WPC3; V$sh7 F}-mckO]]o=GHat{l2 Ju!]I= a,~G$ۻ[uwE#EO)ex)Gu/9ʦE'ᛎOumnpnL'upF 9Ӡ/I,J1m ,U⻔qy}oTINZ#U#N % 0: ^ ; wG 4K _ n mp 1 72 1u@ 72 0c jJ 0 0 DZ s S 0wh 0 0 0/ 0 0 0 0Dt! 1" 72A#`s#U>'(')M. 0V(1J~1333h555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555 B;Akita.bhspkm0(9 Z6Times New Roman RegularX($USUS.,'F/ .3|xU(5hCEKQW]cioAutoList11.1.1.1.1.1.1.1. 1.3#37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a) i)(;3$2#  0  .3  0   ` $USUS.,   4   11    _&%XXԀSee Brooksv.EastChambersConsol.Indep.Sch.Dist .,730F.Supp.759(S.D.Tex.  1989),affd,930F.2d915(5thCir.1991).(V(2$ !USUS.,     4   0  (#$  0   i $USUS.,   4   12    _Ԁ&%XXMoreover,thecourtrejectedoneplaintiffs(aformerstudent)claimthatthedistricthad  retaliatedagainsthimforhavingbroughtthesuit,findingnoevidenceofabuseofdiscretionby  schoolofficialsandnoevidencethatunexcusedabsencesforwhichhewaspenalizedwerenecessary  forhisprosecutionofthelawsuit.Id.at859.#XX%&#  $USUS.,   4   10    _Ԁ&%XXThecourtfurtherexplainedthisinquiryasfollows:  8 4 [_W]hether_,basedontheobjectivecircumstances,areasonablechildofthesameage  wouldbelievehisorherfreedomofmovementwassignificantlyrestricted.Factors x  relevanttothequestionofwhetherachildwasincustodyincludewhethertherewas   probablecausetoarrest,thefocusoftheinvestigation,theofficerssubjective   intent,andthechildssubjectivebeliefs. 44 Id.at31(citationsomitted);seealsoInre_D.A.R._,73S.W.3dat51011.#XX%&#  $USUS.,   4   3    _Ԁ&%XXNotethat,whiletheappellatecourtvacatedthejudgmentandinjunctioninMurphyfor  mootness(basedonCartersgraduation),itnonethelessheldthatthisdeterminationofmootnessdid  notprecludehisentitlement,as clearlytheprevailingparty,toareasonableattorneyfeeaward  under42U.S.C.1988.Murphyv.FortWorthIndep.Sch.Dist.,334F.3d470,471(5thCir.2003). x #XX%&# I $USUS.,   4   6    _&%XXԀUndertheAlamoHeightsStudentParentHandbookfortheschoolyearinquestion,hazing  wasconsidered seriousmisbehaviorprohibitedatschoolorschoolrelatedactivities,punishable  byavarietyofdisciplinemanagementtechniques,includingwithdrawalofextracurricularor  honoraryprivileges.Astudentcouldbeexpelledforselling,giving,delivering,possessing,using d orbeingundertheinfluenceofanalcoholicbeveragewhileonschoolpropertyorattendingaschool < ` sponsoredorschoolrelatedactivityonoroffschoolproperty.Id.at99394.Despitetheoff  8 premises,nonschoolrelatedactivityinquestioninthiscase,therewereapparentlyalsocheerleading   teamrules,theviolationofwhichtheschoolofficialsconsideredintheirdecision.(O;$0  2#  a  .3  0` (#(#  $USUS.,   4   2    _Ԁ&%XXNotethatthecourtwasonlydecidingL.P.sstatelawclaims,whichhadbeenremanded  tostatecourtfollowingthedismissalofhisfederalclaims.Id.at561n.2.#XX%&#(b$0  0` (#(#2#   .3  0 ` (#` (#(xir$0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#2#(  0  )3  0 (# (#($0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#2#(  a  )3  0h(#(#(F$0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#2#(   )3  0h(#h(#($0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#0h(#h(#2#  0  )3  0(#(#({$0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#0h(#h(#0(#(#2#  a  )3  0p(#(#(F$0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#0h(#h(#0(#(#0p(#(#2#     )3  0p(#p(# x?Gaeimquy}Bullet ListBullets List  V $USUS.,   4   7    _Ԁ&%XXAstheSupremeCourtdescribeditsgeneraltestfora reasonableschoolsearchforFourth  Amendmentpurposes:  8 4 Underordinarycircumstances,asearchofastudentbyateacherorotherschool x officialwillbe justifiedatitsinceptionwhentherearereasonablegroundsfor P t suspectingthatthesearchwillturnupevidencethatthestudenthasviolatedoris ( L violatingeitherthelawortherulesoftheschool.Suchasearchwillbepermissible  $ initsscopewhenthemeasuresadoptedarereasonablyrelatedtotheobjectivesof   thesearchandnotexcessivelyintrusiveinlightoftheageandsexofthestudent   andthenatureoftheinfraction.  44 T.L.O.,469U.S.at34142.#XX%&#4> Z&Benguiat Bk BT   $USUS.,   4   1    _&%XXԀTotheextentthatothercasesmayaddressissuesparticulartodisciplineofspecial  educationstudents,thoseissuesarebeyondthescopeofthispaper,andwillbeaddressedbyanother  speaker.  $USUS.,   4   8    _Ԁ&%XXForpurposesofdeterminingtheappropriateFourthAmendmentstandardwhenalaw  enforcementofficerisinvolvedinaschoolsearch,theRussellcourtappliedthethreecategory  analysissetoutbytheSupremeCourtofIllinoisinPeoplev.Dilworth,661N.E.2d310,317(1996).  