IN: School search lacked RS

Defendant’s running to his car after seeing officers and then back to the apartment gave officers reason to believe that destruction of the drugs was going to occur. United States v. Bao Chau Ly, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16864 (C.D. Cal. March 5, 2009):

Here, exigent circumstances existed because the officers believed that defendant was going to destroy the drugs they suspected were in his residence. At the same time the Pasadena Police stopped Tang, officers observed defendant run out of his residence, go to his car and either place or retrieve something, and run back into the house. They believed, based on defendant’s movements, his earlier drug delivery, Tang’s communication via cellular telephone, and their experience, that Tang had called defendant and told him that law enforcement suspected that they were engaged in narcotics trafficking. There was no other apparent explanation for defendant’s run to his vehicle.

School search of student was not justified by reasonable suspicion, just bare suspicion not individualized. D.M. v. State, 902 N.E.2d 276 (Ind. App. 2009):

When considering these circumstances, it is apparent that Cetto could not articulate a reasonable ground for suspecting that D.M. possessed contraband. Although the State maintains that the search was warranted in light of D.M.’s inconsistent explanations for his late arrival to class, D.M.’s comments to the other student, and the fact that other students had recently been found in possession of weapons and drugs at the school, we cannot agree that these circumstances provided ample justification for the search at its inception. See D.I.R., 683 N.E.2d at 253 (holding that the improvisational nature of a search is precisely what renders it constitutionally infirm and a school official’s search of a student must meet the reasonableness standard).

Because of the proliferation of weapons and drugs in the schools, we emphasize that our nation’s courts have increasingly been called upon to consider the circumstances under which school officials may constitutionally search the students in their charge. We are mindful of the tremendous toll that school violence takes in our communities on a daily basis, including the tragic Columbine High School shootings in 1999 and the more recent Virginia Tech incident. Indeed, the Columbine tragedy was only one of nearly thirty-five other shootings perpetrated by students at elementary, middle, and high schools in America over the past ten years. See Infoplease.com, A Time Line of Recent Worldwide School Shootings, http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0777958.html (last visited February 13, 2009).

Although this court is reluctant to interfere with a school’s disciplinary policies, the standard enunciated in T.L.O. commands that students’ legitimate privacy rights must, nonetheless, be balanced against the need of school officials to deal effectively with the threat of drugs and violence. Because Cetto’s search did not comport with the T.L.O. requirements, we are compelled to conclude that the search of D.M.’s jacket was unreasonable and the evidence seized from the jacket was improperly admitted into evidence. Accordingly, we reverse and remand with instructions for the trial court to vacate D.M.’s delinquency adjudication.