|
DianaAvilaFirstPaper 3 - 09 May 2025 - Main.DianaAvila
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="FirstPaper" |
|---|
| | | -- By DianaAvila - 26 Mar 2025
Introduction | |
<
< | Growing up, a unique, but common aspect of a community like mine was the policing that occurred within the walls of a school. Police officers and sheriffs roamed our hallways, this wasn’t something usual. Matter of fact, it was so normalized that we knew the names of the police officers who rotated in and out. Even though we knew their names, this did not mean we were friends nor were we “cool.” In reality, it was the complete opposite, they were there to scrutinize and criminalize every single movement we made in our schools.
The officers on campus conducted sweeps, had K-9s on campus, and arrested students on site. This was all very perplexing to me because the way they presented themselves to us was more a staff role, rather than law enforcement. I still remember the first sweep I experienced. One day we were in class learning whatever the subject was, the next there were police officers telling us to leave all of our belongings in the classroom, but that we had to step outside. Next thing you know, there was a K-9 unit going into the classroom. I still remember the police officers that were waiting outside with us looking at us. They even came up to a few of us to ask us questions. And even in that moment, I didn’t understand why, but as I grew older I knew. It was because we were Black and Brown.
Another memory I had was watching one of my loved ones being constantly scrutinized by police officers for things like how he dressed, who he hung around with, and how he spoke. I even saw him get arrested a few times, frisked another, suspended, and expelled. That same loved one was pushed into the prison system. Another Brown boy who was failed by the system simply because of how we looked and where we lived. The saddest part, this was not the only person I grew up with that was pushed into the school to prison pipeline. | >
> | Growing up, a unique, but common aspect of a community like mine was the policing that occurred within our schools. Police officers and sheriffs roamed our hallways, this wasn’t something usual. Matter of fact, it was so normalized that we knew the names of the police officers who rotated in and out. The officers on campus conducted sweeps, had K-9s on campus, and arrested students on site. This was all very perplexing to me because the way they presented themselves to us was more a staff role, rather than law enforcement. I still remember the first sweep I experienced. One day we were in class learning whatever the subject was, the next there were police officers telling us to leave all of our belongings in the classroom. This was only one of the many lived experiences where I saw how the school to prison pipeline hindered our success. | | | Fourth Amendment in Schools | |
<
< | This came to mind when we discussed all the layers of the Fourth Amendment and the protections that are meant to come with it. The focus of a lot of it is on adults, arrests in areas other than schools, etc. Which to me, leaves one of the most vulnerable communities to fend for themselves, if even that. One thing about all of this that is very perplexing to me is that law enforcement is usually held to a probable cause standard unless very pressing circumstances are present that would make reasonable suspicion permissible. Yet, when it comes to a school setting, the standard is probable cause. The case law that is the basis for this is T.L.O v. New Jersey. Here the court discusses the need to protect schools and puts it on a balancing scale against the expectation of privacy of students. There is a constant back and forth between courts and whether or not officers at schools should be held to probable cause or reasonable suspicion.
This is not a sufficient analysis of the decision for our purposes. You are writing about "school resource officers" who are police, conducting searches and arrests. TLO v. New Jersey considers warrantless searches by school officials not police, not acting as law enforcement officers, for the purpose of school discipline. All justices agreed that warrants are not constitutionally necessary under those conditions. Whether "reasonable suspicion" is "reasonable" for constitutional purposes is worthy of discussion, and if that's the point of the draft then you should have looked more closely at the Brennan opinion's handling of that point.
| >
> | This came to mind when we discussed all the layers of the Fourth Amendment and the protections that are meant to come with it. The focus of a lot of it is on adults, arrests in areas other than schools, etc. Which to me, leaves one of the most vulnerable communities to fend for themselves, if even that. One thing about all of this that is very daunting to me is that law enforcement is usually held to a probable cause standard unless very pressing circumstances are present that would make reasonable suspicion permissible. Yet, when it comes to a school setting, the standard is probable cause. The case law that is the basis for this is T.L.O v. New Jersey. Here the court discusses the need to protect schools and puts it on a balancing scale against the expectation of privacy of students. The court argued that the officers served as school officials which made the reasonable suspicion permissible and the standard expectation of privacy was not to be expected in school settings. However, this presents to be worrisome because it was evident that these “officials” were in fact officers through training and experience. The dialogue of whether SROs are staff or officers is the reason why many courts are split on what standard to hold them to. | | |
Reasonable Suspicion vs Probable Cause? | |
<
< | From my perspective, reasonable suspicion is too risky and loose. Particularly, in the circumstances of students of color. A lot of schools in low income neighborhoods run strict procedures like the ones I experienced above, but also have other security measures in place like metal detectors and ID scans. All of which beg the question of how much privacy should students really expect on campus? And how much does a school setting really affect that expectation?
