Arrest, Search, Seizure, Warrant Sign in Front of School - 4th Amendment violation?

[tulsa_citizen]

Sign in question is attached to this message.

Last Sunday, I took my young children to see the high school they will one day attend. Oldest child asks me, "Can they really search your car, daddy?" She pointed at sign. Sign sits on school property (possibly in the city easement) and is obviously intended for basically anybody that enters the "area" with a vehicle.

My thinking is it is a violation of the 4th Amendment.
I understand students have limited 4th Amendment rights, but I don't believe that an adult visitor would.

My understanding is I can refuse to consent to a search. An officer must obtain search warrant before search. Not sure about school officials.

Superintendent of the schools actually agreed with me that the sign is a violation, but hesitated to have the signs removed, which was my request to him. He now states he will consult with the school's legal representation. We agreed to table the issue for three weeks, whereupon he will give me a response, which I think is reasonable.

The assistant police chief also agreed with me to a certain extent.
And my attorney's opinion was that the sign would not stand up in court if challenged.

Any thoughts appreciated. Thanks!

 

[mightymoose]

The 4th Amendment does not say that you can not be searched at all- it says that you shall not be subjected to unreasonable searches.

The sign puts you on notice prior to entering the property- by proceeding any further your vehicle may be searched. If you do not agree, do not continue. If you do proceed then you are consenting to the potential search. Having consented by proceeding beyond the sign, the search is not unreasonable or a violation of your privacy- you agreed to it.

The school as a legitimate purpose, which I assume is to combat drugs or weapons on campus. I expect that it is a passive attempt toward enforcement, that people will not bring contraband knowing that they may be searched. Whether the school actually conducts the searches is another issue.

At any rate, there is absolutely nothing wrong with the sign. The sign itself is not a violation of anything. Unless someone is actually subjected to a search there is no argument to make. The circumstances of each search are really what determine whether or not the search is reasonable.

 

[tulsa_citizen]

I disagree that by reading a sign, I am consenting to a search. The sign states "with or without" cause. This, to me, clearly violates the 4th Amendment's "but upon probable cause".
There is other wording that could be challenged, I believe...
For example, what does "in charge" mean? Is it the intent of the school to indicate the driver of the vehicle in question? However, one could conceivably say "in charge" means the actual owner. Or what if it is a rental car? Or an Amish, horse-drawn wagon? A bicycle, a wheelchair?

What does "area" mean? Does it refer to a 10 foot radius around the sign? Does it refer to the "area" of Tulsa County?

Also is the phrase "school officials". Who is this? The principal? A teacher? The janitor? Who gave "school officials" authority to search my vehicle "with or without cause"?

"Police officers". Police officers are clearly limited in what they can do. If an officer asks me if they can search my vehicle, I would say respectfully, "Officer, I do not consent to searches." It is then upon the officer to obtain a search warrant clearly stating the "probable cause", the location to be searched, and the items and person(s) to be seized. Clearly a police officer cannot state to a judge that I consented to the search because of a sign posted that has multiple problems. Were an officer to conduct a warrant-less search, I'm pretty sure the liability would be quite high.

I would not think that I, as law-abiding citizen over the age of 21 gives up any rights, simply because I pass a sign (which I may or may not even see or read). This is a public school. It is public property. Why are there no signs at public parks in this same town? Why are signs like this not posted at all the other schools in the same town?

btw, thanks for your opinion!
We've been having very animated and intriguing conversations about this at work for about a week now.
I have a few other details, but I'll let you respond before I open that can of worms.

 

[army judge]

Schools have been able to carve out huge exceptions and exemptions to many constitutional rights.

I won't bore you with a discourse on constitutional law and searches, except to say, you'd be hard pressed to overcome the exceptions and exemptions courts have established for public schools.

As an additional pellet of mental food, what about cavity, and other intrusive searches, just to board an airplane? Heck, you could just be in thebairport not to board a plane, but to meet your unaccompanied six year old daughter. Nevertheless, you'll receive that special and caring attention from the fine folks of your TSA!!!!

