Balancing Privacy and Safety in Schools: The Constitutional Way
By Ariella Adjangba-Baker 5/31/25
The horror that swept through my entire school upon learning a teacher had been fired for possession of illegal photographs is etched in my memory.
Although rumors of his crimes circulated for months, I dismissed them as hearsay. After my principal obtained proof from his laptop that confirmed the rumors, however, I had no reason to question their validity. His contract termination begged one question: if it was based on photographs kept on his personal device, how were they obtained by our principal? Albeit a valid inquiry, the primary concern was that a teacher committed a crime; by finding evidence of the crime on his device, my peers and I were protected.
Some argue developments similar to the aforementioned infringe upon our rights, but this fallacy contradicts the specific wording of the Fourth Amendment: “The right of the people to be secure…against unreasonable searches and seizures.” Although the Fourth Amendment prevents those in positions of power from invading an individual’s privacy sans restraint, deliberate use of ‘unreasonable’ and precedents set by the Supreme Court affirm warrantless searches are not invasive of one’s rights if conditions make it necessary.
In 1985, a teacher caught a student smoking in the bathroom and brought her to an administrator. The teacher’s allegations provided the administrator “probable cause”(1) to search her bag, where he found evidence of her selling marijuana. She attempted to suppress the evidence in court by arguing the search violated her Fourth Amendment right, but the motion failed and she was found guilty. Despite multiple appeals, in the case New Jersey v. T.L.O, the Supreme Court maintained her conviction because “students’ expectation of privacy must be balanced against the needs of school authorities to maintain an educational environment.”(2) The ruling asserted the legality of warrantless searches based on reasonable suspicion and averred that “the Fourth Amendment applies to public school teachers.”(3) Therefore, owing to New Jersey v. T.L.O., school officials retain the right to warrantlessly search students’ property with the intent to uphold safety.
This was further demonstrated when, in 1995, a high school student was prohibited from playing football after failing to participate in drug testing. Despite appeals, the decision was vindicated in Vernonia School District v. Acton; the Supreme Court averred that “the governmental concern over the safety of minors…overrides the minimal, if any, intrusion in student-athletes’ privacy.”(4) By upholding the school’s decision, the Supreme Court alludes to the constitutionality of searches based on the presumption of danger.
Conversely, in the case of Riley v. California, the Supreme Court affirmed that warrantless searches serve to preserve officer safety; since digital devices fail to pose immediate harm to officers, they are alternatively instructed to “preserve [digital] evidence while awaiting a warrant”(5) to avoid deletion of evidence. This limits the scope of authorities’ autonomy by exposing the unduly nature of digital searches precluding a warrant obtainment.
Accordingly, Supreme Court precedent maintains the right of authorities to uphold safety via warrantless searches. As they’ve acknowledged, digital devices largely abstain from posing an immediate threat to safety. Thus, a warrant is typically required before searching a cell phone.
In terms of schools, officials maintain the right to conduct searches to preserve an efficient learning environment; simultaneously, students uphold their Fourth Amendment right to remain invulnerable to unreasonable searches and seizures. This construct is parallel to a key foundation of the country—the Social Contract. Citizens voluntarily surrender some rights for social order and stability; analogously, students give up some freedoms for protection and safety.
The Fourth Amendment does not provide absolute protection over warrantless searches and seizures, but rather protection from those that are unreasonable. Supreme Court precedent underscores school officials’ duty to maintain effective learning environments without transgressing the privacy of students. Warrantless searches of lockers or backpacks are requisite as they risk holding drugs, weapons, and other jeopardizing contents; in cases of cell phones, however, they lack immediate threat. To search them without a warrant would be a Fourth Amendment contravention as they lack immediate threat. Furthermore, as 97 percent of students use their cell phone throughout the school day(6), officials shall maintain the right to limit students’ use of their devices—including restrictive measures such as the seizure of cell phones—on school grounds to champion an effective learning environment. Therefore, for school officials to achieve an optimal learning environment, safety measures and restrictions must be utilized without overstepping.
1 U.S. Const. amend. IV
2“Facts and Case Summary – New Jersey v. T.L.O.” United States Courts,
www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/educational-resources/educational-activities/fourth-amendment-ac tivities/new-jersey-v-tlo/facts-and-case-summary-new-jersey-v-tlo. Accessed 17 May 2025.
3“Facts and Case Summary – New Jersey v. T.L.O.” United States Courts,
www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/educational-resources/educational-activities/fourth-amendment-ac tivities/new-jersey-v-tlo/facts-and-case-summary-new-jersey-v-tlo. Accessed 17 May 2025.
4″Vernonia School District 47J v. Acton.” Oyez, www.oyez.org/cases/1994/94-590. Accessed 18 May 2025.
5″Riley v. California.” Oyez, www.oyez.org/cases/2013/13-132. Accessed 23 May 2025.
6 Klein, Alyson. “Students Get Hundreds of Notifications on Their Phones Every Day. Even at School.” Education Week, Education Week, 16 Apr. 2024,
www.edweek.org/technology/students-get-hundreds-of-notifications-on-their-phones-every-day-even-at-sc hool/2023/09. Accessed 23 May 2025.