And how would saying that teacher searches should be based on probable cause to believe that rules are violated and the party searched is violating them change the reality on the ground from the statement that the teacher had reasonable suspicion to believe that the rules were being violated and the student was violating them?
Getting from the teacher search of a handbag in TLO to police with dogs searching classrooms, or the installation of metal detectors at entrances is another set of questions, which you seem to think should be "rolled in," as though nothing more than the decision in TLO were needed to get there. But that's not really how the law or the facts developed, is it?
Reasonable suspicion, to me, is very ambiguous because what really defines a “suspicion?” The other issue that concerns me is the room that this specific standard allots to the introduction of racial bias, whether explicit or implicit. The criminal system is already a pervasive issue in communities of color from the lack of resources and criminalization these communities undergo. Which inherently means that the children of these communities are not only under attack in their communities, but at their schools which are oftentimes seen as one of the only protective layers they have. School resource officers (law enforcement) play a key role in changing the lives of these students through the school to prison pipeline. There have been studies where these officers admit that they see students of color as the threat and are concerned more about what goes on inside the school.
"There have been studies"? This is where you cite and discuss them, right?
Whereas with their white counterparts, the threats are seen as external – what goes on outside of the schools. There is also research that shows that students of color receive harsher punishments for the same “disruptive” behavior their white counterparts display. | >
> | From my perspective, reasonable suspicion is too risky and broad given that it can be rooted in suspicion, observation, speculation, and sometimes even a hunch. This allows a lot of room for interpretation amongst SROs, space that can be affected by external/internal factors like implicit racial bias. Therefore, how does a “suspicion” remain neutral? The criminal system is already a pervasive issue in communities of color from the lack of resources and criminalization these communities undergo. Which inherently means that the children of these communities are not only under attack in their communities, but at their schools which are oftentimes seen as one of the only protective layers they have. School resource officers (law enforcement) play a key role in changing the lives of these students through the school to prison pipeline. There have been studies where these officers admit that they see students of color as the threat and are concerned more about what goes on inside the school. Whereas with their white counterparts, the threats are seen as external – what goes on outside of the schools. (Benjamin W Fisher et al., Protecting the Flock or Policing the Sheep? Differences in School Resource Officers’ Perceptions of Threats by School Racial Composition, 69 Sᴏᴄ. Pʀᴏʙʟᴇᴍs 316, 316 (2022)).There is also research that shows that students of color receive harsher punishments for the same “disruptive” behavior their white counterparts display. (Olivia Seksinsky, Disrupting the School-to-Prison Pipeline: Reforming the Role of the School Resource Officer, 24 Rɪᴄʜ. Pᴜʙ. Iɴᴛ. L. Rᴇᴠ. 141-142 (2021)). | | | | |
>
> | To me, having a probable cause standard creates not only uniformity, but has the potential to reduce the harm done to this particular group of students. In K.S. v. State, we see the effect of a probable cause standard. Here the SRO had an actual factual basis that supported the arrest. The court stated that probable cause are “terms of facts and circumstances sufficient to warrant a prudent man in believing that the suspect had committed or was committing an offense.” Not just a hunch. In the current state we’re in, SROs should not be viewed as school officials because they do not receive specialized training nor is there any required training to ensure they are equipped to handle school matters. Their governing office sees them as law enforcement. Therefore, not holding them to probable cause is bewildering. In any setting, basing a search on a reasonable suspicion presents a clear opportunity to violate the privacy of one’s body, home, etc. In the case of schools, it is understandable why there might be a lower expectation of privacy, but a baseless search is dangerous. In a perfect world, it would apply equally across the board, but as mentioned, students of color are the most vulnerable. | | |
Conclusion | |
<
< | My conflict is with why the standard even changes for SROs. They do not receive school specific training, are not specialized in student behavior, amongst other things. The most daunting of all, they are not supposed to engage in school discipline. I worry for the future of students of color on campuses that are policed. I saw first hand the harmful effects it has, but now I see the legal implications that arise. There is no reason why a sworn-in officer, who only has that kind of training, should be held to a different standard solely based on location. Proponents of SROs believe they serve the purpose of minimizing crime and building positive relationships with students. The truth is, that is not the reality for this particular group of students. Their identities put them at risk and may be decisive for what their future may look like. Students should not only be protected via a probable cause standard, but there should be an expectation of privacy. Many try to argue that SROs are needed to prevent incidents like school shootings, but maybe it is time to accept that this is not the reality.