Becausethepoliceofficerconductingthepatdownsearch,whowasassignedbythepolice x departmenttoRussellsschoolandwasactingonhisownauthority,fitthesecondDilworth P t category,thecourtfollowedthetwostepinquiryof Terryv.Ohio ,392U.S.1(1968),toconductits ( L FourthAmendmentanalysis.Id.at89192;cf.Inre_A.T.H._,106S.W.3d338,34243&n.1(Tex.  & App.!Austin,2003,nopet.)(declining,asunnecessaryinthecaseatbar,toaddressthequestionof   thestandardapplicabletopoliceofficers,butnotingtheanalysisoftheRussellcourt).#XX%&# C ''USUS.,  _   X_Bickerstaff_,Heath,Smiley,_Pollan_,_Kever_Ԁ&_McDaniel_,_L.L.P._   CaseLawUpdate:StudentDisciplineandSearchandSeizure  SusanM.Maxwell,AttorneyatLaw!!H!#XX k#Ԉ b (.3$ !USUS.,   @ $USUS.,   4   9    _Ԁ&%XXNotethatthecourtdeclinedto parsethroughthe[schoolandpolice]actors,andanalyzed  theclaimswithinthe specialneedsframeworkapplicabletoactionbyschoolofficials.Stockton,  147F.Supp.2datn.7(citing Milliganv.CityofSlidell ,226F.3d652,65456(5thCir.2000)).#XX%&#  $USUS.,   4   4    _&%XXԀApparently,despitehissuspensionandexpulsion, _Bundick_seducationcontinued.He  completedhisstudiesbytheendoftheschoolyear,earnedsufficientcreditstograduate,and  receivedadiploma.Id.at739. ^ $USUS.,   4   5    _&%XXԀ_Bundick_Ԁandhismotherhadameetingwiththeprincipalpriortohissuspension.Theyalso  receivedwrittennoticeofhisexpulsionhearing,includingadescriptionofthecharges.Atthe  hearing(beforethedistrictsuperintendent),_Bundick_Ԁandhismothertestified,hewasrepresented  byanattorney,andhisattorneyhadtheopportunitytocrossexaminedistrictwitnessesandargue d thecase.Followingfurtherinvestigation,thehearingreconvened(againwith_Bundick_Ԁrepresented), < ` furtherevidencewastakenandclosingargumentsmade._Bundick_Ԁandhisparentswereprovided  8 writtennotificationofthesuperintendentsdecisiontoexpelhimfortheremainderofthesemester.   Uponhisappealtotheboardoftrustees,_Bundick_,hisparentsandhisattorneyallappearedbefore   theboard,whichaffirmedtheorderofexpulsionbytakingnoaction.Id.at73940. d !USUS.,  _    XX#CASELAWUPDATE:##X'" Austin,Texas  *(z#    *R%"   _&_   @ XXCaseLawUpdate:StudentDisciplineandSearchandSeizure#XX  @#   PreparedandPresentedbySusanM.Maxwell,AttorneyatLaw&%XX : _______________________________________________________ & #XX%&#   4 ThefollowingisanoverviewofopinionsoffederalandstatecourtsinTexas,decided   fromthebeginningof2001topresent,thatanalyzethestatutoryandconstitutional   parameterswithinwhichTexasschooldistrictsmaydisciplinestudentsandmayconduct b  varioustypesofsearchesofstudentspersonsandproperty.$ #  1       :^   tXXI.0 4 StudentDiscipline:Chapter37andConstitutionalChallenges#XXt8# 6 4!4!  4 A. AEPPlacements:ProceduralDueProcess :^  4 Severalrecentopinionshaveaddressedtheprocessdueastudentremovedtoan 6 AlternativeEducationProgram(AEP)fordisciplinaryreasons.PursuanttotheAEPremoval  statute,TexasEducationCode37.006(a),aneighthgraderwhowasarrestedfor keying  twocarsintheschoolparkinglotandchargedwithfelonycriminalmischiefwasassigned  to20daysinthedistrictsAEP.Whilethestudentsmotherwasinformedofthisassignment r byschoolofficials,theydidnotinformheroftherighttoappealtheassignment,provided Jn forbythedistrictspolicies. StaffordMun.Sch.Dist.v.L.P. ,64S.W.3d559(Tex. "!F App.!Houston[14thDist.]2001,order). "  4 Onaninterlocutoryappealchallengingthedenialofthedistrictspleatothe $! jurisdiction,theappellatecourtreversedandremanded.Reiteratingthatastudentsproperty & # interestsareaffected(andthereforedueprocessrequired)onlywhenthedisciplineimposed ("% amountstoadeprivationofaccesstoeducation,thecourtheldthattheAEPtransferdidnot   implicateanypropertyorlibertyinterestofL.P. #  2      ׀Id.at56263(citing _Nevares_Ԁv.San   MarcosConsol._Indep_.Sch.Dist. ,111F.3d25,2627(5thCir.1997)).Becausethetransfer   didnotinvolveapropertyorlibertyinterest,thefailuretoinformL.P.ofhisrighttoappeal b thetransferdidnotdeprivehimofaconstitutionallyprotectedinterest.Id.at563.Thecourt :` alsorejectedL.P.sclaimthathewasdeprivedofalibertyinterestinhisreputationnotbeing 8  harmed,reasoningthat damagetoanindividualsreputationalone,apartfromsomemore   tangibleinterest,isnotenoughtoestablishadueprocessviolation.Id.at564.    