That sign isn't on school property as a ruse to search the car of dad, as he drops Junior and Sissy off to class!!! It serves notice on Luther or Willie, who are selling drugs to teenagers.

 

[CdwJava]

Th easy way to avoid being subject to a search or an argument (and possibly arrest) for refusing a search would be to not drive onto the property governed by the sign.

As mentioned by others, the law governs "unreasonable" search and seizure. When you enter government facilities, you see the same signs concerning searches of you. Drive into the grounds surrounding a prison, or a military base, and you also see the same sort of signs.

I suppose one can make an argument as to the need and the legality of such a search, but, unless you are willing to be that test case, why run the risk? If you feel that the police or school administration might - for some reason - search your car as you drop off your child, then drop the child off at the street and not in the lot.

But, as Army Judge mentioned, I doubt this is there to address parents dropping off kids. It is there to justify searches of vehicles that might be tied to other activity and to place those occupants on notice that they shouldn't oughta park or hang out unless they want to risk a search. One does not generally have a RIGHT to park or operate a motor vehicle on school property.

 

[mightymoose]

I disagree that by reading a sign, I am consenting to a search.

Reading the sign does not imply consent- it is the act of proceeding beyond the sign after being warned that implies consent.

The sign states "with or without" cause. This, to me, clearly violates the 4th Amendment's "but upon probable cause".

The language about probable cause in the 4th Amendment is regarding the issuance of warrants, not the conduct of searches. The phrase you should be focused on is what is "reasonable".

There is other wording that could be challenged, I believe...

Again, it is not the sign or any words on it that create any kind of violation- it is only the actual search that could potentially be a violation if it should actually occur. The sign may just be a scare tactic to persuade people to keep people from bringing contraband on campus. There is absolutely nothing wrong with the sign being posted. Until someone is actually searched then there is no argument to consider.

For example, what does "in charge" mean? Is it the intent of the school to indicate the driver of the vehicle in question? However, one could conceivably say "in charge" means the actual owner. Or what if it is a rental car? Or an Amish, horse-drawn wagon? A bicycle, a wheelchair?

It generally means anyone that has control of the vehicle.

What does "area" mean? Does it refer to a 10 foot radius around the sign? Does it refer to the "area" of Tulsa County?

In this case it is quite obvious that "area" means the location beyond the sign where vehicles are driven/parked.

Also is the phrase "school officials". Who is this? The principal? A teacher? The janitor? Who gave "school officials" authority to search my vehicle "with or without cause"?

YOU give officials authority to search when you proceed past the sign. Who those officials with authority are would be up to the school to decide.

"Police officers". Police officers are clearly limited in what they can do. If an officer asks me if they can search my vehicle, I would say respectfully, "Officer, I do not consent to searches." It is then upon the officer to obtain a search warrant clearly stating the "probable cause", the location to be searched, and the items and person(s) to be seized. Clearly a police officer cannot state to a judge that I consented to the search because of a sign posted that has multiple problems. Were an officer to conduct a warrant-less search, I'm pretty sure the liability would be quite high.

Not necessarily. You are right that the police have more rules to follow, and you can certainly indicate that you do not give consent, but that does not mean your vehicle will not be searched. Again, the circumstances at the time will determine what is reasonable, and a police officer may lawfully conduct a search in good faith. It is possible a court could later toss out the search, but the circumstances at the time will factor in to each incident. Police conduct warrantless searches every single day that are legitimate. The 4th Amendment only protects your from UNREASONABLE searches- not ALL searches.

I would not think that I, as law-abiding citizen over the age of 21 gives up any rights, simply because I pass a sign (which I may or may not even see or read). This is a public school. It is public property. Why are there no signs at public parks in this same town? Why are signs like this not posted at all the other schools in the same town?

You do not give up any rights as a result of this sign. The sign allows for you to stay out and not be subject to search. The fact that it is a public school reinforces the legitimate interest that the school has for posting the sign- the school has a responsibility to provide a safe environment for students and is making an effort to control contraband from coming onto the campus. There is no need to post signs all over town- only where they are deemed necessary for public safety.

