Colin ColemanEnglish 111_67 5/3/15Students rights come first School should be a safe place for students; where they can prosper and grow academically, not a place they have to worry about theyre rights being violated at any time. Public school officials have been violating the rights to privacy of students for years by performing searches on any student they suspect of wrong doing thus leaving students and parents across the board fed up. Court systems countrywide have seen immense amounts of cases concerning these violations of rights, but yet every school year students are affected by the negative consequences of their rights being violated in these searches. These unreasonable, non-consensual, and unjustified violations of students rights to privacy are in direct conflict with students fourth amendment rights and will not go unnoticed.Public school officials have taken these searches to such extremes, that many students have been left feeling humiliated and even frightened to return to school after being unreasonably searched. All unreasonable searches done by school officials are violations of students rights to privacy. In a court case in 2009 a thirteen-year-old honor student named Savana was unreasonably strip searched on suspicion of bringing high strength ibuprofen to school Savana was escorted to the school nurse's office to search her clothes for pills. After a female administrative assistant and the nurse had Savana remove her outer clothing, they ordered her to pull her bra out and shake it, and to pull out the elastic on her underwear, thus partially exposing her breasts and pelvic area. No pills were found (Essex). After Savana said, she felt frightened, demoralized, and humiliated as a result of the invasion of her privacy (Essex). In no way was Savana reasonably searched for the wrong doings she was being accused of, but instead had her rights trampled by the school officials. No student should ever undergo a search by a school official not to mention a strip search for simply being accused of bringing a drug to school. This is in direct violation of students rights because the school does not have any reasonable evidence of any wrongdoing. Unreasonable searches such as these should be disallowed because of their violation of students rights and courts should set stricter rules for schools presented with similar issues in the future so that other students dont have to experience the humiliation Savana did.The search of innocent students who dont give consent to be searched has been a growing issue as well. These non consensual search of students by school officials is a violation of privacy and distract students from learning and leaves students feeling school isnt a safe place anymore leading to an overall bad learning environment. In a court case in Arizona Brian a student, was taken aside by the teachers and the dean, who believed that a bulge in his crotch area was drugs. When asked to accompany them to the office, Brian became agitated and yelled obscenities. Permission was sought from Brian's mother to conduct the search, but the parent refused to grant permission. The search was conducted in the locker room without the parent's consent by requiring Brian to strip and put on a gym uniform. Visual inspection took place. No drugs were found (Essex). Brians rights where violated as he was harassed and searched illegally with no grounds he was in the wrong and without his consent. In cases like this when innocent students are harassed for doing nothing more than going to school and trying to learn they are getting their rights directly violated.Searches of public school students by school officials are an unjustified violation of students rights. A school official should deem no search justifiable, and that decision should be left up to the authorities or its a violation of students rights. In an interview with District Attorney Evert N. Fowle who has close to thirty years of experience, Fowle was quoted as saying Police are better equipped and better trained to conduct the investigation than school officials are, I think it is wise for the school and local police agency to work in concert (Hickey). School officials should not be given the right to search students at their own discretion because they are no more qualified than the student to determine whether a search is justified or not.Students in U.S. public schools have the Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches. This right is diminished in the school environment, because of the unique need to maintain a safe atmosphere where learning and teaching can occur. Schools must strike a balance between the student's right to privacy and the need to maintain school safety (ehlenberger). Of course the main point for public school officials performing searches is for the overall well being of the students, but in doing so students should be treated fairly and not be stripped of their rights.These unreasonable, non-consensual, and unjustified searches violation of students rights to privacy are serious problems that must be addressed. School should be a place students feel safe and supported not defensive of their rights. This is a growing problem school officials need work to find a way to fix by continuing to maintain the safety of their schools but without robbing their students of their basic rights.Works cited Hickey, Colin. Blethen Maine,News Service. "Strip-Searches at School Enter Murky Legal Area." Portland Press HeraldOct 08 2007. ProQuest. Web. 3 May 2015.Ehlenberger, Kate R. "The Right to Search Students." Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. N.p., Dec. 2001. Web. 3 May 2015.Essex, Nathan. "The U.S. Supreme Court Raises the Bar for Strip Searches in Public Schools." The Clearing House 83.3 (2010): 105-8. ProQuest. Web. 29 Apr. 2015.Essex, Nathan L. "Intrusive Searches can Prove Troublesome for Public School Officials." The Clearing House 76.4 (2003): 195-7. ProQuest. Web. 3 May 2015.Jensen, J. N. "Don't Rush to Abandon a Suspicion-Based Standard for Searches of Public School Students." Brigham Young University Law Review 2000.2 (2000): 695-711. ProQuest. Web. 3 May 2015.