Fourth Amendment Rights and Student Privacy in Schools

Opening Statement

Your Honor, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, good afternoon. My name is [Student] and I will be the Prosecutor representing the State of California.

The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution is just as important as any other amendment in the most important legal document in our nation. The Fourth Amendment offers all American citizens protection against unlawful searches and seizures. It ensures that no unreasonable search and seizure shall infringe on our right to privacy.

However, the ways that the Fourth Amendment is applied in daily life are relatively flexible. Sometimes we surrender our right to privacy — such as when we enter a government building and allow our purses and our persons to be searched. That is what this case is all about: the reasonable application of the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution. We are going to encourage you to think hard about the nature of the Constitution, what it is designed to do, who it is designed to protect, and why. Do you believe it would be unreasonable to protect the nation's students while they are at school?

Another issue to consider is crime. A crime has been committed here, ladies and gentlemen — of this we are sure. California law clearly states that any attempt, however seemingly insignificant, to defraud a person of their money is considered theft. The value of property stolen in this case is relatively easy to determine because the property at stake was purchased over the internet. The items and their value are therefore easily traceable.

The Credit Card Fraud Scheme

Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, the police department of Mansfield, California was astonished to find their switchboards lighting up more than usual with calls from all over the city — calls reporting credit card fraud. How would you feel if your credit card bill suddenly showed a list of items you had never purchased? You would most certainly feel violated.

We the prosecution will show you that the defendant, a mature young lady named Madison Casco, knowingly took and then used the credit card numbers of people just like you and me to obtain products over the internet. She used her neighbors' credit cards — even one belonging to one of her favorite teachers — to buy these items. She purchased things like a digital camera with other people's money, and then — and here is where her scheme truly reveals itself — Madison Casco sold those items at a profit to her fellow students.

We are talking about Grand Theft, ladies and gentlemen. What do you think of when you think of Grand Theft? Stolen cars, perhaps? This young lady had at her fingertips the ability to purchase items as expensive as an automobile. We will show you in no uncertain terms what the defendant bought — or rather, stole. We will also introduce you to some of the victims of the crime, including the defendant's best friend — or we should say, her former best friend. The value of the stolen goods in this case far exceeds the $400 minimum that legally constitutes grand theft.

You might be asking: how naive is the defendant, really? She is young. She seems innocent. She is someone's daughter. You may rightly feel some sympathy for a young lady who should be at the mall or spending time with friends, and who instead sits in a courtroom in California accused of a major crime. Perhaps you are thinking she should receive a slap on the wrist — how could she mean to hurt anyone?

We want you to think hard about the credit cards in your wallet and the hard-earned money you use to make purchases. We the State of California are going to introduce you to the victims of this crime. We want you to put yourself in their shoes and ask how you would feel if someone obtained your personal information — your private information, your identity — and used it to commit Grand Theft.

Fourth Amendment and School Searches

Now, the defense is going to try to steer your attention away from the crime that was committed and will argue that the police were not entitled to use canines in their search at Mansfield High School. Of course, we as the State believe fully in the protection of your rights and freedoms as Americans. We hold strong to the Fourth Amendment.

But in this case, these young people were attending school. A key phrase in this trial is "reasonable expectation of privacy." You and I have a reasonable expectation of privacy in our own homes. But every time we enter a government building — such as a school — we knowingly surrender a measure of that privacy in order to protect the common good. It is part of living in a larger society.

Legal precedent has also shown us that schools are qualitatively different from our homes. Principals and schools have what the Supreme Court has referred to as "special needs." The "standard for reasonableness is lower than the probable cause requirement for most searches" (New Jersey v. T.L.O., p. 20). This is the key to understanding this case. Schools like Mansfield High have a special role in the community and therefore have special needs. The Supreme Court has found that the standard for reasonableness is reduced when a search occurs in a school setting rather than in a private home. We intend to show you in greater detail why this is the case, drawing on several issues the Supreme Court outlined in similar school-related search cases.