SLIDE 15 4/26/2019 15
T
he c our t applie d T .L .O. and found: Re asonable gr
- unds to suspe c t that a se ar
c h E DJ’s c e ll phone would r e ve al e vide nc e that she was violating/ had violate d the sc hool’s r ule against har assme nt
T
he se ar c h not unr e asonably intr usive , e ve n though it inc lude d r e ading me ssage s of non-stude nts, be c ause AP c ould not have be e n c e r tain that te xts be twe e n E DJ and family me mbe r s ide ntifie d by e mojis we r e not, in fac t, te xts to othe r stude nts.
T
he c our t de te r mine d that the Supr e me Cour t in Rile y did not sugge st its r ationale would apply to stude nts or
r ule T .L .O. “T
he c our t r e je c ts Plaintiffs’ c onte ntion that the Supr e me Cour t’s de c ision in [Rile y] made it c le ar to all sc hool offic ials that the y will violate the F
th Ame ndme nt if the y se ar c h a stude nt’s c e ll phone without a war r ant.”
T
he c our t applie d T .L .O. and found: Re asonable gr
- unds to suspe c t that a se ar
c h E DJ’s c e ll phone would r e ve al e vide nc e that she was violating/ had violate d the sc hool’s r ule against har assme nt
T
he se ar c h not unr e asonably intr usive , e ve n though it inc lude d r e ading me ssage s of non-stude nts, be c ause AP c ould not have be e n c e r tain that te xts be twe e n E DJ and family me mbe r s ide ntifie d by e mojis we r e not, in fac t, te xts to othe r stude nts.
T
he c our t de te r mine d that the Supr e me Cour t in Rile y did not sugge st its r ationale would apply to stude nts or
r ule T .L .O. “T
he c our t r e je c ts Plaintiffs’ c onte ntion that the Supr e me Cour t’s de c ision in [Rile y] made it c le ar to all sc hool offic ials that the y will violate the F
th Ame ndme nt if the y se ar c h a stude nt’s c e ll phone without a war r ant.”
Jac kson v. Mc Curry Jac kson v. Mc Curry
De Co ssas v. S
ammany Par. S c h. Bd., No . CV 16-3786, 2017 WL 3971248 (E .D. L a . Se pt. 8, 2017) De Co ssas v. S
ammany Par. S c h. Bd., No . CV 16-3786, 2017 WL 3971248 (E .D. L a . Se pt. 8, 2017)
M.D., who wa s sub se q ue ntly e xpe lle d, wa s
- rde re d to the sc ho o l disc iplina ria n’ s o ffic e
a nd q ue stio ne d a nd se a rc he d in the pre se nc e o f a she riff’ s de puty re g a rding a lle g a tio ns tha t M.D. purc ha se d, so ld a nd po sse sse d d rug s. During the se a rc h o f M.D., sc ho o l o ffic ia ls unc o ve re d a sma rtpho ne , de ma nde d tha t M.D. unlo c k it (whic h he e ve ntua lly did), a nd se a rc he d it. T he c o urt he ld tha t, unde r T .L .O., the se a rc h wa s re a so na b le , a nd Rile y did no t usurp M.D.’ s “le sse r e xpe c ta tio n o f priva c y” a s a juve nile stude nt; mo re o ve r, this wa s no t a SI T A. E ve n if the c o nduc t wa s e sta b lishe d, it did no t vio la te a “c le a rly e sta b lishe d” rig ht unde r the 4th a me ndme nt, a nd is thus una b le to
- ve rc o me a q ua lifie d immunity de fe nse
M.D., who wa s sub se q ue ntly e xpe lle d, wa s
- rde re d to the sc ho o l disc iplina ria n’ s o ffic e
a nd q ue stio ne d a nd se a rc he d in the pre se nc e o f a she riff’ s de puty re g a rding a lle g a tio ns tha t M.D. purc ha se d, so ld a nd po sse sse d d rug s. During the se a rc h o f M.D., sc ho o l o ffic ia ls unc o ve re d a sma rtpho ne , de ma nde d tha t M.D. unlo c k it (whic h he e ve ntua lly did), a nd se a rc he d it. T he c o urt he ld tha t, unde r T .L .O., the se a rc h wa s re a so na b le , a nd Rile y did no t usurp M.D.’ s “le sse r e xpe c ta tio n o f priva c y” a s a juve nile stude nt; mo re o ve r, this wa s no t a SI T A. E ve n if the c o nduc t wa s e sta b lishe d, it did no t vio la te a “c le a rly e sta b lishe d” rig ht unde r the 4th a me ndme nt, a nd is thus una b le to
- ve rc o me a q ua lifie d immunity de fe nse
