Chapter 29: Searches on School Grounds

[1] USSC: New Jersey v.
T.L.O. (1985) 469 US 325, 341-42 [“Under ordinary circumstances the
search of a student by a school official will be justified at its inception
where there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that the search will turn
up evidence that the student has violated or is violating either the law or
the rules of the school.”]. CAL: In re K.J. (2018) 18 CA5
1123, 1129 [“In practice, a public school student’s legitimate expectation
of privacy is balanced against the school’s obligation to maintain discipline
and to prove a safe environment for all students and staff.”]; In re
J.D. (2014) 225 CA4 709, 714 [“Recent events have demonstrated the
increased concern school officials must have in the daily operations of
public schools…. We must be cognizant of this alarming reality as we
approach our role in assessing appropriate responses by school administrators
to campus safety issues.”]; In re Randy G. (2001) 26 C4 556,
566 [“[School officials] must be permitted to exercise their broad
supervisory and disciplinary powers, without worrying that every encounter
with a student will be converted into an opportunity for constitutional
review.”]. OTHER: Wofford v. Evans (4C
2004) 390 F3 318, 321 [“School officials must have the leeway to maintain
order on school premises and secure a safe environment in which learning can
flourish.”]. ALSO SEE: In re William G. (1985) 40 C3
550, 563 [“Teaching and learning cannot take place without the physical and
mental well-being of the students.”]; In re Randy G. (2001) 26
C4 556, 562 [“Without first establishing discipline and maintaining order,
teachers cannot begin to educate their students.”].

[2] USSC: New Jersey v.
T.L.O. (1985) 469 US 325, 336-37 [“In carrying out searches and other
disciplinary functions pursuant to such policies, school officials act as
representatives of the State [and cannot claim] immunity from the strictures
of the Fourth Amendment.”]. CAL: In re William G. (1985)
40 C3 550, 561 [“public school officials are governmental agents within the
purview of [the Fourth Amendment]”]; In re Alexander B. (1990)
220 CA3 1572, 1576 [“State and federal constitutional prohibitions against
unreasonable searches and seizures apply to the actions of public school
authorities as well as law enforcement officers.”].

[3] USSC: Safford Unified School
District v. Redding (2009) 557 US 364, 373 [reasonable
suspicion that a student was carrying drugs “was enough to justify a search
of [the student’s] backpack and outer clothing”]; New Jersey v.
T.L.O. (1985) 469 US 325, 342 [search for cigarettes in purse of
student caught smoking in violation of no smoking rule]. CAL:
In re K.J. (2018) 18 CA5 1123, 1129 [“A school official may search a
student’s person and personal effects based on a reasonable suspicion that
the search will disclose evidence that the student is violating or has
violated the law or a school rule.”]; In re J.D. (2014) 225 CA4 709
[search of locker for gun]; P v. Joseph G. (1995) 32 CA4 1735,
1741; In re K.S. (2010) 183 CA4 72 [search of a student’s locker by
the vice principal while a campus resource officer watched was lawful because
the police had received an anonymous tip that the student possessed
Ecstasy]; P v. William G. (1985) 40 C3 550, 562 [“the
unique characteristics of the school setting require that the applicable
standard be reasonable suspicion”]; P v. Cody S. (2004) 121
CA4 86 [search of backpack]; P v. Lisa G. (2005) 125 CA4 801,
806 [“Ordinarily, a search of a student by a teacher or other school
official will be justified at its inception when there are reasonable grounds
for suspecting the search will disclose evidence the student has violated or
is violating the law or school rules,” but student’s disruptive behavior did
not provide grounds to search her purse]; P v. Bobby B. (1985)
172 CA3 377, 381 [search by dean of boys was lawful because he suspected the
student might have been carrying marijuana].

[4] CAL: In re K.J. (2018) 18 CA5
1123, 1134 [searched based on email from a student to principal reporting
that the minor had been carrying a gun]; In re J.D. (2014) 225 CA4
709, 714 [“Recent events have demonstrated the increased concern school
officials must have in the daily operation of public schools. Sites such as
Columbine, Sandy Hook Elementary, and Virginia Tech have been discussed in
our national media not because of their educational achievements, but because
of the acute degree of violence visited on these and other campuses—hostility
often predicated on killings with firearms.”]; P v. Alexander B.
(1990) 220 CA3 1572, 1577 [“Of greater importance is the fact that the
gravity of the danger posed by possession of a firearm or other weapon on
campus was great”]; P v. Guillermo M. (1982) 130 CA3 642 [pat
search for suspected knives]. OTHER: Wofford v.
Evans (4C 2004) 390 F3 318, 328 [“Weapons are a matter with
which schools can take no chances.”].

[5] USSC: New Jersey v.
T.L.O. (1985) 469 US 325 [search by Vice Principal].

[6] CAL: In re K.J. (2018) 18 CA5
1123, 1129 [“‘school officials’ include police officers … who are assigned
to high schools as resource officers”]; In re William V. (2003)
111 CA4 1464, 1471 [“We too see no reason to distinguish for this purpose
between a non-law enforcement security officer and a police officer on
assignment to a school as a resource officer… The distinction focuses
on the insignificant factor of who pays the officer’s salary”]; In re
Randy G. (2001) 26 C4 556, 568 [“We decline the invitation to
distinguish the power of school security officers over students from that of
other school personnel, whose authority over student conduct may have been
delegated to those officers.”]; P v. Joseph F. (2000) 85 CA4
975, 986 [“officials, including police who assist in maintaining general
order on school campuses, need not articulate a specific crime which appears
to be violated in order to detain an outsider [to determine why he is on
campus]. OTHER: Wofford v. Evans (4C
2004) 390 F3 318, 327 [“But when a student is suspected of also breaching a
criminal law, both school officials and law enforcement officers may proceed
under the lesser standards”]; Wilson v. Cahokia School
District (S.D. Ill. 2007) 470 FS2 897, 910 [“the weight of authority
holds, and the Court agrees, that a search of a student on school grounds by
a school resource officer at the request of school officials should be
deemed a search by a school employee”]. ALSO SEE: State
v. Angelia D.B. (Wis. 1997) 564 NW2 682, 690 [“Were we to
conclude otherwise, our decision might serve to encourage teachers and school
officials, who generally are untrained in proper pat down procedures or in
neutralizing dangerous weapons, to conduct a search of a student suspected
of carrying a dangerous weapon on school grounds without the assistance of a
school liaison officer or other law enforcement official.”].

[7] CAL: In re J.D. (2014) 225 CA4
709, 720 [“But the secondary role of the police officers does not cancel the
fundamental feature of this case—administrators seeking to secure the school
premises from potential for violence”].

[8] USSC: New Jersey v.
T.L.O. (1985) 469 US 325, 342.

[9] USSC: Safford Unified School
District v. Redding (2009) 557 US 364, 376-77 [search under
clothing of student by school nurse illegal because there was “no indication
of danger to the student from the power of the drugs [essentially
over-the-counter pain relievers] or their quantity, and any reason to
suppose that [she] was carrying pills in her underwear”].