So perhaps it would be good to offer a factual argument about the reality?
Oftentimes there is even hesitancy to prevent them. It is time to admit that SROs serve no real purpose, and seem to only feed students of color into the public health crisis known as the school to prison pipeline.
The best way to improve the draft is to use more words on the facts and the law. Your editorial position is clear and well-expressed, but you could say it more economically, and there is need for both legal analysis and reference to factual research, as I indicate above. A firmer basis would build stronger writing; without it, you have an opinion piece but not really one that shows your learning.
| >
> | In People v. Dilworth’s dissent it states “cannot agree with the majority that a police officer whose self-stated primary duty is to investigate and prevent criminal activity may search a student on school ground on a lesser fourth amendment standard than probable cause merely because the police officer is permanently assigned to the school and is listed in the student handbook as a member of the school staff.” And this is something that many should keep in mind. A lower standard in combination with the implicit bias many officers on school campuses carry, create an unsafe environment for students. Proponents of SROs believe they serve the purpose of minimizing crime and building positive relationships with students. The truth is, that is not the reality for this particular group of students. Their identities put them at risk and may be decisive for what their future may look like. Many try to argue that SROs are needed to prevent incidents like school shootings, but we have often seen how this is not the reality. | | |
|
|
|
DianaAvilaFirstPaper 2 - 05 May 2025 - Main.EbenMoglen
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="FirstPaper" |
|---|
| |
<
< | It is strongly recommended that you include your outline in the body of your essay by using the outline as section titles. The headings below are there to remind you how section and subsection titles are formatted. | | | Schools or Prisons? | | | Fourth Amendment in Schools
This came to mind when we discussed all the layers of the Fourth Amendment and the protections that are meant to come with it. The focus of a lot of it is on adults, arrests in areas other than schools, etc. Which to me, leaves one of the most vulnerable communities to fend for themselves, if even that. One thing about all of this that is very perplexing to me is that law enforcement is usually held to a probable cause standard unless very pressing circumstances are present that would make reasonable suspicion permissible. Yet, when it comes to a school setting, the standard is probable cause. The case law that is the basis for this is T.L.O v. New Jersey. Here the court discusses the need to protect schools and puts it on a balancing scale against the expectation of privacy of students. There is a constant back and forth between courts and whether or not officers at schools should be held to probable cause or reasonable suspicion. | |
>
> |
This is not a sufficient analysis of the decision for our purposes. You are writing about "school resource officers" who are police, conducting searches and arrests. TLO v. New Jersey considers warrantless searches by school officials not police, not acting as law enforcement officers, for the purpose of school discipline. All justices agreed that warrants are not constitutionally necessary under those conditions. Whether "reasonable suspicion" is "reasonable" for constitutional purposes is worthy of discussion, and if that's the point of the draft then you should have looked more closely at the Brennan opinion's handling of that point.
| | | Reasonable Suspicion vs Probable Cause?
From my perspective, reasonable suspicion is too risky and loose. Particularly, in the circumstances of students of color. A lot of schools in low income neighborhoods run strict procedures like the ones I experienced above, but also have other security measures in place like metal detectors and ID scans. All of which beg the question of how much privacy should students really expect on campus? And how much does a school setting really affect that expectation? | |
<
< | Reasonable suspicion, to me, is very ambiguous because what really defines a “suspicion?” The other issue that concerns me is the room that this specific standard allots to the introduction of racial bias, whether explicit or implicit. The criminal system is already a pervasive issue in communities of color from the lack of resources and criminalization these communities undergo. Which inherently means that the children of these communities are not only under attack in their communities, but at their schools which are oftentimes seen as one of the only protective layers they have. School resource officers (law enforcement) play a key role in changing the lives of these students through the school to prison pipeline. There have been studies where these officers admit that they see students of color as the threat and are concerned more about what goes on inside the school. Whereas with their white counterparts, the threats are seen as external – what goes on outside of the schools. There is also research that shows that students of color receive harsher punishments for the same “disruptive” behavior their white counterparts display. | >
> |
And how would saying that teacher searches should be based on probable cause to believe that rules are violated and the party searched is violating them change the reality on the ground from the statement that the teacher had reasonable suspicion to believe that the rules were being violated and the student was violating them?
