We affirm the resolution which states: In US public K-12 schools, the probable cause standard

ought to apply to searches of students.

We would like to define the following terms for clarification:
● Probable cause standard- The Probable cause standard says there must be evidence
before a warrant can be obtained for someone can be arrested or a building can be
searched.
● Searches of students - this includes the searching of cars, locker, and person
● K-12 Schools - Schooling through Elementary School to High School funded by the
government.
Main Argument 1: Public schools are still under state laws.
1) Subpoint (A)
P: People have the right to have their things protected.
E: The U. S. Constitution states (4th Amendment): 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 searched.
E: The probable cause standard is a right, protected by law, that students have.
Students are US citizens.
2) Subpoint (B)
P: Everyone is equal and should be subject to the same laws as everyone else
E: Article 7 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states: “All are equal before
the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are
entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and
against any incitement to such discrimination.”
E: This says that everyone is equal before the law. This shows that school students
should be subject to the same search procedures as other cases. It is unfair that
students could be searched without reason.
Main Argument 2: There needs to be evidence to search someone.
1) Subpoint (A)
P: Evidence from illegal searches can be against someone.
E: A police officer was suspicious of a house drug dealing. He saw Edward Strieff walk
out of the house, and he walked towards him. He stopped him and asked for identification. He
continued to search him, illegally and found drugs. Later, in court the illegal evidence was used
against him.
E: The police officer had no reasonable suspicion to search the man. Because of this,
the man was arrested a sent to jail. The man would still be fine if he were not illegally searched.

2) Subpoint (B)

P: Reasonable suspicion has been abused in schools

E: Currently in schools, there is only the reasonable suspicion cause. In an article written
by the Harvard Law Review about student policing in schools it stated: the reasonable
suspicion can be abused but if the probable cause act is put into place, police would
 have to show evidence of there suspicion before they can search a student instead of
searching them if they have any suspicion at all.
E: If the probable cause standards are put into place in schools, the privacy of students
would be protected and the abuse of the current standards will be prevented.
Main Argument 3: Can have a major effect on a student’s future
1) Subpoint (A)
P: The only reason someone would need to search a student is if they are a suspect of a
crime, in which case there is probable cause. It would be crazy for someone to be able
to start searching students for no reason.
E: In an article written by Johnathan S. Perkins, he talks about how he was searched
without reason while walking to his class in a university. Police walked up to him saying
that he matched the description of a suspect. Without any identification, he was thrown
against the cop car and searched. This encounter almost ruined his career.
E: The encounter ruined his reputation. The police officers should have asked for
identification first, to make sure he was the man they were looking for. If probable cause
would have been used, the police would have needed proof to see he was the man they
were looking for. When they saw it was someone else, they would have no reason the
search him and hurt his career.
2) Subpoint (B)
P: Ethical Standards
E: In a article written by the ASCD, an organization that works to support education in
the past, now, and in the future, it was stated that the court declared that police dogs can
be used in schools to sniff out drugs and this does not invade students privacy and
belongings.
E: One of the goals of schools is to protect the privacy of students. With law
enforcement, to use a police dog in a area, they need to have permission from the court.
So in order to use police dogs in schools, which can sniff out drugs, they must have
probable cause and the privacy of students will be protected. The belongings of the
students will only be searched if dogs smell drugs on them, or if other probable cause is
given.

Conclusion
It only makes more sense that in US public K-12 schools, the probable cause standard ought to
apply to searches of students. As we have proven with all our proven arguments.