T.S. appeals the disposition order that withheld adjudication for one count of possession of marijuana and one count of possession of drug paraphernalia, contending that the trial court erred when it denied her dispositive motion to suppress. Because the State presented no evidence that the search of T.S.’s bookbag was justified at its inception, we reverse and remand for T.S.’s discharge.
T.S. was charged with possession of marijuana and possession of drug paraphernalia after a search of her bookbag by school officials turned up these items. T.S. moved to suppress this evidence, arguing that the search of her bookbag was not supported by reasonable suspicion. At the hearing on T.S.’s motion, the evidence shоwed that on the day in question T.S. arrived at school early with her mother for a meeting with Barbara Meshna, the school’s guidance counselor. At that time, T.S. had a bookbag with her. After the meeting, Meshnа reminded T.S, that school rules prohibited students from carrying bookbags in the halls during the school day, and Meshna offered to allow T.S. to leave the bookbag in her office. Meshna testified that T.S. did so “withоut any issue at all.” At that time, T.S. had not violated any school rule, nor was she suspected of violating any law.
On four different occasions during the day, T.S. came to Meshna’s office asking to have access to her bookbag. Meshna testified that she did not notice anything out of the ordinary about T.S.’s attitude or demeanor when T.S. made these requests. Citing the school policy on bookbags, Meshna denied each of T.S.’s requests. Nevertheless, she became suspicious because of the number of times T.S. requested access to her bookbag. As Meshna explained, “I was thinking about how many times she came to try to retrieve her book bag, [and] I started wondering why it was so important to her.” So -without any consent or other information, Meshna initiated a search of T.S.’s bookbag, whiсh revealed the marijuana and paraphernalia at issue in this case.
At the close of Meshna’s testimony, T.S. argued that the search of her bookbag was improper because sсhool officials had no reasonable suspicion based on articulable facts that she was violating the law or school rules so as to justify the search. The trial court disagreed, finding that thе fact that T.S. brought her bookbag to school despite school policies that discouraged bookbags subjected that bookbag to a
Searches of students by school officials are analyzеd, like all searches, under the Fourth Amendment, but they have their own slightly modified standard of reasonable suspicion. To justify the search of a student by a school official, there must be “reasonablе grounds for suspecting that the search will turn up evidence that the student has violated or is violating either the law or the rules of the school.” New Jersey v. T.L.O.,
For example, in A.S. v. State,
Similarly, in A.N.H., a teacher contacted the schоol counselor because A.N.H. had bloodshot eyes, was not acting like himself, and the teacher believed that “something wasn’t right” with him.
In contrast, in Safford Unified School District No. 1 v. Redding,
Like the searches in AS., A.N.H., and R.S.M., the search in this case was based on nothing more than Meshna’s unsupported hunch that something wasn’t right. None of the facts known to Meshna when she initiated the search of T.S.’s bookbag establish reasonable grounds for suspecting that a search of that bag would turn up evidence of activity that violated either the law or school rules. T.S. cleаrly wanted something from her bookbag during the school day, but that something could have been any number of lawful items, such as change for a vending machine, feminine hygiene products, or a piecе of gum. Meshna testified that she became suspicious about what might be in the bookbag because, in her opinion, T.S. seemed overly anxious to have it. However, unlike the facts in Redding, Meshna had no рrior information that T.S. was involved in any type of illegal activity and no reasonable basis for suspecting that T.S. would have contraband either in her bookbag or on her person. Absent some evidence from which Meshna could draw a reasonable inference that T.S. had some type of contraband in her bookbag, T.S.’s interest in retrieving her bookbag, taken alone, is not a spеcific and articulable fact which reasonably warranted the search of the bookbag. Even taking into account the relaxed standard of reasonable suspicion appliсable to searches of students by school officials, the search in this case, like the searches in AS., AN.H., and R.S.M., was improper, and the evidence resulting from the search should have been suppressed.
In this appeal, the State asserts that Meshna had sufficient reasonable suspicion because T.S. was violating school rules by wandering the halls with her bookbag. However, this argument is not supported by the record. The evidence at the hearing showed that T.S. carried her bookbag into a meeting with her mother and Mesh-na before school started. When the meeting ended, T.S. aсcompanied Meshna to her office and left the bookbag there. Thus, there was simply no evidence that T.S. was wandering the halls with her bookbag in violation of school rules on the date in question.
The State also asserts that the court could have considered T.S.’s prior disciplinary history when determining whether Meshna had a reasonable suspicion to search the bookbag. And whilе this would be a proper consideration for the court if such evidence had been presented, see State v. D.T.W.,
Because the State presented insufficient evidence to establish that Meshna had a reasonable suspicion that T.S.’s bookbag would contain contraband, the trial court should have granted T.S.’s motion to suppress. Hence, we reverse the disposition order and sentence and remand for T.S.’s discharge.
Reversed.