E.D.Cal.: Reasonableness standard applies to school seizures of person

Reasonableness standard of T.L.O. applies to seizures of the person by school officials. T.A. v. McSwain Union Elem. Sch. Dist., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 51306 (E.D. Cal. June 18, 2009):

The California Supreme Court’s reliance on the “arbitrary, capricious, or undertaken for purposes of harassment” standard does not apply in the Ninth Circuit to the Second Claim for Relief. In Shuman ex. rel. Shertzer v. Penn Manor School Dist., 422 F.3d 141, 148 (3rd Cir.2005), the Third Circuit rejected the application of the California Supreme Court standard to a Fourth Amendment challenge to a student’s seizure (being told to remain in a conference room under supervision for several hours), noting that the Fifth, Seventh and Ninth Circuits have applied a reasonableness standard to a seizure. The Third Circuit held:

We join these courts of appeals in finding seizures in the public school context to be governed by the reasonableness standard, giving special consideration to the goals and responsibilities of our public schools.

In Doe ex. rel. Doe v. Hawaii Dept. of Education, 334 F.3d 906, 908-909 (9th Cir.2003), cited by the Third Circuit, the Ninth Circuit held that a student’s “Fourth Amendment right to be free from an unreasonable seizure ‘extends to seizures by or at the direction of school officials'” and that “[i]n applying the Fourth Amendment in the school context, the reasonableness of the seizure must be considered in light of the educational objectives Keals was trying to achieve,” citing New Jersey v. T.L.O., 469 U.S. 325, 105 S. Ct. 733, 83 L. Ed. 2d 720 (1985)(considering the reasonableness of a search in a school). Doe was decided after the California Supreme Court decision and makes no mention of it. The standard in the Ninth Circuit interpreting federal law must be followed. See Miller v. Gammie, 335 F.3d 889, 899 (9th Cir.2003)(neither a district court nor a three-judge panel may overrule a prior decision of the Court unless it has been “undercut by higher authority to such an extent that it has been effectively overruled”); see also Barapind v. Enomoto, 400 F.3d 744, 750-751 (9th Cir.2005) (a district court is bound to follow the holdings of the Ninth Circuit unless clearly in conflict with supervening authority.)

The motion to dismiss the Second Claim for Relief for unlawful seizure under the Fourth Amendment is DENIED.

Officers had RS defendant was armed based on information from a credible source, a fellow officer, who had allegedly seen it. United States v. Deneve, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 52892 (E.D. Wis. June 23, 2009)* [so why did not the court apply the “fellow officer rule” and not strain to get there?]