4 Ahighschoolstudenthasobtainedinjunctiverelieffordenialofproceduraldue  process,however,wherethesuperintendentreliedoninformationgatheredexpartein r orderingthatthestudentnotbeallowedtoreturntohishomecampusafterservinghisAEP Jp term. Murphyv.FortWorth_Indep_.Sch.Dist. ,258F.Supp.2d569(N.D.Tex.2003).In "H Murphy,aseniorhonorstudent(TerryCarter)wasremovedfromtheclassroomandgiven   a3daysuspensionforanallegedoffenseof _terroristic_Ԁthreat,basedonanotherstudents ! havingtakenoffenseatarappoemthatCartercomposedandrecitedinclass.Id.at570. # Onappealfromthehearingofficersdecisionrequiringa90dayAEPterm,the % superintendentreducedthetermto10days,afterwhichtheamendeddecisioncontemplated Z'  Cartersreturntohishomeschool.Whilethematterwasonappealbeforetheschoolboard, 2)X" thesuperintendentobtainedstatementsfromCartersclassmatesandteachers,andconferred   withthecomplainingstudentandherparents,whorequestedthatCarterbetransferredto   anotherschool.NoneoftheseactivitiesweredisclosedtoCarter,hismother,orhislawyer.   Basedontheadditionalevidencehehadgathered(theconsiderationofwhichviolated b expressdistrictpolicydefiningthebasisfordecision),thesuperintendentchangedhisearlier :` rulingtodenyCartertherighttoreturntohishomecampusuponreturnfromtheAEP.Id. 8  at57172.    4 Thecourtrejectedthedefendantspurportedrationaleforthetransfer,concludingthat   Carterhadbeeneffectivelyexpelledfromhishighschoolwithnopriornoticeandhearing.  Id.at573&n.8(citing _Goss_Ԁv.Lopez ,419U.S.565,582(1975),anddistinguishing r _Nevares_).Thistransferwasnotatrivialdeprivation;thecourtfurtherfoundthatCarters Jp libertyinterestinhisreputationhadbeeninfringed,andgrantedapermanentinjunction "H  againstthedistrict. #  3      ׀   & 8     4 B. SuspensionandExpulsion:ProceduralandSubstantiveDueProcess     4 1.0 _JJAEP_Ԁreferralandcontinuationofexpulsion0 ! !  !!  4  Afederalcourthasrecentlyupheldamiddleschoolscompliancewiththedistricts   consistentpracticeofcontinuingastudentsexpulsionfromapriordistrictwhenthatstudent b '8  transfersinterdistrictandhasnotyetcompletedthetermsofherexpulsion. Morrisv. :` _Lewisville_Ԁ_Indep_.Sch.Dist. ,No.Civ.A.3:01CV1337L,2003WL22124104(N.D.Tex. 8  Mar.7,2003).InMorris,AmandaDoewasexpelledfromschoolattheageoftwelvefor   smokingmarijuanaonschoolpropertyandorderedtocomplete120daysatthe_Nueces_   CountyJuvenileJusticeAEP(_NCJJAEP_).Ratherthanreportingtothe_NCJJAEP_,she  withdrewfromthedistrictandenrolled(conditionally,pendingreceiptofhertranscript)in r the_Lewisville_Ԁ_ISD_,whereshehadmovedwithhermother.Id.at*12.Uponreceiptofher Jp records,theAssistantSuperintendentforStudentServicesinformedAmandasmotherthat "H shewouldberequiredtoattendtheDentonCounty_JJAEP_Ԁ(_DCJJAEP_)fortheamountof   timeorderedbyherpriorschooldistrict.Id.at*3.Basedonemotionalandpsychological ! problemsAmandahadallegedlysufferedafterherrequiredstayatthe bootcamp # _DCJJAEP_,plaintiffsbroughtconstitutional(Fourth,Fifth,EighthandFourteenth % AmendmentsoftheU.S.Constitution)andnegligenceclaimsagainstthedistrictandthe Z'   superintendent. 2)X"  4 Thecourtbeganfromthe_dispositive_ԀdeterminationthatAmandahadbeenlawfully    expelledpursuanttoTexasEducationCode37.007(b)(2)(A)(_i_),contrarytohermothers   contentionthatAmandawassimplytransferredtothe_NCJJAEP_.Id.at*5.The_Lewisville_   _ISD_sdecisiontorequireAmandatocomplywiththetermsofherexpulsionorderwas b clearlylegallypermissibleunderTexasEducationCode37.010(g),andthustherewasno :` constitutionalviolationornegligence.Thecourtrejected,as aclassiccaseofshiftingthe 8  blame,plaintiffsargumentthatthe60daydelaybetweenAmandasinitialenrollmentin   _LISD_Ԁandthebeginningofhertermat_DCJJAEP_Ԁwassomesortofwaiverbythedistrict,   faultingAmandasmotherfor disingenuousconductorfailuretoactinclarifyingfor_LISD_  herdaughtersstatusuponenrollment.Id.at*6.Totheextentthatplaintiffsclaimswere r groundedinthe bootcampnatureofthe_DCJJAEP_Ԁ(ascomparedtothe_NCJJAEP_),the Jp courtobservedthattheyhadmadenoshowingthatthe_DCJJAEP_Ԁwasorganizedoroperated "H inamannerinconsistentwithstatelaw.Inanyevent,the_DCJJAEP_Ԁwasnotpartofthe   schooldistrict,andthusthe_LISD_Ԁdefendantscouldnotbeliableforanyclaimsrelatedto ! Amandasstayatthe_DCJJAEP_.Id.at*7. #  4 2.0 ScopeofProtectedPropertyInterest % ! !  