Getting from the teacher search of a handbag in TLO to police with dogs searching classrooms, or the installation of metal detectors at entrances is another set of questions, which you seem to think should be "rolled in," as though nothing more than the decision in TLO were needed to get there. But that's not really how the law or the facts developed, is it?
Reasonable suspicion, to me, is very ambiguous because what really defines a “suspicion?” The other issue that concerns me is the room that this specific standard allots to the introduction of racial bias, whether explicit or implicit. The criminal system is already a pervasive issue in communities of color from the lack of resources and criminalization these communities undergo. Which inherently means that the children of these communities are not only under attack in their communities, but at their schools which are oftentimes seen as one of the only protective layers they have. School resource officers (law enforcement) play a key role in changing the lives of these students through the school to prison pipeline. There have been studies where these officers admit that they see students of color as the threat and are concerned more about what goes on inside the school.
"There have been studies"? This is where you cite and discuss them, right?
Whereas with their white counterparts, the threats are seen as external – what goes on outside of the schools. There is also research that shows that students of color receive harsher punishments for the same “disruptive” behavior their white counterparts display. | | |
Conclusion | |
<
< | My conflict is with why the standard even changes for SROs. They do not receive school specific training, are not specialized in student behavior, amongst other things. The most daunting of all, they are not supposed to engage in school discipline. I worry for the future of students of color on campuses that are policed. I saw first hand the harmful effects it has, but now I see the legal implications that arise. There is no reason why a sworn-in officer, who only has that kind of training, should be held to a different standard solely based on location. Proponents of SROs believe they serve the purpose of minimizing crime and building positive relationships with students. The truth is, that is not the reality for this particular group of students. Their identities put them at risk and may be decisive for what their future may look like. Students should not only be protected via a probable cause standard, but there should be an expectation of privacy. Many try to argue that SROs are needed to prevent incidents like school shootings, but maybe it is time to accept that this is not the reality. Oftentimes there is even hesitancy to prevent them. It is time to admit that SROs serve no real purpose, and seem to only feed students of color into the public health crisis known as the school to prison pipeline. | >
> | My conflict is with why the standard even changes for SROs. They do not receive school specific training, are not specialized in student behavior, amongst other things. The most daunting of all, they are not supposed to engage in school discipline. I worry for the future of students of color on campuses that are policed. I saw first hand the harmful effects it has, but now I see the legal implications that arise. There is no reason why a sworn-in officer, who only has that kind of training, should be held to a different standard solely based on location. Proponents of SROs believe they serve the purpose of minimizing crime and building positive relationships with students. The truth is, that is not the reality for this particular group of students. Their identities put them at risk and may be decisive for what their future may look like. Students should not only be protected via a probable cause standard, but there should be an expectation of privacy. Many try to argue that SROs are needed to prevent incidents like school shootings, but maybe it is time to accept that this is not the reality.
So perhaps it would be good to offer a factual argument about the reality?
Oftentimes there is even hesitancy to prevent them. It is time to admit that SROs serve no real purpose, and seem to only feed students of color into the public health crisis known as the school to prison pipeline. | | | | |
>
> |
The best way to improve the draft is to use more words on the facts and the law. Your editorial position is clear and well-expressed, but you could say it more economically, and there is need for both legal analysis and reference to factual research, as I indicate above. A firmer basis would build stronger writing; without it, you have an opinion piece but not really one that shows your learning.
| | |
|
|
|
DianaAvilaFirstPaper 1 - 26 Mar 2025 - Main.DianaAvila
|
|
>
> |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="FirstPaper" |
|---|
It is strongly recommended that you include your outline in the body of your essay by using the outline as section titles. The headings below are there to remind you how section and subsection titles are formatted.
Schools or Prisons?
-- By DianaAvila - 26 Mar 2025
Introduction
Growing up, a unique, but common aspect of a community like mine was the policing that occurred within the walls of a school. Police officers and sheriffs roamed our hallways, this wasn’t something usual. Matter of fact, it was so normalized that we knew the names of the police officers who rotated in and out. Even though we knew their names, this did not mean we were friends nor were we “cool.” In reality, it was the complete opposite, they were there to scrutinize and criminalize every single movement we made in our schools.
