The growing number of public school students selling, using, or being offered illegal drugs on school property worries not only parents, but also school administrators and educators. This issue attracted the attention of the United States Supreme Court, which held that "deterring schoolchildren from using drugs is an important, even compelling, interest of government." While there is common agreement on the need to provide our students with a drug-free learning environment, there is much debate regarding the procedures and steps to take before violating students' Fourth Amendment rights . In an effort to protect our students, many states have implemented the use of strip searches. The idea of ​​seeing young teenagers undressing on school grounds shocks the conscience of many and is a red flag for an intrusion into students' constitutional rights. In fact, a federal district court has classified a strip search as “visual rape.” So where do we draw the line between keeping our students safe and, at the same time, not going so far as to deprive them of their Fourth Amendment? The Fourth Amendment is essentially based on the proposition that all American citizens are protected against unlawful searches of their persons and property. However, the Fourth Amendment did not apply to public schools because school officials were governed by the in loco parentis doctrine. This doctrine is based on the idea that educators should be seen as substituting for parents while students are in the school setting. Following the reasoning of this doctrine, educators shared the same rights and responsibilities as a student's parents...... middle of paper ...... informed the student's mother and handed over the evidence to the police. This case is known for the Court's monumental decision in determining, contrary to the probable cause standard applicable to law enforcement, "no warrant is necessary for administrators and the school only needs to 'have reasonable suspicion to carry out a search'. Using this new standard, the court found that Mr. Choplick had reasonable suspicion that the student had cigarettes on her given that the teacher had reported that she was smoking and that her purse "was the place obvious to find them. Thus, these reasonable suspicions led to a more thorough search which the court also found to be constitutional. Ultimately, the court weighed the student's legitimate expectation of privacy against the school's equally legitimate need to maintain a safe environment and concluded that the school's interest had more weight..