No description available.

School officials trying to deter drug use, combat crime, and shore up security are conducting searches that are landing school in legal trouble for violating students' constitutional rights. In 1993, West Virginia Supreme Court ruled that a strip search of a student suspected of stealing money was illegal (State of West Virginia ex rel Gilford v. Mark Anthony B., 1993). In another case, a federal appellate court held that a strip search of a student for suspected drug possession was reasonable, although no drugs were found (Cornfield v. Consolidated High School District No. 230, 1993). Improper searches of students, lockers and automobiles can result in hundreds of thousands of dollars in civil liability, costs and attorney fees. This study collected data on administrative knowledge in the area of search and seizure. The analyzed data served to (a) determine if administrators across the state of Florida have a general understanding of the laws regarding search and seizure; (b) identify demographic areas that demonstrate a lack of knowledge related to search and seizure; and (c) suggest improvements to current educational leadership courses of study, state-wide staff development offerings, and ideas for possible conference topics. The study involved responses from questionnaires received from 139 public school administrators in Florida (17% of the 810 randomly sampled elementary, middle, and high school principals). Analysis of data revealed that more than one-third of the respondents fell below the mean, with no significant difference between building levels or metropolitan statistical area.

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.

In October 2001 , President George W. Bush issued an executive order authorizing the National Security Agency (NSA) to conduct secret wiretapping of telephone communications between U.S. citizens and terrorist suspects overseas in the wake of the September 11th terrorist attacks. The program, later called the Terrorist Surveillance Program (TSP), remained secret until December 2005, when the New York Times revealed the existence of the TSP. In January 2006, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) filed suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, claiming that the NSA's surveillance program violated the First and Fourth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution, as well as the separation of powers doctrine. The government argued that the program met constitutional scrutiny under the "special needs" doctrine warrant exception. Additionally, the Bush administration asserted that Congress specifically gave the President permission to authorize the program by its passing the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF). This thesis analyzes the constitutionality of the domestic surveillance program by discussing the constitutional questions that the NSA's program elicits under the Fourth Amendment. Also, this thesis reviews the legality of the TSP under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). After an analysis of the Supreme Court's jurisprudence in Fourth Amendment, privacy, and eavesdropping cases, this thesis concludes that the NSA' s warrantless eavesdropping program most likely violates the Fourth Amendment and the separation of powers doctrine. Further, this thesis asserts that the TSP is illegal under the FISA and that the Executive lacks statutory authorization.

The goal of this research was to determine the procedures used for conducting a search and seizure in a tax-related offence in terms of the Criminal Procedure Act, Act 51 of 1977. Aspects that cause problems for the South African Revenue Service (SARS) investigators are the application for a search warrant and the activities that take place before, during and after the search and seizure. An introduction, definition and explanation are given of certain key concepts such as forensic and criminal investigations, as well as their objectives and purpose. The various search methods are also discussed and explained as are the chain of custody and evidence in general. A large part of this research deals with the legal requirements for a search and seizure in a tax-related offence and encompasses issues such as the procedures for obtaining a search warrant, pre-raid briefing, conducting the search, and the seizing of, marking, storage and disposal of documents. The findings of the research are discussed and recommendations subsequently made regarding the shortcomings identified. The findings that were made related to the process and procedure to obtain a search warrant, the actual execution of a search and seizure and the legislation that authorises searches and seizures in taxrelated offences. Further findings were made in respect of the mandate of SARS criminal investigators to investigate, the admissibility of evidence obtained from a search and seizure and the marking, recording, storage and disposal of seized items. Recommendations were made regarding training, improved communication and skills transfer to address the shortcomings identified. / Police Practice / (M.Tech. (Forensic investigation))

