Search of car on school property was with reasonable suspicion under T.L.O.

Plaintiff’s car was searched on school property with reasonable suspicion of marijuana possession under T.L.O. Morgan v. Snider High Sch., 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 79103 (N.D. Ind. October 23, 2007):

The searches of Kevin’s vehicle were “justified at [their] inception” and “reasonably related in scope to the circumstances,” T.L.O., 469 U.S. at 341, as there was at least a reasonable suspicion that his car contained contraband, particularly so since Kevin admitted that he drove a student onto school property who was found to be under the influence and in possession of marijuana. Moreover, the initial search was with Kevin’s oral consent (as well as the prior consent derived from his parking permit application), a status that presumably continued as the second search proceeded with a flashlight. As to the alleged third search, it was conducted after some marijuana pieces were found in the car and after Kevin admitted that he had recently smoked marijuana, so clearly by then a more thorough search was reasonable. Finally, while the Plaintiffs complain that the searches were conducted, or at least initiated, in the absence of Kevin’s parents, they cite no authority that would suggest the searches were thus unconstitutional.

Exigent circumstances of a threat with a gun permitted an entry despite lack of consent. Even consent argument is unavailing, though, because defendant had no standing in the place searched. United States v. Henderson, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 79036 (W.D. Mo. October 24, 2007).*

Officers were investigating a hit and run and they were looking at defendant’s vehicle in his driveway when he came out and pointed a gun at them and told them to get away. He then tried to go inside with the officer holding on, and the officers went in after him. The entry was lawful. State v. Jankite, 2007 Ohio 5706, 2007 Ohio App. LEXIS 5010 (8th Dist. October 25, 2007):

[*P12] In addition, a police officer may not make an arrest on a misdemeanor without a warrant unless the offense is committed in the presence of the arresting officer. R.C. 2935.03, State v. Mathews (1976), 46 Ohio St.2d 72, 346 N.E.2d 151. At the suppression hearing Officer Alvarez testified that he witnessed appellant threaten to shoot him and Officer Mladek. On the basis of this threat, Officer Alvarez attempted to arrest appellant for aggravated menacing, a misdemeanor. The court found that the police attempted to arrest appellant in the backyard and only entered the home when appellant dragged Officer Alvarez through the back doorway.

[*P13] Officer Alvarez was not required to obtain a warrant under the circumstances in which he found himself at appellant’s house. Officer Alvarez testified at the suppression hearing that, in his lawful attempt to arrest appellant, appellant pulled him inside the house, through the back door, and into the vestibule. There was no conflicting testimony at the suppression hearing as to how the police officer gained entry into appellant’s house. The court found sufficient evidence to support Officer Alvarez’s account of the facts that the arrest of appellant began in the backyard and ended in the house.

Allegation that plaintiffs were repeatedly tasered while handcuffed stated enough to go forward for an excessive force claim. Crihfield v. City of Danville Police Dep’t, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 79182 (W.D. Va. October 11, 2007).*