The Rutherford Institute
SPRINGFIELD, Mo.? In a ruling issued by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit in Burlison v. Springfield Public Schools, the court deemed a Missouri school district?s policy of imposing a ?lockdown? of the school for the purpose of allowing the local sheriff?s department, aided by drug-sniffing dogs, to perform mass inspections of students? belongings to be a ?reasonable procedure to maintain the safety and security of students at the school,? and not a violation of the Fourth Amendment rights of students.
Attorneys for The Rutherford Institute had challenged the school district?s practice of conducting random lockdowns and mass searches of students. Institute attorneys had asked the appeals court to reverse a federal district court?s January 2012 ruling that Springfield Public Schools and the Greene County Sheriff?s Office did not violate the Fourth Amendment rights of students when they executed the April 2010 lockdown at Central High School.
?Random, suspicionless lockdown raids against children teach our children a horrific lesson?one that goes against every fundamental principle this country was founded upon?that we have no rights at all against the police state,? said John W. Whitehead, president of The Rutherford Institute. ?Americans should be outraged over the fact that school officials are not only defending such clearly unconstitutional practices but are actually going so far as to insist that these raids are a ?standard drill? that will continue.?
On April 22, 2010, the principal of Central High School announced over the public address system that the school was going into ?lockdown? and that students were prohibited from leaving their classrooms. School officials and agents of the Greene County Sheriff?s Department thereafter ordered students to leave all personal belongings behind and exit the classrooms. Dogs were also brought in to assist in the raid. Upon re-entering the classrooms, students allegedly discovered that their belongings had been rummaged through. Mellony and Doug Burlison, who had two children attending Central High School, complained to school officials that the lockdown and search were a violation of their children?s rights. School officials allegedly responded by insisting that the search was a ?standard drill? and policy of the school district which would continue.
Attorneys for The Rutherford Institute sued the school district in September 2010 on behalf of the Burlisons and their two children, asking the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri to declare that the practice of effecting a lockdown of the school and conducting random, suspicionless seizures and searches violates the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and the similar provision of the Missouri Constitution. In its January 2012 decision, the district court declared that the random lockdown and mass searches did not violate students? rights. In its ruling issued March 4, 2013, the Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment, holding that the school?s interest in combatting drug use outweighed the privacy rights of students. Affiliate attorney Jason T. Umbarger of Springfield, Mo., is assisting The Rutherford Institute in its defense of the Burlison family.
Case History
03/08/2013 ? Federal Appeals Court Upholds Practice of Mass Student Searches & Random Lockdowns by Police & Drug-Sniffing Dogs in Missouri High School
06/13/2012 ? Rutherford Institute Challenges Missouri School Over Constitutionality, Continuation of Mass Student Searches & Random Lockdowns
04/24/2012 ? Rutherford Institute Asks Appeals Court to Declare Mass Student Searches & Random Lockdowns in Missouri High Schools To Be Unconstitutional
01/31/2013 ? U.S. District Court Declares Mass Student Searches & Random Lockdowns in Missouri High Schools To Be Legal, Dismisses Fourth Amendment Lawsuit
09/28/2010 ? Rutherford Institute Files Fourth Amendment Lawsuit Against Missouri School Demanding End to Mass Student Searches, Random Lockdowns
Legal Action
The Rutherford Institute's complaint and subsequent reply brief in Burlison v. Springfield Public Schools
(function(d, s, id) {var js, fjs = d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];if (d.getElementById(id)) return;js = d.createElement(s); js.id = id;js.src = "//connect.facebook.net/en_US/all.js#xfbml=1";fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js, fjs);}(document, 'script', 'facebook-jssdk'));
Latest Tyranny/Police State
- VIDEO: Aussie Cops Assault Youth for Filming, Threaten Him With Arrest
- Man Charged With Disorderly Conduct For Telling Cop to 'Go F**k Himself'
- Man Faces Five Years in Prison for Releasing Balloons on Beach as a Romantic Gesture
- This Week's Corrupt Cops Stories
- 'Lady Liberty' Tased by Fort Worth officer
- Federal Appeals Court Busts Police For Contempt Of Cop Arrest
- Phoenix Cop Made Famous On YouTube For Tackling 15-Yr-Old Girl Calls 5-Day Suspension Too Harsh
- Undercover Cops Ensnare a Special Ed Student, Get Him Expelled
Check your Constitution at the door, kiddies!
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which in some cases has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such material is made available for the purposes of news reporting, education, research, comment, and criticism, which constitutes a 'fair use' of such copyrighted material in accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. It is our policy to respond to notices of alleged infringement that comply with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (found at the U.S. Copyright Office) and other applicable intellectual property laws. It is our policy to remove material from public view that we believe in good faith to be copyrighted material that has been illegally copied and distributed by any of our members or users.
About Us - Disclaimer - Privacy Policy
