Cal.1: School search at behest of LEO still school search under T.L.O.

“In its landmark decision on searches of students by school officials, the United States Supreme Court concluded such searches were justified if ‘“reasonable,”’ though no warrant had been obtained and the ‘probable cause’ required for a police search did not exist. (New Jersey v. T.L.O. (1985) 469 U.S. 325, 341 [83 L.Ed.2d 720, 105 S.Ct. 733] (T.L.O.).) The high court declined, however, to determine the applicable standard when the school officials conduct the search ‘in conjunction with or at the behest of law enforcement agencies.’ (Id. at p. 341, fn. 7.) The facts of our case directly raise this issue. In the published portion of this opinion, we conclude that when a school official independently decides to search a student and then conducts that search, the T.L.O. standard applies, even if the police provide the information justifying the search and are present when it occurs. In the unpublished portion, we apply the reasonable suspicion standard to our facts and uphold the trial court’s decision to deny the motion to suppress filed by appellant K.S.” In re K.S., 183 Cal. App. 4th 72, 108 Cal. Rptr. 3d 32 (1st Dist. 2010), certified for publication with the exception of parts I, III, IV, and V., Modified by In re K.S., 2010 Cal. App. LEXIS 557 (Cal. App. 1st Dist., Apr. 23, 2010).

Officers were surveilling an area known for recent shootings. They observed defendant engage in an apparent hand-to-hand buy, and that justified an arrest and search incident. The court of appeals erred in suppressing the search. State v. Surtain, 31 So. 3d 1037 (La. 2010).*

State officers had probable cause to search for evidence of surreptitiously made videos of unsuspecting women having sex at defendant’s house with him. The statement of one who saw one of the videos was enough to base application for the search warrant. After officers got into his computer, they saw alleged child pornography, and they sought a separate search warrant for that. The description “child pornography” was specific enough. A Franks challenge to various aspects of the statement for the search warrant did not undercut the showing of probable cause. United States v. Alexander, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 99181 (W.D. Mo. August 30, 2007).*

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.