4 BasedonlongstandingTexasandfederalcaselawestablishingthatstudentsdonot Z'  haveaprotectedinterest!underthefederalconstitution,stateconstitution,orstatestatutes 2)X" !inparticipatinginextracurricularactivitiesorgraduation,afederalcourtgrantedsummary  +0!$ judgmenttoaschooldistrictthatsuspendedandlaterexpelledahighschoolstudentfor   beinginpossessionofanillegalknife. _Bundick_Ԁv.BayCity_Indep_.Sch.Dist. ,140F.Supp.   2d735(S.D.Tex.2001).Becausethestudentwasnotdeniedabasiceducation,hehadno   underlyingprotectedpropertyinterest,andthereforecouldnotestablishaproceduraldue b processviolation.) #  4      ׀Thecourtfurtherfoundmorethanadequatethedistrictsnoticeand :` hearingprocedures,ofwhichtheplaintiffavailedhimself,forthesuspensionandexpulsion 8  determinations., #  5      ׀Finally,thecourtrejected_Bundick_ssubstantivedueprocessclaim,onthe   basesthathispunishmentwasnotarbitrary,capriciousorirrational,andthatthedistricts   policy(whichdidnotrequirethestudenttohaveintentionallycommittedtheoffense)was  entitledtodeference.Id.at740. r     4 C. OtherChallengestoDisciplinaryActions     (5h83  4 1.0 ImmunityforAllegedlyNegligentDiscipline   ! !  4 Addressingthecircumstancesunderwhichschooldistrictemployeescaninvokethe   affirmativedefenseofstatutoryimmunity,astateappellatecourtaffirmedthedenialof b summaryjudgmentonthebasisofthisdefense,inacaseallegingnegligentdiscipline. :`  Myersv.Doe ,52S.W.3d391(Tex.App.!FortWorth2001,pet.denied).InMyers,acase 8  offirstimpression,theparentsofaspecialeducationstudent(MaryDoe)whowassexually   assaultedonseveraloccasionsbyanotherstudentsuedschoolofficialsforallegedlyfailing   effectivelytocarryoutmandatorydutiesandfornegligenceindiscipliningthestudents  involved.Id.at393.Afterthefirstassault,schoolofficialsreprimandedbothstudents,the r specialeducationdiagnosticianhavingconcludedthatthesexwasconsensual(despiteMary Jp Doesstatementstothecontrary).Theydecidedtoimplementaseriesofspecificpolicies "H andprocedures,designedtokeepthetwostudentsapartandtomonitortheirwhereabouts   atalltimes.Thepolicieswerenotcarriedout,andMaryDoewasassaultedtwomoretimes ! atschool.Thecourtheldthattheemployeesallegedfailuretoimplementthepoliciesand # proceduresputinplacetoprotectthisstudentamountedtoministerial,notdiscretionaryacts, % andthereforethattheemployeeswerenotentitledtoimmunity.Id.at39697.Thecourt Z'   furtherfoundthattheofficialsrespectiveaffidavits(inwhicheachdenieddiscipliningor 2)X" punishingMaryDoe)werecontradictoryandselfserving,andthereforethatsummary   judgmentwasnotproperbecauseofremainingfactissues.Id.at39798.      4 2. PermanentRemovalfromExtracurricularActivity     4 Afederalcourtdeniedpreliminaryinjunctiverelieftoahighschoolstudentwhowas b permanentlyremoved,withouthearing,fromthevarsitycheerleadingsquadforhaving :` attendedapartyinaprivatehome,wherehazingandalcoholconsumptionallegedly 8  occurred. Perkinsv.AlamoHeights_Indep_.Sch.Dist. ,204F.Supp.2d991(W.D.Tex.   2002). #  6      ׀InadditiontoproceduraldueprocessclaimsbasedontheTexasConstitution,the   plaintiffallegedunconstitutionaldisparatetreatment,onthebasisthatmalestudentathletes  atthesamepartywerenotpermanentlyremovedfromtheiractivities.Thecourtnotedthe r evidenceofa lengthyhistoryofproblematicbehaviorwithin[thecheerleadingsquad],and Jp wasunpersuadedthattheschoolofficialsandboardhadactedarbitrarilyorthattherewas "H disparityrising tothelevelnecessitatingfederalintervention.Id.at99798.Havingfound   theplaintiffsburdenforpreliminaryinjunctivereliefnotsatisfied,thecourtconcludedwith ! adiscussionofwhatittermed ThePandorasBoxElement,suggestingthatthistypeof # problemisnotwellsuitedforlitigationandnotingthatthecontinuationofthedisputewould   engenderonlyfurtherexpenseandpublicexposure.Id.at99899.   L     tXXII.0 4 SearchandSeizure:StateandFederalConstitutionalChallenges#XXtlF#  4!4!  4 A. 0 FourthAmendmentRestraints  ! !  4 Particularlyasschooldistrictsconfrontcomplexchallengesrelatingtoschool  violenceanddrugs,Texascourts!federalandstate,civilandcriminal!arecontinually b  calledupontointerprettheFourthAmendmentreasonablenessstandardsapplicableinthe :`  schoolcontext.Assetforthintheseminalcase NewJerseyv.T.L.O. ,469U.S.325(1985), 8  searchesofstudentsmustbejustifiedattheirinceptionandmustalsobepermissiblein  scope." #  7      ׀    4 1.0 _Warrantless_ԀSearches  ! !  