course material

1. Juveniles at the Plaza” or the case study about drug searches in schools
Read either the case study Juveniles at the Plaza or the case study about drug searches in
schools. Both of these cases deal with the legal rights of juveniles and interpretations of law
by the U.S. Supreme Court. Review the Bill of Rights which are the first 10 amendments to
the U.S. Constitution. Here is the Link
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html These Are the
Questions you are to answer for the case you choose. Identify the rights addressed in one of
the case studies. How is the right adjusted to accommodate for juveniles? Why do juveniles
have a modified right compared to adults? How do these modifications change the roles
and priorities of police when dealing with juveniles? Should social justice concepts of
dealing with juveniles take precedence over criminal justice? YOUR DISCUSSION MUST BE
500-750 WORDS IN LENGTH. YOU MUST CITE YOUR WORK PROPERLY WITH SCHOLARLY
RESOURCES. NO PLAIGARIZED WORK. PROVIDE A REFERENCE PAGE UNDER YOUR
ASSIGNMENT. ATTACHED IS A MICROSOFT OFFICE TEMPLATE THAT PROVIDES THE TWO
STORIES, CHOOSE ONE TO WRITE ABOUT. DRUG RELATED SEARCHING STORY In New
Jersey v. T.L.O. (1985) the Court was asked to consider the admissibility of evidence seized
within a school. T.L.O. was a 14-year-old girl who was suspected of violating a school policy
(smoking in the girls’ bathroom). She denied doing so when confronted by the vice
principal. Unconvinced, the vice principal searched her purse and found cigarettes, plus
evidence indicating the student was involved in drug dealing, such as rolling papers, cash,
and a list of other students who owed her money. This evidence was turned over to the
police and used against her in juvenile court. At the time of the search, the vice principal did
not have probable cause to believe evidence was in T.L.O.’s purse, which according to the
Fourth Amendment should have made the search unreasonable and the evidence excluded
from court. However, the Supreme Court viewed this differently, saying that searches by
school officials need to be based on reasonable grounds that they will uncover evidence.
Probable cause or search warrants are not appropriate in these circumstances. Kids in
school have a legitimate expectation of privacy; however, the school also has a need to
maintain a healthy learning environment in which learning can occur. The legality of a
search is based on balancing these two competing needs. In short, school officials may
search students in public schools as long as they adhere to this balance, and do not need
probable cause. Had T.L.O. been searched by a police officer on the street with the same

2. level of evidence, then this search would have likely been considered unreasonable and the
evidence excluded. < pstyle=" margin-bottom: 10px;"> But some searches of students may
be unreasonable. Remember that the Fourth Amendment highlights searches of persons,
houses, papers, and effects —T.L.O.’s purse would be considered an effect, but searches of a
person may be held to a slightly different standard. A vice principal in the Safford Unified
School District #1 received reports that Savana Redding, a 13-year-old middle-school
student, gave prescription pain pills and over-the-counter drugs to other students at school,
which was against school policy. When confronted, Redding denied the allegation and
denied having pills on her. As in T.L.O., the vice principal searched her backpack but found
no pills. Redding was then taken to the school nurse who performed a strip search, having
Redding remove her clothes and pull aside undergarments and shake them out to see if any
pills were being concealed. No pills were found. Redding’s parents sought to sue the school
district for submitting their daughter to the potentially embarrassing strip search. The
Court held that the nature of the strip search requires the school to demonstrate a higher
standard than what was outlined in T.L.O. While the search of her backpack was
permissible, the school had no reason to believe that she was hiding pills in her underwear
at the time they conducted the strip search. The search was intrusive and evasive, and
because it required Redding to expose private parts of her body, it was unreasonable
(Safford Unified School District v. Redding, 2009). Such searches are not legal. The Supreme
Court also indicated that school districts may require students to submit to drug testing as a
condition of participating in extracurricular activities. In Vernonia School District 47J v.
Acton (1995) the Court ruled that schools may enact a policy requiring all students who go
out for athletics to submit to a urinalysis (testing of urine to determine whether drugs are in
the person’s system). They considered that the privacy interests that students have in this
circumstance is quite limited and that the school district had a real concern to make sure
students were not using drugs that could harm them during their athletic training and
events. They went on to say that students could choose whether to participate in school-
sponsored athletics—if they didn’t want to be drug tested, they simply could avoid this by
not going out for sports. Further, the school district ensured that the results of the drug
tests would be confidential and only used to determine whether a student was eligible for
sports, and the results would not be turned over to the police. With this in mind, the Court
further extended drug testing in a follow-up case of Board of Education v. Earls (2002),
which is covered in the Spotlight box. Juveniles at the Plaza Story The Country Club Plaza is
an upscale dining, shopping, and residential district in Kansas City, Missouri. Residents and
nonresidents frequent the entertainment area, and foot traffic is particularly heavy on
Friday and Saturday evenings. The presence of juveniles on the Plaza grew considerably on
summer weekends in 2010 and 2011, and carloads of youngsters streamed into the area
seeking entertainment. Because of the Plaza’s reputation for safety, some parents would
drop off their children (many as young as 13) and pick them up later. Kids would call, e-
mail, or text friends to come join the festive atmosphere, and they would utilize social media
such as Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube to encourage others to join them at the Plaza. <
pstyle=" margin-bottom: 10px;"> The unintended consequence was the occurrence of flash
mobs where large groups of teens would converge on the Plaza, and in doing so, the

3. opportunity for spontaneous violence would increase. Violent, apparently random
outbursts occurred during the summer months of 2011 as police estimated between 700
and 900 kids suddenly appeared in the relatively small entertainment district. Business
owners expressed frustration as these flash mobs deterred adult patrons from visiting the
Plaza on weekend evenings. In response the police department increased the level of officer
presence, diverting officers from regular assignments within the urban core and/or paying
officers overtime to patrol the upscale entertainment area on weekend evenings. This
response put a strain on department resources, making it challenging to offer the same level
of service to other parts of the city. In August 2011, the mayor of Kansas City (along with
other civic leaders) went to the Plaza on a Saturday night to take in the activities for
themselves, speak to participants about public safety, and encourage antiviolence. Suddenly,
gunshots erupted less than 50 yards away from where the mayor was speaking with
citizens. The incident, apparently unrelated to the presence of the mayor and civic leaders’
presence, resulted in three teenagers being shot. Shortly thereafter, a summertime curfew
for youth was implemented on the Plaza and other entertainment areas within the city. This
example is not an isolated event or unique to Kansas City, as similar violent youth flash mob
events have been reported in other urban areas (Houston, Seo, Kennedy, & Knight, 2012).
Hypothesized causes of the Plaza flash mobs of 2010 and 2011 are numerous (e.g., lack of
safe, accessible alternative hangout spots for youth; kids wanting to express themselves and
be seen where other teens are, etc.), but like most violence in America, the police are
typically the first element of the criminal justice system to intervene and often the group
that is immediately held accountable to promote public safety. Egon Bittner (1967) said that
the role of the police is to address something-that-ought-not-to-be-happening-and-about-
which-somebody-had-better-do-something-now, and often the initial something is to
increase deterrent presence and/or increase enforcement action. But this also highlights
the fact that the police-juvenile relationship is dynamic and historically strained—
juveniles
represent a special population in which the police interact, and youth typically harbor less
favorable attitudes toward and confidence in the police than their adult counterparts.
Understanding this relationship is critical in order to identify crime prevention strategies to
curb youth violence in America. < pstyle=" margin-bottom: 10px;">Click here to get this
paper done by our professional writers at an affordable price!!