Thesis (MComm)--Stellenbosch University, 2011. / ENGLISH ABSTRACT: Section 74D of the Income Tax Act No 58 of 1962 (the Act) grants the power of search and seizure to the South African Revenue Service, the basic underlying principle being that the Commissioner has to obtain a warrant from a judge prior to a search and seizure operation. The previous section 74(3) of the Act provided that the Commissioner was allowed himself to authorise and conduct a search and seizure operation without the requirement of a warrant. Section 74D of the Act was recently reviewed and the Tax Administration Bill (the TAB) contains the new provisions on search and seizure that will replace section 74D of the Act. In this assignment, the concept of search and seizure was examined by considering the cases, academic writing and other material on the topic. The objectives were to analyse the development of search and seizure in South African income tax law, to provide a basic understanding of the warranted and warrantless search and seizure provisions of the Act and the TAB, to determine their constitutionality and to determine the remedies available to a taxpayer who has been subject to a search and seizure. It was found that search and seizure has developed from warrantless under the previous section 74(3) of the Act into the requirement of a warrant under section 74D of the Act into a combination of both under the TAB. The concept of an ex parte application was analysed, which was shown to be permissible in certain circumstances under section 74D of the Act, while it is now compulsory in terms of the TAB. It was shown that the TAB closed the lacuna in the Act relating to the validity period of a warrant before it has been executed. It was, however, concluded, regarding whether a warrant expires when exercised or whether the same warrant can be used again to conduct a second search and seizure, that the position is not quite certain in terms of the Act and the TAB. It was found that there is no defined meaning of the reasonable grounds criterion, which is often required to be met in terms of the Act and the TAB, but that anyone that has to comply with the criterion must be satisfied that the grounds in fact exist objectively. The new warrantless search and seizure provisions of the TAB were analysed. It was established that warrantless search and seizure provisions are not uncommon in other statutes, but that the content thereof often differs. The new warrantless provisions were compared to the warrantless search and seizure provisions of, inter alia, the Competition Act No 89 of 1998 (the Competition Act), and it was found that the warrantless TAB provisions are not in all respects as circumscribed as those of the Competition Act and recommendations for counterbalances were made. It was concluded that the warranted search and seizure provisions of the Act and the TAB should be constitutionally valid but that the constitutionality of the new warrantless provisions of the TAB is not beyond doubt. It was furthermore found that the remedies at the disposal of a taxpayer who has been subject to a search and seizure should indeed be sufficient, but that there are no remedies available to a taxpayer to prevent injustice or harm. / AFRIKAANSE OPSOMMING: Artikel 74D van die Inkomstebelastingwet No 58 van 1962, (die Wet) verleen aan die Suid-Afrikaanse Inkomstediens die mag van deursoeking en beslaglegging, die grondliggende beginsel synde dat die Kommissaris ’n lasbrief van ’n regter moet verkry voor die deursoeking en beslaglegging kan plaasvind. Die vorige artikel 74(3) van die Wet het bepaal dat die Kommissaris self ’n deursoeking en beslaglegging kon magtig en uitvoer sonder die vereiste van ’n lasbrief. Artikel 74D van die Wet is onlangs hersien en die nuwe Belastingadministrasie-wetsontwerp (BAW) bevat die nuwe bepalings oor deursoeking en beslaglegging wat artikel 74D van die Wet sal vervang. In hierdie werkstuk is die konsep van deursoeking en beslaglegging ondersoek deur oorweging van die hofsake, akademiese skrywe en ander materiaal oor die onderwerp. Die doelstellings was om die ontwikkeling van deursoeking en beslaglegging in die Suid-Afrikaanse inkomstebelastingreg te ontleed, om ’n basiese begrip van die bepalings in die Wet en die BAW oor deursoeking en beslaglegging met en sonder ’n lasbrief te verskaf, om die grondwetlikheid daarvan te bepaal en om die remedies te bepaal wat beskikbaar is vir ’n belastingpligtige wat onderworpe was aan deursoeking en beslaglegging. Daar is bevind dat deursoeking en beslaglegging ontwikkel het vanaf sonder ’n lasbrief ingevolge die vorige artikel 74(3) van die Wet tot die vereiste van ’n lasbrief ingevolge artikel 74D van die Wet tot die kombinasie van albei ingevolge die BAW. Die konsep van ’n ex parte-aansoek is ontleed, en dit blyk in sekere omstandighede ingevolge artikel 74D van die Wet toelaatbaar te wees, terwyl dit nou ingevolge die BAW verpligtend is. Daar is aangedui dat die BAW die lacuna in die Wet oor die geldigheidsperiode van ’n lasbrief voordat dit uitgevoer is, verwyder het. Daar is egter bevind, rakende die vraag of ’n lasbrief verval wanneer dit uitgevoer word en of dieselfde lasbrief weer gebruik kan word om ’n tweede deursoeking en beslaglegging uit te voer, dat daar nie sekerheid ingevolge die Wet of die BAW bestaan nie. Daar is bevind dat daar geen gedefinieerde betekenis vir die kriterium van redelike gronde is nie, waaraan dikwels ingevolge die Wet en die BAW voldoen moet word, maar dat enigiemand wat aan die kriterium moet voldoen tevrede moet wees dat die gronde inderwaarheid objektief bestaan. Die nuwe bepalings van die BAW oor deursoeking en beslaglegging sonder ’n lasbrief is ondersoek. Daar is vasgestel dat bepalings oor deursoeking en beslaglegging sonder ’n lasbrief nie ongewoon is in ander wette nie, maar dat die inhoud daarvan dikwels verskil. Die nuwe bepalings oor deursoeking en beslaglegging sonder ’n lasbrief is vergelyk met die bepalings oor deursoeking en beslaglegging sonder ’n lasbrief van, inter alia, die Mededingingswet No 89 van 1998 (die Mededingingswet), en daar is bevind dat die BAW-bepalings oor deursoeking en beslaglegging sonder ’n lasbrief nie in alle opsigte so afgebaken is soos dié van die Mededingingswet nie en voorstelle vir teenwigte is gemaak. Die gevolgtrekking is gemaak dat die bepalings oor deursoeking en beslaglegging met ’n lasbrief van die Wet en die BAW grondwetlik geldig behoort te wees, maar dat die grondwetlikheid van die nuwe bepalings van die BAW oor deursoeking en beslaglegging sonder ’n lasbrief nie onweerlegbaar is nie. Daar is verder bevind dat die remedies tot die beskikking van ’n belastingpligtige wat onderworpe was aan deursoeking en beslaglegging inderdaad genoegsaam behoort te wees, maar dat daar geen remedies aan ’n belastingpligtige beskikbaar is om ongeregtigheid of skade te voorkom nie.