4 AfederalcourtgrantedsummaryjudgmenttotheBayCity_ISD_,itsboardoftrustees, r andschoolofficials,onclaimsthatahighschoolstudentsFourthAmendmentrightswere J p violatedbythe_warrantless_Ԁsearchofhistruckandatoolboxinthebedofthetruck. _Bundick_   v.BayCity_Indep_.Sch.Dist. ,140F.Supp.2d735(S.D.Tex.2001).In_Bundick_,aftera   drugsniffingdogalertedtotheplaintiffstruck,adistrictpoliceofficerwasnotifiedand   _Bundick_Ԁwassummonedtothetruck.Havingconfirmedthathehaddriventhetruckto b school,_Bundick_Ԁwasaskedtoopenthecabandthetoolbox.Inthetoolboxwasamachete, :` anillegalknifeunderdistrictrules;basedonhispossessionoftheillegalknife,_Bundick_Ԁwas 8  suspendedandlaterexpelled.Id.at738.Thecourtfoundthatthesearchofthetruckwas   justifiedatitsinception,basedonthedogsalert,whichoccurredpursuanttopublishedand   routinedistrictprocedure.Thescopeofthesearchwasalsopermissible,becauseafterthe  alertitwasreasonabletobelievethatthetoolboxmightcontainoneormoreofthe r substancesthedogwastrainedtodetect.Id.Themachetewasvalidlyseizedunderthe Jp  plainviewdoctrine,becausetheinitialintrusionwaslawfulanditwasimmediately "H apparentthatitwasanillegalknife.Id.at73839.    4 Courtsreviewingdenialsofmotionstosuppressevidencebroughtincriminal ! proceedingsagainststudentsusuallyupholdtheactionsofschoolofficialsandpoliceofficers # underthereasonablesuspicionstandardofT.L.O.󀀀Afewrecentcasesareillustrative: %  (?y8 "3"   4 39T2?3  0    _Briseno_Ԁv.State ,No.050201630CR,2003WL22020800(Tex. Z'  App.!DallasAug.28,2003,nopet.h.)(highschoolstudentchargedwith F(l! possessionofcocaineinadrugfreezone).Thecourtconcludedthatthe 2)X" assistantprincipalhadreasonablesuspiciontosearch_Briseno_sbackpack, *D # wherehewasinthehallwayduringclasstime,wasevasiveandmisleading  +0!$ regardingwhichclassheshouldbein,andattemptedtodisposeofhis +"% backpacknearanotherstudent.Becausethissearch,whichrevealed   marijuana,wasproperlydone,thesubsequentsearchof_Briseno_spersonby   theschoolspoliceofficerliaison,whichrevealedthecocaine,wasnotfruit   ofthepoisonoustree.Id.at*23(distinguishingtheprogressivelyintrusive   searchesfoundunreasonablein Coronadov.State ,835S.W.2d636(Tex.   _Crim_.App.1992)).39TrT݌v ! ! Ќ  "3"   4 3Y2?3  0   Goldbergv.State ,95S.W.3d345(Tex.App.!Houston[1stDist.]2002,pet. Nt _refd_)(notebookfoundduringreasonablesearchofahighschoolstudents :` backpackwasadmissibleevidenceinhismurdertrialthreeyearslater).3YY݌&L  ! ! Ќ   4 "3"   4 3[2?3  0   Russellv.State ,74S.W.3d887(Tex.App.!Waco2002,nopet.)(opinionon $  rehearing)(highschoolstudentchargedwithmisdemeanorpossessionof   marijuanainadrugfreezone).Thecourtheldthatapatdownsearch,   conductedbythepoliceofficerassignedtotheschool,_% #  8      _Ԁofthepocketsof   Russellsbaggyshortswasreasonablyrelatedtotheobjectiveofdetermining   whetherRussellhadaweaponandwasnotexcessivelyintrusive.Russellhad  beenseensmokingintheparkinglotwithotherstudents;oncebroughttothe  principalsoffice,hewasmessingwithoneofhispocketsandthereafter r hadrefusedtoemptyhispocketsfortheprincipal.Id.at89293.3[ \݌^ ! ! Ќ  "3"   4 3j`2?3  0   &  _McKay_Ԁv.State ,No.010000101CR,2001WL522037(Tex. 6\ App.!Houston[1stDist.]May17,2001,nopet.)(notdesignatedfor "H publication)(highschoolgraduate't&`Ԁinitiallychargedwithpossessionwith 4 intenttodelivercontrolledsubstance).Thecourtheldthattheassistant   principalhadreasonablesuspiciontorequire_McKay_Ԁtoemptyhispockets,   whereavolunteerparentatanovernight lockinoverheardaconversation ! regardingaplanneddrugsale,andthestudentinitiallyquestionedand " searchedimplicated_McKay_Ԁasthesupplierofthedrugs.Id.at*2(citing _Irby_   v.State ,751S.W.2d670,673(Tex.App.!_Eastland_Ԁ1988,nopet.)).3j``݌  ! ! Ќ   4 Insomecircumstances,however,evidenceresultingfromaschoolsearchwillbe   suppressed. Inre_A.T.H._ ,106S.W.3d338(Tex.App.!Austin2003,nopet.)