Abstract
Purpose. This study describes the conduct implications of qualified immunity in allegations of the deprivation of civil rights by public school administrators regarding the Fourth Amendment—search and seizure. This study provides an up-to-date resource for public school administrators regarding the conduct implications of the Fourth Amendment—search and seizure—in dealing with public school students on public school campuses. Having this up-to-date body of knowledge assists administrators in better protecting themselves from civil liability including monetary damages and attorney's fees. Methodology. This research included using the West Reporters and Digests to cross-reference and track any case between 1974 and 2004 that was identified by West as being on the topic of qualified immunity and the Fourth Amendment. The presentation and treatment of these cases were organized by the topics treated within each case. The discussion of these cases has been further separated to subgroups of cases by not only the search methods utilized by administrators, but also whether or not the student's Fourth Amendment rights were violated and if qualified immunity was granted. Findings. The researcher found thirty-six cases on point between the date ranges of 1974 to 2004. The cases were divided and discussed by separating them into the following topic categories: Defiant/Disruptive Student, Drugs, Missing Property/Money, Property Damage, School Rules, Threat of Violence, and Weapon. The cases were then further subdivided by the outcomes of the cases. Conclusions. To examine the findings as a whole leads to some broad generalizations for administrator conduct implications; that is, a general conclusion would be that the more risk involved, as far as danger to students, the more latitude the courts will grant for intrusive searches. The other broad conclusion would be that administrators who made logical connections before searching or making a search more intrusive seemed to be granted qualified immunity more often than not. That is to say, in obviously difficult and stressful situations, officials who were able to allow the evidence and information dictate their next steps seemed to fare very well in the eyes of the courts.