The Greenhill School search of student property policy is clear, concise, and subject to little interpretation, though some discretion.

Any rule, as with any law, should set out in clear terms what is prohibited and the consequences of violation. The school’s policy does so and additionally sets out the supporting rationale. In so doing, it broadens the scope of the prohibited acts and the means by which school officials may discover same. Thus, considerable discretion may be exercised by school officials in furtherance of the policy.

Certainly, the school has the right, indeed the duty, to insure the safety of students, faculty, administration, staff and those who may come on the campus. This results in little or no expectation of privacy by the students. Students are afforded a lesser expectation of privacy than people in their own home for many reasons. As previously mentioned, a duty to maintain a safe and healthy environment is paramount in this setting, the execution of an “unwarranted” search is permissible; it is simply a condition of attending school at Greenhill. From a parent’s standpoint this is reasonable and may indeed be desirable.

One of the legal principles that allows searches is an absence of possessory interest in the premises; therefore, a person has no standing to object to the search. However, the Greenhill rule is not taken from a code of criminal or civil procedure, nor should it be.

The school is not subject to the same legal restraints as is a law enforcement agency. Thus the rule can and does go well beyond what is permissible in the legal arena. The broad nature of the policy is illustrated by school officials’ ability to investigate potential violations and confiscate that which is reasonably believed to violate any of the purposes of the rule.
The question posed is whether the rule infringes on students’ privacy in an inappropriate and unnecessary way. Our privacy, not just that of students, is compromised each and every day; some would say it is too much and some would say it is too little. This discussion cannot be had without encompassing a greater area than the Greenhill campus. It sometimes seems none of us have any privacy, what with terrorism, school violence, identity theft, cameras on street corners, in stores and on phones. Many of the curbs on privacy are welcome, some not.

I appreciate passengers being screened prior to air travel. As a judge, I was grateful people were screened prior to entering the courthouse. I am sad that I must show my ID with my credit card, but always say thanks that the clerk asks for it. So we all tolerate, resent, and appreciate the inroads of our privacy. The school is even more special, as is whom it seeks to protect. So, we come to the answers, yes, the Greenhill policy unquestionably infringes on students’ privacy. Is this an inappropriate infringement? No, it is not when we consider the purpose and the individuals it protects. Is it necessary? Sadly, yes, today it is necessary.