(highschool v studentadjudicateddelinquentforpossessionofmarijuanawithin1,000feetofaschool). Nt In_A.T.H._,apoliceschoolresourceofficer,actingonananonymoustipthatseveralyouths &L  weresmokingmarijuanabehindabusinessnearthecampus,stoppedayoungmanfittinga $  generaldescriptiongivenbythetipster,andconductedapatdownsearch.Whentheyoung   manplacedhishandsbehindhishead,theofficerobservedinhishanda_baggie_Ԁcontaining   marijuana.Theappellatecourtreversedthesuppressiondenial,holding,undertheT.L.O.  standard,thattheofficerarticulatednospecificfactsgivingrisetoareasonablesuspicion ^ that_A.T.H._Ԁmightbearmedanddangerous(whichwouldjustifyaTerryfriskforweapons) 6\ orthathemightbeinvolvedinillegalactivity(whichwouldjustifyapatdownsearchfor 4 contraband).Id.at34748.Becausethemarijuanawasthefruitofanillegaldetention,it   wassuppressed.Id.at349. "  4 2. ArrestandDetention  $  4 Inacaseheavilyinfluencedbytheheightenedvigilanceregardingschoolsafetyafter n& theColumbineHighSchooltragedy,afederalcourtdismissedallFourthAmendmentclaims F(l! againsttheCityofFreeportandthe_Brazosport_Ԁ_ISD_Ԁarisingfromthearrestanddetentionof *D # agroupofhighschoolsophomores. Stocktonv.CityofFreeport ,147F.Supp.2d642(S.D. +"% Tex.2001),_affd_,2002WL1219031(5thCir.),cert.denied,537U.S.1030(2002).Justdays   aftertheeventsatColumbine,athreateningletterwasfoundinthecomputerroomat   _Brazosport_ԀHighSchool.Theschoolsuspectedaparticularstudent,andknewthathespent   hisfreetimeinthesameoutdoorareaastheplaintiffs.Onthisbasis,fourteenstudentswere b confrontedbyCitypoliceofficersattheHighSchool,frisked,handcuffed,ledoutofthe :` buildingintopolicecars,andtransportedtotheFreeportmunicipalbuilding.There,they 8  wereallegedlythreatenedandwereorderedtoremaininthemunicipalcourtroom.After   theirparentsarrived,allwerelecturedbythepoliceandtheschoolprincipal.Id.at64344.   Despitesubsequenteffortsbyschoolofficialstoassuretheschoolcommunitythatthe  studentshaddonenothingwrong,theyallegedthattheyweresubjectedtoongoing r harassmentandhumiliation,andsufferedotherpsychologicalharmasaresultofthese Jp events.Id.at64445. "H  4 Acknowledgingthat [_t]hese_Ԁinvasionscertainlyareafarcryfromde_minimis_,the   courtapplieditsFourthAmendmentreasonablenessanalysistoconsider1)thenatureand ! immediacyofthegovernmentalconcernand2)theefficacyofthemeansusedtoaddressthe # concern.( #  9      ׀Regardingthefirstissue,thecourtstated: Itisdifficulttoconceiveofascenario % inwhichagreatergovernmentalinterestisinvokedthanthethreatofindiscriminateviolence Z'  atschool.Id.at646.Regardingthesecondissue,thecourtalsoconcludedthattheschools   andthepolicedepartmentsactionswereeffective,notwithstandingthatlessintrusivemeans   could(andlikelyshould)havebeenusedtogatherandquestionthestudents.Id.at647.In   itsconclusion,inwhichthecourtstatedthat whatoccurredattheSchoolwas,atmost,an b extraordinaryoverreaction,Stocktonreflectsarecognitionoftheneedandawillingnessto :` givesignificantlatitudetoschooldistrictsintheireffortstopreventschoolviolence.Id.at 8  64748.    4 Apairofrecentstatecourtcasesillustratesthecircumstancesinwhichastudentis,   andisnot,subjectedto custodialinterrogationthatwouldtriggerhisorher Miranda  rightsandthatmayleadtosuppressionofhisorherincriminatingstatements.Compare In r reV.P. ,55S.W.3d25(Tex.App.!Austin2001,pet.denied)with Inre_D.A.R._ ,73S.W.3d Jp 505(Tex.App.!ElPaso2002,nopet.).Inthefirstcase,thecourtaffirmedthedenialofa "H suppressionmotionwhereafourteenyearoldstudentwasquestionedbytheassistant   principal,intheassistantprincipalsoffice,regardingareportthatthestudenthadagunon ! campus.InreV.P.,55S.W.3dat33.Acknowledgingthatthecustodialinterrogation # analysisappropriatelyconsiderstheageofthedefendant andallthecircumstances % surroundingtheinterrogation,_ #  10      _ԀthecourtnonethelessrejectedV.P.sargumentthatthe Z'  assistantprincipalwasfunctioningasanagentofthestate,andconcludedthathewas   conductingalawfulinvestigation infurtheranceofhisdutytoprotectthesafetyandwell   beingofstudentsandfacultyattheschool,notacriminalinvestigation.Thefactthatthe   assistantprincipalquestionedV.P.onthebasisofatipprovidedbythepoliceofficer b assignedtotheschool,andthat_that_ԀofficerhadescortedV.P.totheassistantprincipals :` office,didnottransformthequestioningintocustodialinterrogation.Id.at3233. 