792 F. Supp. 2d 1174
D.N.M.2011Background
- Candice Herrera and her sister attended Capital High School prom; Herrera was subjected to a pat-down, shoe check, purse inspection, and removal of items by a security officer from ASI and SFPS.
- SFPS has conducted searches at extracurricular activities since 2004 under a contracted security framework with ASI New Mexico, LLC.
- Prom and graduation are voluntary events; attendance is not required to receive a diploma, but SFPS policy treats searches as applicable at school-sponsored activities.
- SFPS Code of Conduct authorizes intrusive searches based on reasonable suspicion; some sections extend to all school-sponsored activities.
- Herrera alleges that the searches violate the Fourth Amendment; she seeks a temporary restraining order to restrict pat-downs at the 2011 prom and 2011 graduation.
- The Court grants in part a TRO, ordering graduated, less-intrusive searches and third-party observer oversight, rather than blanket prohibition on all searches.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Irreparable harm present | Herrera will suffer irreparable harm without TRO | No irreparable harm beyond monetary/lesser harms; searches serve safety | Irreparable injury shown; TRO granted in part |
| Reasonableness of pat-down searches | Pat-downs without individualized suspicion violate Fourth Amendment | Activities are voluntary with reduced privacy; pat-downs are permissible to ensure safety | Likely violation; pat-downs unconstitutional as first resort without suspicion |
| Searches of belongings vs. bodies | Possession searches are highly intrusive as well, affecting privacy | Possession searches are less intrusive and justified by safety concerns | Possession searches not shown to be as likely violated as pat-downs; not all searches foreclosed |
| Balancing of harms and public interest | Less intrusive methods suffice; public interest favors safety with minimal intrusion | School safety justifies intrusive searches; public interest in order | Balance favors Herrera; narrowed, graduated searches with oversight |
| Scope and manner of TRO relief | Court should restrict searches; allow observer; TSA-trained supervision | Prefered methods and compliance; security needs may require broader authority | TRO granted with graduated approach, observer, and TSA-trained supervision |
Key Cases Cited
- O Centro Espirita Beneficiente Uniao do Vegetal v. Ashcroft, 389 F.3d 973 (10th Cir. 2004) (preliminary injunction standard and status quo considerations)
- Bd. Educ. of Indep. Sch. Dist. No. 92 of Pottawatomie County v. Earls, 536 U.S. 822 (U.S. 2002) (reasonableness in school searches; special needs exception)
- New Jersey v. T.L.O., 469 U.S. 325 (U.S. 1985) (framework for student searches: reasonableness and scope)
- Vernonia School Dist. 47J v. Acton, 515 U.S. 646 (U.S. 1995) (reduced privacy in school athletics and search reasonableness)
- Doe ex rel. Doe v. Little Rock Sch. Dist., 380 F.3d 349 (8th Cir. 2004) (random, suspicionless student searches may be unconstitutional)
- Hartwell v. United States, 436 F.3d 174 (3d Cir. 2006) (administrative search doctrine; minimally intrusive airport screening)
- In re Hough v. Shakopee Pub. Schs., 608 F.Supp.2d 1087 (D. Minn. 2009) (daily suspicionless searches not reasonable; lesser intrusions explored)
- Doe ex rel. Doe v. Little Rock Sch. Dist. (Doe II), 380 F.3d 349 (8th Cir. 2004) (recurring intrusion analysis in school settings)