Seizure of a student also governed by T.L.O.

Seizure of a student could be found unreasonable, but the state of law was unclear at the time, so qualified immunity bars a § 1983 claim. Defelice v. Warner, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 72059 (D. Del. September 28, 2007):

Although the Supreme Court has decided several cases involving searches of students, it has not addressed seizures of students. See Bisignano, 113 F. Supp. 2d at 596. Regarding seizures of students, therefore, the court is only guided by the Supreme Court’s general statements about the relationship between Fourth Amendment rights and the school setting. The Supreme Court has stated that “Fourth Amendment rights … are different in public schools than elsewhere [and that] the ‘reasonableness’ inquiry cannot disregard the schools’ custodial and tutelary responsibility for children. Vernonia School Dist. 47J v. Acton, 515 U.S. 646, 656 (1995). “In [New Jersey v. T.L.O.], [the Supreme Court] reaffirmed that the constitutional rights of students in public school are not automatically coextensive with the rights of adults in other settings.” Bethel School Dist. No. 403 v. Fraser, 478 U.S. 675, 682 (1986). The Supreme Court also stated that T.L.O. emphasized that the nature of the “State’s power over schoolchildren … permit[s] a degree of supervision and control that could not be exercised over free adults.” Vernonia, 515 U.S. at 655 (citing TLO).

The circuit courts that have dealt with seizures in the school setting have concluded that the reasonableness standard, set forth by the Supreme Court in T.L.O., applies equally to seizures of a student’s person. See Shuman v. Penn Manor School Dist., 422 F.3d 141, 148 (3d Cir. 2005) (“[S]eizures in the public school context are governed by the reasonableness standard, giving special consideration to the goals and responsibilities of our public schools.”); Wallace v. Batavia School Dist. 101, 68 F.3d 1010, 1014 (7th Cir. 1995) (“[I]n the context of a public school, a teacher or administrator who seizes a student does so in violation of the Fourth Amendment only when the restriction of liberty is unreasonable under the circumstances then existing and apparent.”); Hassan v. Lubbock Indep. School Dist., 55 F.3d 1075, 1079 (5th Cir. 1995) (“[T]he reasonableness of seizures must be determined in light of all of the circumstances ….”); Edwards v. Rees, 883 F.2d 882, 884 (10th Cir. 1989) (“the same considerations which moved the Supreme Court to apply a relaxed Fourth Amendment standard in cases involving school searches support applying the standard in school seizure cases.”).