The growing number of public school students selling, using, or being offered illegal drugs on school property is not only of great concern to parents, but also to administrators and school educators. The issue attracted the attention of the U.S. Supreme Court, which found that “deterring its use by school-age children is an important, indeed perhaps compelling, government interest.” While there is common agreement that we need to provide our students with a drug-free learning environment, there is much debate regarding the procedures and steps that should be taken before violating students' Fourth Amendment rights. In efforts to safeguard our students, many states have implemented the use of strip searches. The idea of ​​having young teenagers stripping at school shocks the conscience of many and serves as a warning sign for intrusion on students' constitutional rights. In fact, a federal district court defined a search as “visual rape.” So where do we draw the line between ensuring the safety of our students and at the same time not going so far as to deprive them of their Fourth Amendment right? The Fourth Amendment essentially supports the proposition that all citizens of the United States are protected from unlawful searches of their persons and property. However, the Fourth Amendment did not apply to public schools because school officials were governed by the doctrine of in loco parentes. This doctrine is based on the idea that educators should be viewed as substitutes for parents while students are in the school setting. Following the logic of this doctrine, educators shared the same rights and responsibilities that a student's parents po...... middle of paper ...... notified the student's mother and turned over evidence to the police . This case is notable for the monumental move the Court made by determining, in contrast to the probable cause standard applicable to law enforcement, "no warrant is necessary for administrators and the school need only have reasonable suspicion to conduct a search." Using this new standard, the court found that Mr. Choplick had reasonable suspicion that the student had cigarettes with her, given that the teacher had reported that she had been smoking and her bag “was the most obvious place to find them.” Therefore this reasonable suspicion led to a more thorough investigation which the Court deemed constitutional. Ultimately, the court weighed the student's legitimate expectation of privacy and the school's equally legitimate need to maintain a safe environment and found that the school's interest outweighed.