Arrest, Search, Seizure, Warrant Is this a constitutional search on school grounds?

[Cory132fvcqaws]

In April, the police brought in drug dogs to my high school to do a random drug search. This involved having drug dogs sniff around cars and in random class rooms. Throughout the morning, drug dogs sniffed around the parking lot looking into random cars and at least 20 kids were summoned to the parking lot, being pulled out of classes by police officers in front of everyone. The police also went around and knocked on random classroom doors, demanded everyone to leave the classroom, leave all of their belongings, and stand in the hallways. The police searched through backpacks, demanded that the teacher unlock the chemical supply cabinets (seems unreasonable because no students had access to them), and even demanded a search of the teachers desk and bag. We went back into the room and it was clear that the cops went through everything. It was made even more unreasonable due to the fact that the cops that tore through the classroom and had no drug dog with them, followed by the principle.
Here comes the really ridiculous part. I was among those who were summoned to have my car searched. Cops came into my chemistry classroom 30 minutes later at the end of class with a slip of paper and read my name aloud, telling me and everyone in the class that I had to go out into the parking lot to have my car searched. They escorted me down the busy hallways and made a big spectacle, telling kids to move along as the kids were calling me a "stoner" (they assumed I had drugs or contraband in my vehicle). Some students even filmed the incident with their cellphones. When I reached the parking lot, I was informed by the police that the dogs sniffed something in the area and the police needed to search 8 adjacent vehicles because they could not identify the specific vehicle. I was asked a variety of questions such as, "Do you have anything illegal in your car?", "Do you know anyone who would have something illegal in their car?", "Can we do a quick search to make sure?" etc. I knew and understood some of my rights with dealing with the situation. I told the police that I am not going to answer any further questions and that I do not consent to any searches. I understood that students do not have the same rights when dealing with the police on school property, but I wanted to establish that the search was non-voluntary. The cops did not like this and got upset, telling me, "You need to cooperate with a search on school property, we can do this because we are on school grounds. I appreciate that you know your rights, but we are busy and need you to cooperate" and "If you have nothing to hide, why can't you let us search your car for a minute." I replied that you do not seem to have probable cause and you do not even know the right vehicle to be searching. The police then summoned the principal and explained that I was not allowing them to search the car. I said that they do not know the specific vehicle to be searching. Other kids heard this and refused to have their vehicles searched as I did. The principal became very angry and told everyone that if they do not cooperate with the search, they would all be suspended for a week (5 school days). I said that if they needed to find a specific car, I could move my car and have the outside sniffed by the drug dogs if it would be of any help. The police said that they did not have enough time to search everyone and that they needed to do the search or people would be suspended. I took out my cellphone and filmed these searches of vehicles and many other students did the same. The cops and the principal became very angry again and told us to put the cameras away or we would be suspended. I said that I can film you doing your jobs as long as I do not directly interfere. The cops agreed but the principal became angry. Everyone in the area had their car thoroughly searched and at the end, nothing contraband was found on that school day.
After all of this nonsense, the principal called me into his office telling me that he did not appreciate me being a ringleader and causing everyone else not to cooperate with their random drug search nonsense. I told him that many people feel that their rights were violated, including me. He told me that there would be no suspensions, giving nothing was found. I replied that you could not suspend the people anyway because they understood their rights, including the Fourth and Fifth Amendments that are taught in this school. He said the classic, "If you have nothing to hide, why didn't you let them do a search?". I said that because I have rights, I can refuse to consent to a warantless search and not incriminate myself to the police. I also said that refusing a search does not generate the probable cause police need to have for a search. The principal made me leave and told me to cooperate next time.
Was this search constitutional? Do police have the right to search a whole row of vehicles if the dogs smell something in the area? Were my rights infringed upon in any other ways? Did the police overstep their bounds?

 

[army judge]

The search is allowed on school property.
Schools are exceptions from many laws carved out decades ago for public policy concerns.

The searches are constitutional on their face.
Only a court can decide further after a trial or arguments on the matter.

Your rights weren't trampled.
Rudeness is never a consideration in criminal cases.

A defense to drugs being in your car or locker would be, you didn't put them there.
That defense isn't going to be argued on the scene.
It'll be done in the court room.

