Lisa, a minor, was a California high school student. During class, Lisa and other students were disruptive. While the teacher was telling the students to sit down and do their work, Lisa stood up and said she had to go to the bathroom. The teacher did not allow her. Lisa stayed in class and ceased being disruptive.

Later she became agitated and insistent saying she had to go. The teacher refused to release her. The teacher was unaware that there was information in the nurse’s office directing school officials to permit Lisa to go to the bathroom at any time because of her medical condition.

            Lisa walked toward the classroom door, but the teacher blocked the door with her hand. Lisa cursed at the teacher, moved the teacher’s hand away from the door handle, and walked out of the classroom leaving her purse on her desk. The teacher put Lisa’s purse on her desk for Lisa’s safety.

            Lisa returned to the classroom but the door was locked and she could not reenter, which the teacher was aware of. At the end of the class period, the teacher dismissed the other students and decided to write a disciplinary referral for Lisa’s behavior. The teacher did not recall Lisa’s name or student identification number, so she opened Lisa’s purse. The teacher saw a knife in Lisa’s purse. She closed the purse and called security.

            The District Attorney filed a petition to place the student as a ward of the state, charging her with (1) possession of a knife on school grounds and (2) carrying a knife on her person. Lisa denied the allegations.

She moved to suppress evidence but the court denied it. Lisa then admitted the allegation as to count one, and the court granted the district attorney’s motion to dismiss count two. The court declared Lisa a ward of the court and placed her on probation for one year.

            Lisa appealed the trial court’s denial of her motion to suppress evidence, contending that: (1) the teacher’s search of her purse was unlawful under the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, in that (a) her legitimate expectation of privacy was violated when her purse was searched by the teacher, (b) the search was not justified at its inception because the teacher did not have reasonable suspicion of wrongdoing, and (2) the evidence obtained from the unlawful search of her purse should be excluded as “fruit of the poisonous tree”.

            The prosecutor replied that the search of the student’s purse was justified at its inception because the teacher had to write a disciplinary referral and needed the student’s identification on account of her defiant behavior.

Under the law, public school officials are government agents and their conduct is subject to the constitutional rights of their students against unreasonable searches and seizures.

            Ordinarily, a search of a student by a teacher or other school official will be justified at its inception when there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that the search will disclose evidence that the student has violated or is violating the law or school rules. There must be articulable facts supporting that reasonable suspicion.

            The issue is whether under the circumstances the teacher legally opened the student’s purse in accordance with the law.

            If you were the judge or a juror, what would be your verdict?

            FIND OUT THE DECISION NEXT WEEK

            (Atty. Tipon holds a Master of Laws degree from Yale Law School and a Bachelor of Laws degree from U.P. He practices law. California Tel. 510 825 1045. Hawaii Tel. 808 847 1601. Fax 808 847 1624. Office: 905 Umi St., Suite 201, Honolulu, HI 96819. Email: filamlaw@yahoo.com. Website: www.ImmigrationServicesUSA.com. Listen to KNDI 1270 on your AM dial in Hawaii every Friday morning 6-8)

PN Legal 2005-7 Student purse search

02 16 05