8   4 Incontrast,thecourtin_D.A.R._,alsoinvolvingamiddleschoolstudentchargedwith   carryingafirearmonschoolgrounds,reversedthedistrictcourtsdenialofasuppression   motion.DistinguishingthefactsofInreV.P.,thecourtfoundthat_D.A.R._ssecond  interrogationwascustodialforMirandapurposes,wherehewasquestionedbytheschools r resourceofficer(armedanduniformed)inhisoffice,andtoldbytheofficerthatfifteen Jp studentshadreportedtohimthat_D.A.R._Ԁhadagun.ApplyingthefactorsidentifiedinV.P., "H thecourtconcludedthatareasonablethirteenyearoldin_D.A.R._scircumstanceswouldhave   believedhewasincustody.Id.at51112.  !  %  4 B. 0 DrugTesting   ! !  4 1.0 Background:VernoniaSchoolDistrict47Jv.Acton   ! !  4 Inrecentyears,theUnitedStatesSupremeCourthasbeguntoestablishandrefine   theparameterswithinwhichschooldistrictscanadoptandimplementrandomdrugtesting b programswithoutviolatingstudentsrightsundertheFourthAmendmentoftheUnited :` StatesConstitution.In VernoniaSchoolDistrict47Jv.Acton ,515U.S.646(1995),the 8  CourtupheldthedrugtestingpolicyofanOregonschooldistrict,whichrequiredallstudents   whowishedtoparticipateininterscholasticathleticstoconsenttosubmittorandomdrug   testingbyurinalysis.TheCourtsanalysisinVernoniawassubstantiallybasedonits  considerationofthesituationconfrontingtheschooldistrictinthatcase,wherethedistrict r demonstratedthattherewasasystemicandincreasingdrugproblemamongstudentsinthe Jp district,whichwasparticularlyassociatedwithstudentathletesandwhichhaddramatically "H increasedstudentdisciplineproblemsinthedistrict.    4 Forthepurposeofbalancingstudentsinterestsagainstthoseofschooldistricts,the ! Courtidentifiedthreefactorsforconsideration:1)thenatureoftheprivacyinterestonwhich # thesearchwouldintrude;2)thenatureoftheintrusion;and3)thenatureandimmediacyof % thegovernmentalconcern,andtheefficacyofthedistrictschosenmeanstoaddressit. Z'  ConductingthisbalancinginVernonia,theCourtconcludedthatstudentathleteshavea 2)X" relativelylowexpectationofprivacy(evenlowerthanstudentsgenerally),thatthedrug  +0!$ testingprogramwasdesignedandadministeredinawaythatminimizestheintrusionof   privacyandprotectsconfidentiality,andthatthedistrictfacedanimmediatecrisisthat   warrantedsettingasidearequirementforanindividualizedsuspicionofdruguse.   &   4 2.0 PostVernoniaScopeofPermissibleDrugTesting inTexasSchools b ! !  4 Asinotherjurisdictions,Texasschooldistrictsandcourtshavegrappledwith Bh interpretingtheCourtsholdingandreasoninginVernonia,inanefforttodetermine'bwhether @  randomdrugtestingprogramsmaylawfullybeextendedinothersituationsortoother   students.Thefollowingtwocasesillustratesomelimitsestablishedbyfederalcourtsin   Texas:  & `  4 a.0 Distinguishable:GeneralStudentPopulation z ! !  4 Inacasefiledagainstthe_Lockney_Ԁ_ISD_,thefederalcourtheldthatthedistricts Rx mandatorydrugtestingpolicy,whichappliedtoalljuniorandseniorhighstudents *P '`zthroughouttheschoolyear,constitutedunreasonablesearchinviolationofstudentsFourth  ( Amendmentrights.Stressingalackofevidenceofanysignificantstudentdrugproblem ! withinthedistrict,thecourtfoundthatno specialneeds,beyondthenormalneedforlaw # enforcementexistedthatwouldjustify_suspicionless_Ԁsearchesunderthisdistrictspolicy. %  _Tannahill_Ԁv._Lockney_Ԁ_Indep_.Sch.Dist. ,133F.Supp.2d919(N.D.Tex.2001). b'  HarmonizingapreVernoniaFifthCircuitopinionregardingasimilardrugtestingprogram, #  11       :)`" andrelyingonsubsequentSupremeCourtandFifthCircuitopinionson_suspicionless_Ԁdrug   testinginothercontexts,thecourtproceededtoconsiderthebalancingfactorsidentifiedin   Vernonia.Whileitfoundalowintrusiononstudentsprivacyinterests,thecourtfoundthat   thegeneralstudentpopulationholdsahigherexpectationofprivacythanstudentathletes, b andfoundnocompellinginterestofthedistrict,notwithstandingageneralpolicygoalto :` reducedruguse,wheretheevidencedidnotindicateadrugrelatedcrisissituationasfound 8  inVernonia.Id.at92930.   & `  4 b.0 Distinguishable:StudentsParticipatinginExtracurricularActivities   ! !  