Your best option here, if you do not want to be subjected to a vehicle search, is to not park your vehicle in that location. You have the right to park elsewhere!

 

[tulsa_citizen]

Mighty Moose, thanks for the information. I have heard these arguments, as well. I understand that there would perhaps have to be a test case, where a warrantless search would be performed. Perhaps that can be arranged.

I'll approach this from another angle. Let's assume the school can "bluff" citizens by posting a sign of this nature. Perhaps their main target is students. I can understand that. But then what message are we sending the students? That it's OK to lie or bluff your way into coercing compliance? Why not, instead, teach them about the Constitution? Teach them their rights, instead?
I've already informed my children that they are not to consent to any searches, period. Whether or not they are "reasonable". My oldest understands this, the youngest probably not, but instilling their Rights into their lives early is important to me.

Now all that said.. there is yet another issue the school has. Their own School-wide policy manual contradicts the wording of the sign. There is an actual policy that states, for example, that a student must "consent" to a bodily search. Another section states that vehicle searches must be "reasonable", directly in contrast with the sign posted. The policy uses the term "inspection" for vehicles instead of "search", though. Not sure if that is significant.
There is a form students must sign to park in school areas. If a student signs the form, they basically give up all their Fourth Amendment rights as it concerns vehicle searches.
What would happen if a student refused to sign the form? Probably they would not be allowed to park in the school parking lot. And that there is another can of worms.

Also, these signs are posted solely where High School-aged students would likely be parking. I believe there would be an age issue, because these signs are not posted, for example, in the teacher's parking lot, or the visitors parking lot. In fact, every other school does not have these signs. Why are only High School-aged citizens being targeted for this bluff?

 

[mightymoose]

I'll approach this from another angle. Let's assume the school can "bluff" citizens by posting a sign of this nature. Perhaps their main target is students. I can understand that. But then what message are we sending the students? That it's OK to lie or bluff your way into coercing compliance? Why not, instead, teach them about the Constitution? Teach them their rights, instead?

I don't see that the school is lying. I think they might be giving notice although there may not be actual intent to perform the search except for special circumstances. Students aren't harmed by this- in fact they should feel better knowing that the school is taking proactive steps to ensure they have a safe campus. If you think the school needs to improve its teaching about the Constitution then you would have to take that up with the school board.

I've already informed my children that they are not to consent to any searches, period. Whether or not they are "reasonable". My oldest understands this, the youngest probably not, but instilling their Rights into their lives early is important to me.

In most cases the school does not need their consent.

Now all that said.. there is yet another issue the school has. Their own School-wide policy manual contradicts the wording of the sign. There is an actual policy that states, for example, that a student must "consent" to a bodily search. Another section states that vehicle searches must be "reasonable", directly in contrast with the sign posted. The policy uses the term "inspection" for vehicles instead of "search", though. Not sure if that is significant.
There is a form students must sign to park in school areas. If a student signs the form, they basically give up all their Fourth Amendment rights as it concerns vehicle searches.

None of this matters. It seems the school has gone to great lengths to make it clear that students and vehicles on the property may be subject to search.

What would happen if a student refused to sign the form? Probably they would not be allowed to park in the school parking lot. And that there is another can of worms.

It isn't a very big can of worms. You don't sign, you don't get the permit. Park somewhere else.

Also, these signs are posted solely where High School-aged students would likely be parking. I believe there would be an age issue, because these signs are not posted, for example, in the teacher's parking lot, or the visitors parking lot. In fact, every other school does not have these signs. Why are only High School-aged citizens being targeted for this bluff?

It seems they placed the signs where they were needed. They don't need to put them all over town at every school.

Read the case of New Jersey v T.L.O.
Think of a vehicle in the parking lot as a really big purse

When it gets down to it- a student could refuse to unlock a car and not allow the search to take place, however the school would most certainly resort to disciplinary measures as a result.