I have examined the relationship between the U.S. Congress and professional sports—specifically, Major League Baseball. The focus of this examination was on the abuse of steroids in professional sports, and how certain constitutional limitations on Congress inhibited direct mandates on drug testing for individual players due to the Fourth Amendment. I have concluded that due to major league sports being for-profit ventures, economic motivations in the form of tax incentives were the most effective way for Congress to implement a tougher drug testing policy without violating the Fourth Amendment.

There were two purposes to this study. First, the study was designed to determine which Virginia public school districts have articulated policies that govern random drug testing of students and if school districts' policies aligned with U.S. Supreme Court standards and Virginia statutes. The second purpose was to ascertain the patterns of practice in selected Virginia school districts that currently conduct random drug testing of students. This included identifying which student groups were being tested and for which drugs. It was also of interest to learn how school districts monitor the testing program and if drug testing practices were aligned with the policies that govern them. Data were gathered by examining student handbooks and district policies in order to determine which school districts had drug testing policies. These policies then were analyzed using a legal framework constructed from U.S. Supreme Court standards that have emerged from case law governing search and seizure in schools. Finally, data on patterns of practice were collected through in-depth interviewing and observation of those individuals responsible for implementing student drug testing in those districts that have such programs. The analyses revealed that the current policies and patterns of practice in random drug testing programs in Virginia public schools comply with Supreme Court standards and state statutes. Student groups subject to testing in Virginia public schools include student athletes and students in extracurricular activities in grades eight through twelve. Monitoring systems in the school districts implementing random drug testing were not consistent. There is evidence that the school districts implementing random drug testing programs have strong community support for the program. / Ed. D.

The relationship between privacy, technology, and law is complex. Thomas Jefferson’s prescient nineteenth century observation that laws and institutions must keep pace with the times offers a vision for change. Statutory law and court precedents help to define our right to privacy, however, the development of new technologies has complicated the application of old precedents and statutes. Third party organizations, such as Google, facilitate new methods of communication, and the government can often collect the information that third parties receive with a subpoena or court order, rather than a Fourth Amendment-mandated warrant. Privacy promotes fundamental democratic freedoms, however, under current law, the digital age has diminished the right to privacy in our electronic communications data. This work explores the statutory and constitutional law protecting our right to privacy, as well as the inadequacies that have developed with the digital revolution. With commonplace use of third parties to facilitate electronic communication, our courts and lawmakers must amend current laws and doctrines to protect the privacy of communications in the digital age. To provide clarity and appropriate data privacy protections, the following clarifications and amendments should be made to the third party doctrine and the Stored Communications Act (SCA): 1) third party doctrine should only apply to context data, 2) content data should be protected by the Fourth Amendment, 3) the SCA should eliminate the distinction between Remote Computing Services (RCS) data and Electronic Communication Services (ECS) data, and 4) the SCA should require warrants for all content data acquisition.

School officials are constantly challenged to perform a myriad of duties in an extremely complex and demanding job with numerous responsibilities. They are expected to work with a variety of students, faculty and parents under difficult circumstances. "Faced with multiple needs, with the necessity of making fast decisions in an atmosphere of fragmented time, administrators are liable for everything they do." School administrators need to understand the rights guaranteed to students by the Fourth Amendment and how it applies to the school setting. This document will provide an overview of student search and seizure in kindergarten to 12th grade (K-12) public schools in a non-traditional dissertation (non-experimental design) format by providing an historical review of the relevant case law. Specifically, based upon legal research, it will review relevant Supreme Court cases, post-New Jersey v. T.L.O. federal, Pennsylvania and other state court cases related to search and seizure in K-12 public schools. The conclusion and summary will provide answers to the guiding questions, provide a conceptual model, outline what is a reasonable search, and provide a short practical school law exercise to test the reader's understanding of search and seizure in public schools. / Ed. D.

In January, 2012, the Supreme Court of the United States refused to hear three cases involving student online speech, or cyberspeech. This indicates that the Court is content with lower courts applying First Amendment jurisprudence developed over 40 years ago to a rapidly advancing digital environment where students carry the equivalent of personal computers in their pockets, have an ever-growing telepresence, and rely on cyberspeech as their primary means of communicating with the world around them. Lower courts also are beginning to grapple with challenges to students Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure as it relates to the digital environment described above. Recently, lower courts in Mississippi, Texas, Minnesota, and Kentucky have applied standards set forth decades ago to decide cases involving searches of students mobile devices and Web 2.0 applications. Given the absence of guidance from the Supreme Court, this study aims to: (1) identify and analyze trends in the current application of legal standards related to student cyberspeech and search and seizure in the digital age; (2) synthesize these findings into a set of essential guidelines for school officials to use as they navigate a legal landscape that has yet to be well defined; and (3) make recommendations to further develop the body of law. Findings indicate that school officials have the legal authority to restrict off-campus student cyberspeech when certain conditions are met, and Tinker governs cases in this area. Seriously threatening, slanderous, or obscene cyberspeech is not constitutionally protected and can be restricted prior to an actual disruption. Off-campus student cyberspeech that reaches the school can legally be restricted so long as evidence shows that it caused a material and substantial disruption. In addition, students possess reasonable expectations of privacy in their personal mobile devices and password-protected private Web 2.0 communications. T.L.O governs searches of students personal mobile devices and Vernonia appears to govern cases involving searches of students Web 2.0 applications. Substantive suspicion at the outset, carefully tailored searches, and a clear governmental interest will keep school officials from violating students Fourth Amendment protections. / Ed. D.

