Recently, the Ohio Supreme Court held that a warrantless search of a high school student’s bag was constitutional. The case, State v. Polk, began in February 2013 when a high school student left his backpack on the bus. A school resource officer found the backpack and opened it only enough to identify its owner. However, based on a rumor that the student was a gang member, the officer brought the backpack to the principal instead of returning it to the student.

The principal searched the bag and found bullets inside. The principal then contacted the police, who confronted the student inside the school, executed a takedown and “incapacitated” the student, and searched another bag the student had on his person. A handgun was located inside. The student was charged with possession of a deadly weapon.

Unconstitutional Search Under the Fourth Amendment

The student’s attorney filed a motion to suppress, arguing that both searches were unconstitutional searches and, thus, illegal under the Fourth Amendment. The trial court and Franklin County Court of Appeals agreed. However, the Ohio Supreme Court disagreed.

The Ohio Supreme Court began its analysis by stating that the Fourth Amendment provides the right of people to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures, but “special needs” sometimes warrants an exception. When such special needs, beyond crime detection, are present, the Court must weigh the competing interests of the public versus the interests of the person. Where the privacy interests are minimal, and there is an important governmental interest furthered by the intrusion, a search may reasonable.

Warrantless Searches in Special-Needs Settings

In New Jersey v. T.L.O., the United States Supreme Court first recognized a warrantless search in a special-needs setting. This ruling moved the Court away from a “rule-based search and seizure jurisprudence toward a case-by-case method.” However, the Court further stated that “the basic purpose of the Fourth Amendment . . .  is to safeguard the privacy and security of individuals against arbitrary invasions by government officials” and “in carrying out searches . . . school officials act as representatives of the State . . . and they cannot claim . . .  immunity from the strictures of the Fourth Amendment.”

Thus, in determining the reasonableness of the search, the Court must balance the need to search against the invasion of the search. In the school context, the need to search is to maintain a safe environment for students to learn, and the U.S. Supreme Court has stated in T.L.O. that the “school setting requires some easing of restrictions to which searches by public authorities are ordinarily subject.”

Expectation of Privacy for Students

The Fourth Amendment only protects person against unreasonable searches and seizures when there is a reasonable expectation of privacy. A person forfeits their reasonable expectation of privacy in abandoned property.

Here, the Ohio Supreme Court argued that even though the student did not abandon his backpack on the school bus, the student’s expectation of privacy was diminished because other juveniles on the bus could have looked in the bag. However, this is completely irrelevant because the school resource officer searched the bag only to the extent necessary to determine who the bag belonged to. The principal is the person who searched the backpack absent any reason to do so as the owner was identified and nothing about the initial search indicated any cause for concern. Therefore, there was no reason to continue the search and the Court’s analysis is incorrect.

Moreover, the trial court was correct in stating that “it was reasonable for Officer Lindsey to conduct his initial search of the unattended book bag for not only safety and security purposes, but also to identify the bag’s owner. Having done so, his original purpose for the search was fulfilled.” The search by the principal was a new search that was unreasonable because it was motivated solely by a rumor that the student was a gang member.

The Ohio Supreme Court, however, stated that the initial search was not sufficient to ensure that none of its contents were dangerous. This kind of logic is misplaced as there was nothing discovered during the initial search that suggested that anything in the backpack was dangerous, and the principal’s search was not a continuation of the first search, but a completely separate search.

The Court’s reasoning would permit any school official to search any unattended bag because it may contain an item that could disrupt the school environment. Moreover, if the school official found nothing incriminating, but suspected the student of bad behavior, the school official could have a different official search the backpack again to discover something incriminating, absent any reason to do so. This is a tremendously slippery slope that the Ohio Supreme Court has placed student’s on.

Columbus and Delaware, Ohio Criminal Defense Attorney

If you have been charged with a criminal offense in Columbus or Delaware, Ohio, contact Johnson Legal, LLC and speak with an experienced criminal defense attorney. Attorney David Johnson of Johnson Legal, LLC will discuss your case and assist you in fighting the charges. Call (614) 987-0192 or send an email to schedule a consultation regarding your criminal offense case.

Johnson Legal, LLC serves the following cities in the central Ohio area for Criminal Defense:

Westerville, Worthington, Columbus, Polaris, Reynoldsburg, Grandview Heights, Shawnee Hills, Bexley, Pickerington, Gahanna, Sunbury, Powell, Upper Arlington, New Albany, Dublin, Hilliard, Lewis Center, Galena, Clintonville, Huber Ridge, Blacklick, Grove City, Delaware, Marysville, Groveport, Newark, Canal Winchester, Obetz, Marion, Mt. Gilead, Pataskala, Granville, Whitehall, Franklin County, Morrow County, Licking County, Union County, Madison County and Delaware County