The officers on campus conducted sweeps, had K-9s on campus, and arrested students on site. This was all very perplexing to me because the way they presented themselves to us was more a staff role, rather than law enforcement. I still remember the first sweep I experienced. One day we were in class learning whatever the subject was, the next there were police officers telling us to leave all of our belongings in the classroom, but that we had to step outside. Next thing you know, there was a K-9 unit going into the classroom. I still remember the police officers that were waiting outside with us looking at us. They even came up to a few of us to ask us questions. And even in that moment, I didn’t understand why, but as I grew older I knew. It was because we were Black and Brown.
Another memory I had was watching one of my loved ones being constantly scrutinized by police officers for things like how he dressed, who he hung around with, and how he spoke. I even saw him get arrested a few times, frisked another, suspended, and expelled. That same loved one was pushed into the prison system. Another Brown boy who was failed by the system simply because of how we looked and where we lived. The saddest part, this was not the only person I grew up with that was pushed into the school to prison pipeline.
Fourth Amendment in Schools
This came to mind when we discussed all the layers of the Fourth Amendment and the protections that are meant to come with it. The focus of a lot of it is on adults, arrests in areas other than schools, etc. Which to me, leaves one of the most vulnerable communities to fend for themselves, if even that. One thing about all of this that is very perplexing to me is that law enforcement is usually held to a probable cause standard unless very pressing circumstances are present that would make reasonable suspicion permissible. Yet, when it comes to a school setting, the standard is probable cause. The case law that is the basis for this is T.L.O v. New Jersey. Here the court discusses the need to protect schools and puts it on a balancing scale against the expectation of privacy of students. There is a constant back and forth between courts and whether or not officers at schools should be held to probable cause or reasonable suspicion.
Reasonable Suspicion vs Probable Cause?
From my perspective, reasonable suspicion is too risky and loose. Particularly, in the circumstances of students of color. A lot of schools in low income neighborhoods run strict procedures like the ones I experienced above, but also have other security measures in place like metal detectors and ID scans. All of which beg the question of how much privacy should students really expect on campus? And how much does a school setting really affect that expectation?
Reasonable suspicion, to me, is very ambiguous because what really defines a “suspicion?” The other issue that concerns me is the room that this specific standard allots to the introduction of racial bias, whether explicit or implicit. The criminal system is already a pervasive issue in communities of color from the lack of resources and criminalization these communities undergo. Which inherently means that the children of these communities are not only under attack in their communities, but at their schools which are oftentimes seen as one of the only protective layers they have. School resource officers (law enforcement) play a key role in changing the lives of these students through the school to prison pipeline. There have been studies where these officers admit that they see students of color as the threat and are concerned more about what goes on inside the school. Whereas with their white counterparts, the threats are seen as external – what goes on outside of the schools. There is also research that shows that students of color receive harsher punishments for the same “disruptive” behavior their white counterparts display.
Conclusion
My conflict is with why the standard even changes for SROs. They do not receive school specific training, are not specialized in student behavior, amongst other things. The most daunting of all, they are not supposed to engage in school discipline. I worry for the future of students of color on campuses that are policed. I saw first hand the harmful effects it has, but now I see the legal implications that arise. There is no reason why a sworn-in officer, who only has that kind of training, should be held to a different standard solely based on location. Proponents of SROs believe they serve the purpose of minimizing crime and building positive relationships with students. The truth is, that is not the reality for this particular group of students. Their identities put them at risk and may be decisive for what their future may look like. Students should not only be protected via a probable cause standard, but there should be an expectation of privacy. Many try to argue that SROs are needed to prevent incidents like school shootings, but maybe it is time to accept that this is not the reality. Oftentimes there is even hesitancy to prevent them. It is time to admit that SROs serve no real purpose, and seem to only feed students of color into the public health crisis known as the school to prison pipeline.
You are entitled to restrict access to your paper if you want to. But we all derive immense benefit from reading one another's work, and I hope you won't feel the need unless the subject matter is personal and its disclosure would be harmful or undesirable.
To restrict access to your paper simply delete the "#" character on the next two lines:
Note: TWiki has strict formatting rules for preference declarations. Make sure you preserve the three spaces, asterisk, and extra space at the beginning of these lines. If you wish to give access to any other users simply add them to the comma separated ALLOWTOPICVIEW list. |
|
|