Brief of Amicus Curiae TeamChild
Hillary Behrman
David Huneryager
Nicole McGrath
SimpleOriginal

Summary

A student subjected to school discipline practices like SROs will be at greater risk for involvement in the criminal justice system. This Court should take into account the use of SROs in the school environment.

Share Resource

2011 | State Juristiction

Brief of Amicus Curiae TeamChild

Keywords Zero Tolerance policies; children; teens; school; students; law enforcement; juvenile justice system; search and seizure; searches; school discipline policies
Screenshot 2024-07-01 at 1.24.39 PM

Summary of Argument

Washington students experience a dramatically different school environment than their parents did a generation ago. Schools now extensively employ zero tolerance school discipline policies and the use of school resource officers (hereinafter "SROs"). SROs primarily engage in law enforcement duties at school.

Schools throughout Washington State and the entire country have undergone significant changes regarding how they educate, supervise, andpolice students and their activities since the United States Supreme Court issued its decision in the TLO case in 1985. Despite these changes, however, there is no evidence that schools are safer due to zero tolerance policies. There is also no consensus that having a SRO, or SROs, in the school building makes schools safer.

As this Court examines the legality of a particular search of a student, the Court must consider how much the school environment has changed. These changes have been fueled by school resource officers ("SROs*) on school campuses and the use of zero tolerance school policies. These changes have also contributed to students dropping out of school and making contact with the juvenile and criminal justice systems.

Open Amicus Brief as PDF

Summary of Argument

The educational landscape for Washington students has shifted dramatically compared to their parents' generation, characterized by the widespread implementation of zero-tolerance policies and the deployment of School Resource Officers (SROs). The primary function of SROs is law enforcement within the school environment.

Since the landmark TLO decision of 1985, schools nationwide have witnessed substantial transformations in their approaches to student education, supervision, and policing. However, empirical evidence remains elusive regarding the efficacy of zero-tolerance policies in enhancing school safety. Similarly, the presence of SROs within school buildings has not demonstrably resulted in a safer learning environment.

As this Court delves into the legality of a particular student search, it must acknowledge the profound evolution of the school environment, driven by the presence of SROs and the prevalence of zero-tolerance policies. These changes have contributed to elevated student dropout rates and an increased interaction with the juvenile and criminal justice systems.

Open Amicus Brief as PDF

Summary of Argument

Washington state students experience a significantly different school environment compared to their parents a generation ago. This shift is largely due to the widespread adoption of zero-tolerance disciplinary policies and the presence of School Resource Officers (SROs). SROs primarily fulfill law enforcement duties within school settings.

Since the 1985 Supreme Court ruling in New Jersey v. T.L.O., schools across Washington and the nation have undergone substantial transformations in their approach to student education, supervision, and discipline. Notably, the introduction of zero-tolerance policies and SROs has raised concerns about their effectiveness in promoting school safety.

While these changes in school environments have been substantial, it is crucial for the court to recognize that the efficacy of zero-tolerance policies and SROs in enhancing school safety remains a subject of debate. Furthermore, there is mounting evidence suggesting that these practices may contribute to increased school drop-out rates and engagement with the juvenile and criminal justice systems.

Open Amicus Brief as PDF

Summary of Argument

Today's Washington schools are very different from the schools students' parents attended. These changes are due to new policies, such as "zero tolerance," and the presence of law enforcement officers, called School Resource Officers (SROs), in schools.

Since the 1985 TLO case, schools across the US, including those in Washington, have changed how they handle students and their behavior. However, there's no proof that these new policies, including zero tolerance, have actually made schools safer. There's also no agreement on whether having SROs in schools makes them safer.

This court case focuses on whether a student's belongings were legally searched. The court needs to consider how much schools have changed because of SROs and zero tolerance. These changes have led to more students leaving school and getting involved with the justice system.

Open Amicus Brief as PDF

Summary of Argument

Schools now have strict rules called "zero tolerance policies" and police officers called "school resource officers" (SROs) who work in the schools.

SROs are like regular police officers who work at schools. They enforce the law and rules. Schools across the country have changed a lot since the Supreme Court said it was okay for schools to search students in 1985. But there's no proof that zero tolerance rules or having SROs makes schools safer.

When deciding if a student can be searched, the court needs to think about how schools have changed. These changes, caused by SROs and zero tolerance rules, have caused some students to leave school and get in trouble with the law.

Open Amicus Brief as PDF

Footnotes and Citation

Cite

Brief of Amicus Curiae TeamChild, State of Washington v. Meneese, No. 86203-6 (Wash. Dec. 22, 2011).

    Highlights

      Share your Highlights