The Gillard v. F Schmidt demonstrates that school board member cannot just search the desk of the employee even if the search happen in the premises of the school, and in the Shaul v. Cherry case can be understood that the strictures of the law applied in the fourth amendment are the same boundaries that would determine whether a person falls out of it or not.
“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized” (Lectlaw.com).
A teacher being employed in a place where there is a limited expectation of privacy is still protected by the Fourth Amendment. Though there are operational realities to consider when debating about the employees’ right under the Fourth Amendment, like the daily occurrence in the workplace like school, the ins and outs of the students, fellow teachers and superintendents in the same room with the claimant; it is still an establish fact that public employees like teachers have substantial expectation of privacy in their private property kept at the workplace. Violation of this basic right makes a principal, superintendent, or school board member liable under the law. In case therefore that search and seizure is necessary in order to maintain order and control in the workplace, it should be done in a way that does not violate anyone’s expectation of privacy. Let’s look into the O’Connor v. Ortega case which even though not an ‘education case’ nevertheless exhibits clearly the guidelines for search and seizures.
1. Regarding the searches and seizures of private properties of the employees by the public employers and supervisors, it is within the jurisdiction of the Fourth Amendment restraints. There is expectation of privacy that is based upon