SAN DIEGO DISTRICT ATTORNEY The Fourth Amendment and ...

case of a “physical (as opposed to a non-contact visual) body
cavity search.” In Collins, a visual inspection of the defendant’s
rectal area was intended, for which it is generally accepted that the
rigorous requirements of the more intrusive “physical body cavity
search” is not required.
Minors:
School officials have the power to stop a minor/student on campus in order
to ask questions or conduct an investigation even in the absence of a
reasonable suspicion of criminal activity or a violation of school rules, so
long as this authority is not exercised in an arbitrary, capricious, or
harassing manner. (In re Randy G. (2001) 26 Cal.4 th 556.)
California follows the federal rule on this issue, as described in
New Jersey v. T.L.O. (1985) 469 U.S. 325 [83 L.Ed.2 nd 720], when
applying the protections of the California Constitution. (In re
William G. (1985) 40 Cal.3 rd 550, 564.)
New Jersey v. T.L.O., supra, allows for warrantless
searches by school officials so long as the search is
“reasonable.” (e.g., a “reasonable suspicion?”)
In re William G., supra, at p. 564, specifically defines this
standard as a “reasonable suspicion,” holding that searches
by school officials are lawful so long as the official has “a
reasonable suspicion that the student or students to be
searched have engaged, or are engaging, in a proscribed
activity (that is, a violation of a school rule or regulation, or
a criminal statute).”
The search of a student by a school administrator requires
only that there be a reasonable suspicion of criminal
activity or a violation of school rules. The extent of law
enforcement’s involvement, evaluating the totality of the
circumstances, must be considered when determining
whether law enforcement’s probable cause standards apply.
Finding that; “the police role in the search of appellant was
at all times clearly subordinate to the role of the viceprincipal,
who made the decision to search and conducted
the search,” a vice principal’s search of a student’s locker
was upheld under the T.L.O. standard despite the fact that
the information came from law enforcement and officers
stood by for safety reasons as the vice principal conducted
the search. (In re K.S. (2010) 183 Cal.App.4 th 72.)
© 2012 Robert C. Phillips. All rights reserved
85