Made available in DSpace on 2016-04-26T20:22:13Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 Leonardo Leal Peret Antunes.pdf: 1227750 bytes, checksum: f3b40ebf7bd780592f56d42067dc6467 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2013-10-28 / This study aims to analyze the institutes of search and seizure within the constitutional criminal procedure, understood as such once it is guided by the constitutional values that permeate the Federal Constitution of 1988. Even though they represent serious restrictions to the fundamental rights of the citizen who suffers a criminal prosecution, searches and the seizures have been trivialized nowadays. They are performed without any limit or criteria, leading to unjustified trespass and indelible losses. Considering that factual reality, we sought, from a methodological focus of empirical and applied nature, to approach some of the everyday situations involving searches and seizures. Furthermore, with views to the future, we pursued to establish their limits within the Democratic State of Law which is based on human dignity and seeks to further the fundamental rights of the citizens. After a thorough study of the constitutional criminal procedure, the institutes of search and seizure and an analysis of some practical situations related to the issue at stake, our findings showed that there is a need to reconcile the effectiveness of criminal prosecution with the fundamental rights, so as to set up the limits of the search and the seizure in the constitutional criminal procedure. In this case, it is now absolutely clear that it is possible, in the effectiveness of prosecution, to conciliate public with private interest, respecting the fundamental rights, in order to establish the ideal of a democratic and ethical criminal procedure, grounded on human dignity / O presente trabalho tem por fim analisar os institutos da busca e da apreensão no âmbito do processo penal constitucional, assim entendido uma vez pautado pelos valores constitucionais que permeiam a Constituição Federal de 1988. Embora representem sérias restrições aos direitos fundamentais do cidadão que sofre uma persecução penal, as buscas e as apreensões têm sido banalizadas nos dias de hoje, realizadas sem qualquer parâmetro ou limite, ensejando, com isso, devassas indevidas e prejuízos indeléveis. Considerando essa realidade fática, procuramos, a partir de um enfoque metodológico de natureza empírica e aplicada, abordar algumas situações cotidianas envolvendo buscas e apreensões e, sempre pensando no futuro, estabelecer seus limites no âmbito de um Estado Democrático de Direito, fundado na dignidade da pessoa humana e que busca efetivar os direitos fundamentais de seus cidadãos. Os resultados obtidos após o estudo do processo penal constitucional, dos institutos da busca e da apreensão e analisando algumas situações práticas atinentes à questão apontam para a necessidade de compatibilizar a efetividade da persecução penal com os direitos fundamentais, de forma a estabelecer os limites da busca e da apreensão no processo penal constitucional. Nesse sentido, ficou absolutamente claro ser possível harmonizar o interesse público, na efetividade da persecução penal, com o interesse privado, no respeito aos direitos fundamentais, para concretizar o ideal de um processo penal democrático e ético, pautado na dignidade da pessoa humana

The goal of this research was to determine the procedures used for conducting a search and seizure in a tax-related offence in terms of the Criminal Procedure Act, Act 51 of 1977. Aspects that cause problems for the South African Revenue Service (SARS) investigators are the application for a search warrant and the activities that take place before, during and after the search and seizure. An introduction, definition and explanation are given of certain key concepts such as forensic and criminal investigations, as well as their objectives and purpose. The various search methods are also discussed and explained as are the chain of custody and evidence in general. A large part of this research deals with the legal requirements for a search and seizure in a tax-related offence and encompasses issues such as the procedures for obtaining a search warrant, pre-raid briefing, conducting the search, and the seizing of, marking, storage and disposal of documents. The findings of the research are discussed and recommendations subsequently made regarding the shortcomings identified. The findings that were made related to the process and procedure to obtain a search warrant, the actual execution of a search and seizure and the legislation that authorises searches and seizures in taxrelated offences. Further findings were made in respect of the mandate of SARS criminal investigators to investigate, the admissibility of evidence obtained from a search and seizure and the marking, recording, storage and disposal of seized items. Recommendations were made regarding training, improved communication and skills transfer to address the shortcomings identified. / Police Practice / (M.Tech. (Forensic investigation))

No description available.