People vs Dilworth

In re Randy G.

In re Gault

If all the cases on the subject were to be summarized in one paragraph, correctly stated,

The result would be:

“Civil rights of a child must yield when the need to protect the child is incompatible with those rights. In a group situation, the safety of the group outweighs the rights of an individual child”

The U.S. Department of Justice, the U.S. Department of Education and the U.S. Secret Service have combined to come to the conclusion that may be:The biggest threat in school is the kid sitting inthe back row planning to get even with someone or everyone.1. He may be a gang member with something to

prove.2. A loner who thinks that life is unfair and a

teacher or student is responsible.

3. The victim of a bully who now plans to either be a bully or even worse, a killer.

4. A student who is in trouble in school or at home and sees suicide as the answer.

SOURCES OF EDUCATOR AUTHORITY

• 1. Implied authority; Student’s state constitutional

right to education.

In re Gault 1967 – rights but entitled to adult supervision

• 2. In Loco Parentis – implied parental authorization

Tinker v. Des Moines Iowa 1969

• 3. Written regulations – as enunciated in Tinker case

• 4. Constitutional Empowerment –

New Jersey v. T.L.O. 1985

Vernonia v. Acton 1995

Earls v. Pottawatomie 2001

Limitations – Tennessee v. Garner

POLICE AUTHORITY UNDER THE DESIGNED LAWENFORCEMENT AGENT

ESTABLISHING AN AGENCY – Page 150

More restricted but law enforcement can piggy back

(In re Boykin) (in re Fred C.)

REASONABLE SUSPICION DOCTRINE

When writing you report: Why did you do it and where do you

get your authority

If law enforcement was present, explain why

TYPES OF SCHOOL SEARCHES

Least Intrusive is always best

(Why are you searching and what are you searching for?)

The principal received an anonymous tip, but believable tip, that Boykin had a gun in his pocket in the classroom. The principal called a law enforcement officer who suggested that they go to the class and speak to the student. The student was called to the door of the classroom where the officer, at the principal’s request, frisked Boykin and found a gun.

The attorneys agreed that the boy was under arrest when forced to submit to a search by a law enforcement officer. The prosecutor argued that the arrest was legal because the tip was sufficient cause. The search, he said, was incidental to arrest.

The defense attorney responded that the anonymous tip was not sufficient to make an arrest. He concluded that the search under the prosecutor’s reasoning would be illegal and the evidence should be suppressed.

Administrative searches

Watch lists – p.138

Presumption of Regularity – p. 119

Threat assessment teams

Maintain, monitor and control a single

point of entry.

Liability

Bullying and harassment

Sharing Information

FERPA Exceptions:

1. The principal-agent combination is deemed to be one entity. Information necessary to the principal’s purpose can be divulged to the agent.

2. Under FERPA, schools may designate an officer to be the Designated Law Enforcement Agent with relatively the same access to student records as a teacher would have.

New Jersey vs. T.L.O.

Determining the reasonableness of any search involves determination of:

1. Whether the search was justified at its inception, and

2. Whether, as conducted, the search was reasonably related in scope to the circumstances that

justified the interference in the first place.

(Often referred to as the “two prong test”)

Absolute Certainty

Beyond a Reasonable Doubt

Preponderance of Evidence

Probable Cause

Reasonable Cause/Suspicion

Gut Feeling

Hunch

An assistant principal noticed a student in the hallway carrying a vinyl calculator case on his belt. The case had an odd looking bulge. The principal stopped the student and asked him what was in the case. The student replied “nothing”. When the principal asked the student to open it, the student refused and slid the case behind him. The principal then took the student to his office and took the case from him. Upon opening it, four baggies of marijuana were found. The student was charged and convicted of possession. The student appealed citing an illegal search was conducted. Factor given by the principal to justify the search was that the student acted suspiciously when asked about the case.