The United States Constitution provides its citizens protection from unreasonable searches and seizures from government officials, including police officers, through the Fourth Amendment. This Amendment applies to searches that violate a reasonable expectation of privacy. However, the Fourth Amendment does not protect citizens when they consent to a search voluntarily. It is necessary to determine whether or not a search is voluntary by looking at a variety of factors. Although an infinite number of factors can be considered to make this determination, race of both the police officer and of the person being searched should be considered, due to societal factors and racial stereotypes leading to intimidation factors. Participants (N=575) read a vignette about a situation in which a bus passenger was asked to consent to a search. The races of the police officer and the passenger were manipulated in a vignette (White, Latino, Black). Participants then answered a series of questions about privacy expectations and consenting to the search. The results suggested that race of police officers and recipients of search requests affects how search requests perceive the search, indicating that voluntariness of consenting to a search may also have some basis in race.

The intent of this thesis is to examine the future of the third-party doctrine with the proliferation of technology and the online data we are surrounded with daily, specifically after the United States Supreme Court's decision in Carpenter v. United States. In order to better understand the Supreme Court's reasoning in that case, this thesis will review the history of the third-party doctrine and its roots in United States v. Miller and Smith v. Maryland. A review of Fourth Amendment history and jurisprudence is also crucial to this thesis, as it is imperative that individuals do not forfeit their Constitutional guarantees for the benefit of living in a technologically advanced society. This requires an understanding of the modern-day functional equivalents of "papers" and "effects." Furthermore, this thesis will ultimately answer the following question: Why is it legally significant that we protect at least some data that comes from technologies that our forefathers could have never imagined under the Fourth Amendment? Looking to the future, this thesis will contemplate solutions on how to move forward in this technology era. It will scrutinize the relevancy of the third-party doctrine due to the rise of technology and the enormous amount of information held about us by third parties. In the past, the Third-Party Doctrine may have been good law, but that time has passed. It is time for the Third-Party Doctrine to be abolished so the Fourth Amendment can join the 21st Century.

Substantive due process has been of great importance to the decision of many Supreme Court cases since its beginning. Since its inception in Lochner v. New York,[1] the Supreme Court has used the theory of substantive due process in order to grant numerous rights to individuals and this theory has been interpreted differently by each Justice that has crossed its path. This thesis will explain how recent changes in the composition of the United States Supreme Court make it likely that judicial opinions involving substantive due process will be decided differently. The United States Supreme Court’s future substantive due process jurisprudence will narrow the reach of Substantive Due Process. Justices and their past opinions as well as statements on their analysis of substantive due process will be scrutinized in order to come to this conclusion. This thesis will examine the evolution of substantive due process as well as how each Justice’s distinct views affect it within the Supreme Court’s composition. By determining how the Supreme Court is most likely to proceed and examining the rights already granted through substantive due process this thesis will come to a determination on whether the protection of the rights granted to individuals would be maintained. [1] Lochner v. New York, 198 U.S. 45, 25 S. Ct. 539, 49 L. Ed. 937 (1905)

Freedom and safety are two ideals that American citizens value greatly; however, the balance between privacy and security determines whether or not both can be achieved in a reasonable manner. Security and privacy are not mutually exclusive; however, they tend to exhibit an inverse correlation with regards to maintaining individual liberties. Security and privacy are highly beneficial, but when one is given too much weight, the other most often suffers. When the United States citizens are given too much privacy through regulations, the citizens risk their well-being by not allowing the government the ability to prevent dangerous activities being done by criminals. Citizens are unable to defend themselves against foreign and domestic threats of terrorism that affect large amounts of people such as bombings in public settings; however, the federal government can help to prevent such attacks in public settings through surveillance of public areas and monitoring of internet and intracellular communications. When the United States federal government is given too much discretion in security powers through legislation, citizens are at risk of losing their civil rights granted in the Bill of Rights and in Supreme Court cases. The United States of America has had a dangerous imbalance of power in favor of national security since the adoption of the USA PATRIOT Act in 2001, and the imbalance has continued to the present even after the passage of the USA FREEDOM Act in 2015. This thesis will be a comparative analysis of the USA PATRIOT Act of 2001 to the USA FREEDOM Act of 2015. This thesis will show what specific powers are granted through provisions of the acts, whether or not the provisions are unconstitutional, how the privacy and security of American citizens will change due to the provisions in the USA FREEDOM Act, and suggestions for how the United States federal government can continue to tilt the balance between security and liberty to ensure more protection for civil liberties and a decrease in national security powers. The suggestions will include three options for gaining the protection of civil liberties and the elimination of certain national security powers and the options are through Supreme Court cases on national security laws pertaining to individual cases or states, Congress passing concurring minor bills with the proposed plan to fully repeal granted national security powers without disturbing congressional alliances on other measures, and Congress passing a single act called the State Surveillance Repeal Act in order to fully repeal the USA PATRIOT Act provisions that would still be in effect after the passage of the USA FREEDOM Act.

No description available.