for this debate. In the USA, every school day, at least 100,000 students bring guns to school; 160,000 students skip classes because they fear physical harm; 40 students are hurt or killed by firearms; 6,250 teachers are threatened with bodily injury; 260 teachers are physically assaulted. Is searching someone's locker really a step too far in trying to stop this?There's no doubt that there are grave problems in schools. but we should send a message to children that we trust them - making them feel like adults. Always suspecting them of something widens the gulf between the generations that has caused so much harm in society. In any case, how often are lockers directly implicated in the crimes listed opposite? Most weapons are hidden on the person, and lockers are hardly involved in assaults on teachers.

Answer 2

They are in fact warrantless searches, the true exigencies of which are sometimes questionable. Usually evanescence of evidence or possibility of danger to police as justified in Terry v. Ohio are required.