A police sniffer dog was at the high school to conduct a sweep of all school lockers. This procedure was conducted at least once a month during the school year. As the handler and dog were checking the lockers, the bell rang. Students flooded the hall going to and from classrooms. As a female student passed the sniffer dog, the dog alerted to her. The handler pulled the dog back and continued to wait until the halls had cleared. However, an administrator, who had observed the dog’s alert, summoned the student to his office. A female teacher was brought in and a search of the student was conducted. The male administrator was not present. The student was given a pat down and was told to unbutton her blouse. Next she was told to bend over forward and pull her bra out, not remove, in order to see if she had any drugs hidden there. No drugs were found and the student was told to return to class. Was this a legal search based on reasonable cause/suspicion?

One morning a school administrator received a phone call from an anonymous parent. The parent stated that her daughter came home from school the evening before and related the following story to her. A student, James Marten, had on several occasions, tried to sell her marijuana. The daughter went on to say that he carried the marijuana in the left front pocket of his blue jean jacket and had it on him almost everyday. The parent refused to give her name. That afternoon the administrator was walking down the hall and observed James Marten walking toward him enroute to class wearing a blue jean jacket. The administrator stopped Marten, reached into the left front pocket of his jacket, and removed two baggies of marijuana. Marten was charged and convicted of possession. Conviction was appealed citing an illegal search was conducted. Can an administrator use an anonymous tip, by itself, to serve as the basis for reasonable cause/suspicion?

F.S. was at the home of Mrs. Laijas, visiting her daughter. Mrs. Laijas noticed F.S. had a baggie full of papers. Her daughter said it was “acid”. Mrs. Laijas told her daughter she did not want drugs in her home and F.S. had to leave. Mrs. Laijas’ daughter left with F.S. Later, her daughter returned home, acting strangely and laughing. The daughter admitted to Mrs. Laijas that she had taken LSD. Mrs. Laijas gave this information to police along with the information that F.S. would be at a local football game that evening. This information was in turn relayed to Mr. Boland, the director of security for the school district. No warrant for the arrest of F.S. was obtained. Boland, in the company of a police officer, saw F.S. with a group of students in the parking lot of the school. F.S. became nervous when he noticed Boland watching him. Boland approached F.S., separated him from the group, and had him stand “spread eagle” against a nearby vehicle. F.S. admitted to the police officer working with Boland that he had LSD in his pocket. The officer removed LSD from F.S.’s pocket and arrested him for possession of a controlled substance. F.S. was adjudicated delinquent and committed to TYC. He appealed, contending that the stop and search were unlawful.

A high school administrator summoned a school district police officer and told her that he had received information that one of the students was carrying a .25 pistol. He asked the officer to bring the student to his office. The officer was unable to find the student that day, but she found him the next morning and told him to report to the office. When the officer saw the student on the physical education field later in the morning, she took him to the administrator’s office. The student was supposed to be in class at the time the officer found him. The administrator told the defendant to empty his pockets. The search produced a pager, a cigarette lighter, $1,131 in cash and two small bags of marijuana. The school police officer then stopped the search and called the city police department. When the city officer arrived, he continued to search and found a sandwich bag full of marijuana. The student subsequently was convicted of possession of marijuana. He appealed, contending that the marijuana found should not have been used as evidence against him because the search violated his constitutional rights.

He claimed that the scope of the search violated his Fourth Amendment rights because it was overly intrusive in light of the infraction. He contended that because the school officer believed the student was truant from class when the officer saw him on the physical education field, the officer should have been limited to conducting a pat-down search for safety reasons instead of taking the student into the office for a more extensive search.The school officer testified at the suppression hearing that she took the defendant to the administrator’s office because of the report from the previous day that he was carrying a pistol, and because he was skipping class. The officer did not frisk the defendant before taking him to the office. Was the scope of the search justified?

dt10@txstate.edu

Dan Tiller 210/722-0350

Gary Avery 1-888-529-4771

GARYLAW@aol.com