THE STUDY REVIEWED THE HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT OF SEARCH AND SEIZURE LAWS AND RELATED COURT DECISIONS; CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES ON SEARCH AND SEIZURE, STOP AND FRISK, ELECTRONIC AND POLITICAL SURVEILLANCE, THE RIGHT TO PRIVACY, DUE PROCESS, AND THE IN LOCO PARENTIS DOCTRINE; AND QUESTIONNAIRE RESPONSES FROM ATTORNEY MEMBERS OF THE NATIONAL ORGANIZATION ON LEGAL PROBLEMS OF EDUCATION. SEARCHES ARE MADE WHEN SCHOOL OFFICIALS CAUSE STUDENTS TO REVEAL OR UNCOVER SOMETHING, AS THE FOURTH AMENDMENT ONLY PROHIBITS 'UNREASONABLE SEARCH,' AND EVIDENCE OBTAINED BY AN ILLEGAL SEARCH MAY NOT BE INTRODUCED IN COURT. IN 1886, THE SUPREME COURT BANNED EVIDENCE CONSISTING OF A MAN'S PRIVATE PAPERS IN BOYD V. U.S., BUT LATER, TECHNICALITIES MADE THE AREA OF SEARCH AND SEIZURE VERY COMPLEX WHEN APPLIED TO STUDENT AFFAIRS (SUCH AS SEARCH OR DORMITORY ROOMS) AND TO OTHER EDUCATIONAL AFFAIRS. THERE IS A DISTINCTION BETWEEN PROCEEDINGS LEADING TO A CRIMINAL INDICTMENT AND A MERE DISCIPLINARY INQUIRY INTO THE STUDENT'S ACTIVITIES. THE KEY IS THE EXTENT OF THE POTENTIAL PUNISHMENT, FOR A STUDENT HELD TO A CRIMINAL CHARGE OR DISMISSED FROM SCHOOL IS ENTITLED TO PROTECTION OF HIS RIGHTS. THE MORE SERIOUS AND LASTING THE POSSIBLE PENALTIES TO BE ASSESSED, THE MORE CAREFUL THE INVESTIGATORS MUST BE IN CONDUCTING THEIR SEARCH. THE STUDY OFFERS RECOMMENDATIONS IN THE FOLLOWING AREAS: SCHOOL-POLICE COOPERATION; GUIDELINES FOR SAFEGUARDING INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS OF PRIVACY; GUIDELINES FOR THE REASONABLE EXERCISE OF AUTHORITY WHILE MAINTAINING A BALANCE BETWEEN RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES; INTERPRETATION OF DUE PROCESS AND THE 5TH, AND 14TH AMENDMENTS; AND GENERAL GUIDELINES, LIMITATIONS, AND SAFEGUARDS IN REGARD TO SEARCH OF STUDENTS, LOCKERS, OR OTHER PERSONAL ITEMS. TABLES, FOOTNOTES, A GLOSSARY, AND 59 REFERENCES ARE INCLUDED. THE NERVEY INSTRUMENT, A SEARCH WARRANT CHECKLIST, SAMPLE FORMS, AND OTHER RELATED MATERIAL ARE APPENDED. (AUTHOR ABSTRACT MODIFIED)