The Impact of the Exclusionary Rule in School Discipline Hearings

One of the main concerns for extending the exclusionary rule to school hearings is that the rule could compromise school safety. This compromise may occur in many ways. First, the rule would suppress evidence in a school discipline hearing, thus rendering it difficult for the school to suspend or expel a so-called dangerous student. This would in-turn undermine the protection of children in the school setting by preventing proper discipline of those students who are disruptive to the educational process, or those who put students at danger. Secondly, allowing such dangerous students to remain in school could ultimately cause students, school officials, and parents to feel threatened and less safe in school. Third, letting a student who had been caught beyond a shadow of a doubt due to evidence go free, would send the wrong message; that it is permissible to break the rules at school because you can get away with it. Finally, one last negative impact of the exclusionary rule being used in school hearings is that it would keep principals from conducting searches because of the concern that the results of the search, or evidence, would be suppressed in a court hearing. If this were to happen, school officials will not be able to discipline the student, and even more importantly, they may not be able to take needed action in providing protection to the other students from danger.

For all the arguments against extending the exclusionary rule in school discipline hearings, there are just as many arguments in favor of its use. One of the main factors is the rules deterrent effect, which is the same reason it has been advanced in criminal court cases. The idea behind the rule is that school officials would refrain from violating student’s rights if they knew that the results of an illegal search would not be available in the court proceedings. This could prevent unnecessary random searches or harassing searches of school students and their belongings. Another thought is that attendance is mandatory for students under compulsory attendance laws. So, if students are required to attend school by law, the rights of those students should be provided the utmost protection. Some individuals see the exclusionary rule as the only viable alternative to protect the rights of the students.

In summation, public school students are provided Fourth Amendment rights under the Federal Constitution to be free of illegal searches and seizures by school authorities. The lower courts have not been able to agree on the appropriateness of the exclusionary rule on school discipline hearings. As shown, there are valid concerns both for and against the use of the exclusionary rule in the school disciplinary setting. Providing children with an education is one of the government’s most important functions, and because of this, the government has to make a commitment to keep those students they so urge to attend school safe. These students should be free both from danger and the risk of unreasonable searches in school. The shortcoming of the exclusionary rule seems that it requires one aspect of safety at the cost of the other.