Seattle Attorneys Blog
School authorities may search students and their property in circumstances that the police could not. In a recent case, a juvenile challenged a juvenile court adjudication of knowingly possessing cannabis after a school district safety coordinator searched his vehicle.
According to the appeals court’s unpublished opinion, the school district security coordinator saw the juvenile get out of his car in the high school parking lot, hold something like he was smoking it, and put it in what appeared to be a pocket on the car door.
The security coordinator detained the juvenile and the school contacted his mother. The security coordinator and the juvenile’s mother searched the car together. They found a jar containing what was later determined to be cannabis.
The state charged the juvenile with knowingly possessing cannabis in violation of RCW 69.50.4103(1), (2), and (6). He was ultimately adjudicated guilty.
The juvenile appealed, arguing the search violated his rights under both the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and article I, section 7 of the Washington State Constitution.
The state argued the juvenile had not raised the legality of the search at trial and therefore had waived it. The appeals court pointed out that “a manifest error affecting a constitutional right” may be raised in an appeal even if it was not raised below. RAP 2.5(a)(3). The defendant must show that there was a constitutional error that affected their rights.
Generally, the police need a warrant supported by probable cause to perform a search, but there are exceptions to this requirement. One exception is for school searches. Authorities of a school may search a student if it is reasonable to do so under all of the circumstances. To be reasonable, a search must be “justified at its inception.” The scope of the search must also be reasonably related to the circumstances that justified the search. Generally, a search is “justified at its inception” if the school has reasonable grounds to suspect the search will discover evidence the student has violated school rules or the law. State v. B.A.S.
The juvenile argued the security coordinator had insufficient facts to support a reasonable believe the juvenile was violating any rules or laws.
The security coordinator testified he had seen the juvenile hold an object to his mouth like he was “smoking something” and put it into what appealed to be a console pocket in the car door.
School districts are required to have a written policy prohibiting tobacco use on public school property. RCW 28A.310(1). The school district’s policy prohibited any use of tobacco products and delivery devices on school district property. The policy also prohibited possession of tobacco products by minors. The appeals court concluded the security coordinator had reasonable grounds to suspect searching the car would reveal evidence the juvenile violated the statute and the policy. The appeals court concluded the juvenile did not show there was a manifest constitutional error.
The appeals court also rejected the juvenile’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim, concluding a motion to suppress the evidence from the search “would have been futile” and therefore there was no prejudice to the plaintiff.
Although the appeals court determined the search was reasonable in this case, different facts may lead to a different result. If your child may be facing criminal charges as the result of a school search, a knowledgeable Washington juvenile defense attorney can help. Set up a consultation with Blair & Kim, PLLC by calling our offices at (206) 622-6562.