4 Intwoconsolidatedcases,studentsandguardiansofotherstudentschallenged_Tulia_  _ISD_spolicymandatingrandom_suspicionless_Ԁdrugtestingofallstudentsingrades7through r '`e12whoparticipateinanyextracurricularactivities(about80%ofthestudentbody). Jp  Gardnerv._Tulia_Ԁ_Indep_.Sch.Dist. ,183F.Supp.2d854(N.D.Tex.2000).Asin_Tannahill_, "H thefederalcourtreliedonBrooks,seeid.at855,distinguishedthefactualsituation   establishedinVernonia( nomajororwidespreaddrugproblemexistedwithinanysegment ! ofthe_Tulia_Ԁstudentbody),id.at85657,concludedthattheVernoniaholdingwaslimited # torandomdrugtestingofstudentathletes,id.at858,andheldthatthe_Tulia_Ԁ_ISD_Ԁprogram % violatedtheFourthAmendment.Id.at859.Despitethisholding,thecourtfoundthatthe Z'   defendantschoolboardmembershad actedingoodfaithandnot fromcorruptmotives 2)X" inadoptingthedrugtestingprogram;thus,theywereentitledtoqualifiedimmunityfrom   individualliabilityonallclaimsformoneydamages.Id.at85960. #  12      ׀    & 8  4 3. SupremeCourt,RoundTwo     4 a.0 BoardofEduc.v.Earls,536U.S.822(2002) b ! !  4 In2002,theUnitedStatesSupremeCourtrevisitedtheFourthAmendment :` boundariesofschooldistrictsrandom,_suspicionless_Ԁdrugtestingprograms,addressinga 8  '8 postVernoniacircuitsplitregardingprogramsencompassingallstudentsparticipatingin   extracurricularactivities.MuchliketheGardnercaseinTexas,EarlsinvolvedanOklahoma   schooldistrictspolicywithproceduressimilartothoseapprovedbytheSupremeCourtin  Vernonia,butwhichwassupportedbyevidenceonlyofsomestudentdruguse,notthe r  immediatecrisisfoundinVernonia.TheTenthCircuithadreversedthelowercourts Jp orderupholdingthepolicy,insistingthat specialneedsanalysisrequiresthatschool "H districtsfirst demonstratethatthereissomeidentifiabledrugabuseproblemamonga   sufficientnumberofthosesubjecttothetesting,suchthattestingthatgroupofstudentswill ! actuallyredressitsdrugproblem. Earlsv.BoardofEduc. ,242F.3d1264(10thCir.2001). #  4 AbaremajorityoftheSupremeCourtreversed,applyingtheprinciplesofVernonia % tofindthatthepolicywasareasonablyeffectivemeansoffurtheringtheschooldistricts Z'  legitimateconcernsinpreventing,deterring,anddetectingdruguseamongstudents;thus,   therewasnoFourthAmendmentviolation. BoardofEduc.v.Earls ,536U.S.822,830,   83738(2002).TheCourtextendedtheprivacyinterestanalysisofVernoniatostudentswho   participateincompetitiveextracurricularactivities,becausethey voluntarilysubject b themselvestomanyofthesameintrusionsontheirprivacyasdoathletes.Id.at831. :` RegardingthenatureandimmediacyoftheTecumsehSchoolDistrictsconcernsandthe 8  efficacyofthepolicyinmeetingthem,theCourt _decline[d_]tosecondguesstheDistrict   Courtsfindingthattheschooldistrictwasfacedwitha drugproblemwhenitadoptedits   policy,id.at835,andexpresslyrejectedtheTenthCircuitsaforementionedtest.TheCourt  reasoned: r 8 4 Amongotherproblems,itwouldbedifficulttoadministersuchatest.Aswe Jp cannotarticulateathresholdlevelofdrugusethatwouldsufficetojustifya 6\ drugtestingprogramforschoolchildren,werefusetofashionwhatwouldin "H effectbeaconstitutionalquantumofdrugusenecessarytoshowa drug 4 problem. 44 WId.at836.TheCourtrejectedtheargumentthatschoolsdrugtestingprogramsmustbe ! basedonindividualizedsuspicionofwrongdoing,notingthattheFourthAmendmentdoes # notrequiresuchafindinginthiscontext,andquestioningwhethertestingbasedon % individualizedsuspicionwouldactuallybelessintrusive.Id.at837. Z'    +0!$  4 b.0 PostEarls:RecentTexasCases   ! !  4 SeveralstateandfederalcourtsinTexashavealreadyhadoccasiontoapplytheEarls   analysistodrugtestingprogramscoveringstudentsparticipatinginextracurricularactivities.   Mostrecently,inacasestayedpendingtheSupremeCourtsrulinginEarls,afederalcourt b grantedsummaryjudgmentto_Tulia_Ԁ_ISD_Ԁanditsschoolboardpresident,onanotherFourth :` Amendmentchallengetothedistrictsdrugtestingprogram.Thecourtupheldthe 8  constitutionalityofthepolicyaswritten(becauseitdoesnotsignificantlydifferfromthat   approvedinVernonia),anditsconstitutionalityasapplied,findingnocompetentsummary   judgmentevidencetosupporttheplaintiffsclaimsthatthepolicyisnotimplementedas  written,hasadisparateimpactuponminorities,andwasinstitutedwitharacialbiasor r animus. Beanv._Tulia_Ԁ_Indep_.Sch.Dist. ,No._Civ.A._Ԁ2:01CV394J,2003WL22004511 Jp at*23(N.D.Tex.Aug.22,2003). "H  4 ATexasappellatecourthasreversedagrantoftemporaryinjunctionoftheMarble   Falls_ISD_smandatoryextracurriculardrugtestingpolicy,holdingthattheplaintiffcouldnot ! showaprobablerighttorecover,andfurtherholdingthatthepolicydoesnotviolatethe # TexasConstitutionsprotectionsofreligiousfreedom,dueprocess,orprivacy. MarbleFalls % _Indep_.Sch.Dist.v.Shell ,Nos.030200652CV,030200693CV,2003WL1738417 Z'  (Tex.App.!AustinApr.3,2003,order)(mem.op.). 2)X"