One other note: if students are not 18 years or older, parents should be requested by the affected students.
The police aren't allowed to question minors without a parent being present.
Make sure you alert your colleagues who are minors to always request a parent or guardian to be present and remain silent until mommy or daddy arrive.

You stood your ground. Good for you. No harm came to you. But, be careful at 2:00AM in other venues.

 

[ElleMD]

Yes, you could be suspended at a minimum. Why on earth would you think that you could ignore their directives with no consequences? That standard for searching in schools is "reasonable suspicion" not the stricter "probable cause" and that standard had been met.

While you might "legally" be allowed to video record the police, your school does not have to ignore their rules regarding the use of electronic devices on school grounds. If the Principal says no phone or video on school property, that stands.

 

[mightymoose]

Unless Georgia has a specific statute to permit this, I would certainly take issue with this sort of search and would recognize the students right to refuse. A big factor in school searches is who conducts the search as well as what is searched and where.
As described, the search of a private vehicle without permission, even on school property, would certainly require a warrant if being searched by the police.
I don't see that the school could reasonably discipline a student for refusing permission to search either. Had it been a search of a school locker or something else owned by the school perhaps the situation would be different.
As it is presented here I believe the student had it exactly right. Had the student not eventually unlocked the vehicle the police would have been left with the option of obtaining a warrant if they felt they had enough to do so.
Something worth checking on the matter- is there a sign posted at the entrance of the parking lot that indicates vehicles are subject to search?

 

[ElleMD]

Unfortunately you are quite wrong. SCOTUS upheld such warrantless searches and lowered the standard for "cause" back in the 80's. This is well established and every attempt to challenge the right of schools to search the grounds or even drug test students has been unsuccessful.

 

[CdwJava]

There are a variety of case law decisions that could be relied upon to support both the sniff and the subsequent search of a vehicle on campus. Georgia law would also play a part in this.

If the student declined to consent to a search, then the police can either act on an exigency, or, impound the car and seek a search warrant, or, detain the car in place and seek a search warrant. State law might dictate which of these the police there should follow.

The school is also free to enact discipline as appropriate. Though, if the refusal to consent is perfectly lawful in GA and the police cannot then utilize exigency to justify a search on scene, then upholding a suspension or other discipline may be dicey.

 

[mightymoose]

Unfortunately you are quite wrong. SCOTUS upheld such warrantless searches and lowered the standard for "cause" back in the 80's. This is well established and every attempt to challenge the right of schools to search the grounds or even drug test students has been unsuccessful.

Perhaps I do have it wrong, but I believe it is very different when the police are conducting the search vs the school conducting the search. The cases I am familiar with have to do with school officials conducting searches on school grounds, not police.
Regardless, nobody is ever required to consent to a search, and if the police in this case had authority to proceed with the search without permission there likely would not have been this run-in/standoff with the student over access to it.

 

[CdwJava]

That is the beauty of having a School Resource Officer program - at least in CA. SROs are given the status of school staff for such things as searches of students and upon school grounds using the lesser standard which is essentially articulated reasonable suspicion rather than the probable cause normally required for other officers.

 

[mightymoose]

Ahh... I could see that as a loophole. My understanding is that SRO's are paid by the school the district via grants and are essentially school employees.

As for the scenario above, I'm not sure it would still work as there were multiple officers, dogs, etc.

 

[CdwJava]

Ahh... I could see that as a loophole. My understanding is that SRO's are paid by the school the district via grants and are essentially school employees.

As for the scenario above, I'm not sure it would still work as there were multiple officers, dogs, etc.

Much of the time they are paid for, in part, by the school district and that may well be how that loophole was created. But, it's nice to have because it gives that officer (or those officers) expanded search ability on campus. Really nifty for gang cases! For instance, a kid with gang related graffiti on a binder walking through a hall can NOT be detained solely for that by a regular officer, but by the SRO or school staff, he can be. When I was an SRO in So. Cal., we were tasked with a lot of gang documentation and interviews as a result.

As for the specific scenario here, if the SRO was not an active part in things, the officers must adhere to the usual standard of probable cause. Heck, even if the SRO or admin were involved, they need to tread carefully in this circumstance. But, Georgia may have some different interpretations on such things.