W. J. S., A CHILD, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
A minor pled nolo contendere to marijuana possession after his motion to suppress evidence was denied. The court upheld the denial, holding that school officials do not need reasonable suspicion to detain a student on school premises, and that the defendant waived any argument about an illegal search by framing the suppression motion solely on the lawfulness of the initial stop.
School officials do not need to meet criminal law standards of reasonable suspicion to detain a student on school premises. The initial detention was lawful even without reasonable suspicion, and the court did not address the propriety of any search because the defendant waived that argument by basing the suppression motion solely on the allegedly illegal stop.
[1] School officials do not require reasonable suspicion to detain a student for the purpose of investigating potential misconduct on school premises.
[2] The legality of a subsequent search of a student is determined by the conditions existing at the time of the search, not the initial grounds for detention.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“[QUOTE REDACTED — failed verbatim audit (paraphrase, not verbatim). See original_text for the text as originally displayed.]”
Establishes the core holding that different legal standards apply to student detention in schools versus criminal detention
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceW.J.S. was standing in a school corridor with three other students when a teacher observed them and thought they looked suspicious because they appear…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Reasonable Suspicion Standard For School Searches cases and more on FLexlaw
WENTWORTH, Judge.
Appellant pled nolo contendere to possession of less than 20 grams of marijuana after his motion to suppress the contraband was denied. The state stipulated that the motion was dispositive of the outcome, and the defendant’s right to appeal was preserved.
According to stipulated facts, W. J. S. was standing in a school corridor talking to three other students when a teacher walked by who thought that the boys looked suspicious because they “appeared to look away from her, to look at something else.” The teacher stopped the school security guard Lee who was also in the vicinity, and they took the boys to the principal’s office “where Lee intended to have the Assistant Principal . . . search each boy.” Later, a small purse containing marijuana was taken from the defendant.
In his motion to suppress and in this appeal, defendant argues only that his initial detainment was illegal because there was no reasonable suspicion to believe that he possessed contraband.
We agree that there was no reasonable suspicion at the time of the initial detention in this case, within the meaning of that term as previously applied to school searches. See State v. F. W. E., 360 So. 2d 148 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978). However, we do not agree that school officials must have a reasonable suspicion in order to detain a student and take him, as stated in this case, “to be checked out” on the school premises. The stipulated intent to search does not in our opinion render the detention unlawful, and the validity of any subsequent search must be determined on the basis of conditions then existing. No other facts appear of record with respect to the circumstances under which appellant’s purse was “taken from him,” although counsel stated in argument before the trial court that the purse was first seen when appellant dropped it and after he ran, then returned, the principal “asked him to hand it over, which he did.”
The defendant has not argued that the seizure of the marijuana was the result of a search. In fact, defense counsel waived any such argument by repeatedly stating that the motion to suppress was based solely on the allegedly illegal stop; that the resulting seizure was “fruit of the poisonous tree,” and that “I am not alleging that he was illegally searched.” Our conclusion is simply that criminal law standards for a legal stop do not control the mere detention of appellant as a student in this case, and we do not reach the propriety of search because that issue is not presented.
The order denying the motion to suppress and the order referring appellant to the Juvenile Alternative Services Project are affirmed.
McCORD and LARRY G. SMITH, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. D.T.W., 425 So. 2d 1383 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983)…nd utilized the reasonable suspicion standard in reaching a determination in State v. F.W.E., 360 So. 2d 148, 150 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978). Other decisions of this court have alluded to applicability of the reasonable suspicion standard. W.J.S. v. State, 409 So. 2d 1209 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982); M.J. v. State, 399 So. 2d 996 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981). So that there is no doubt as to this issue, we affirm the trial court’s determination to apply the reasonable suspicion standard to searches and seizures at public primary and…
-
McCARTER v. State, 463 So. 2d 546 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985)…at’s not the issue?”, to which defense counsel responded “No, sir.” Given the fact that this issue was not raised below, McCarter is in no position to argue it now on appeal. See State v. Varnedoe, 443 So. 2d 201 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); W.J.S. v. State, 409 So. 2d 1209 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). Even if he were, the facts presented amply establish probable cause for McCarter’s arrest on a charge of attempted kidnapping.1 Probable cause to [*549] arrest exists when facts and circumstances within an officer’s knowledge a…
-
J.D. v. State, 920 So. 2d 117 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006)…r the school officials’ [*122] conduct was arbitrary, capricious, or undertaken for purposes of harassment.” Id. As the California court noted, Florida courts have used the same standard, albeit in a case decided prior to T.L.O. In W.J.S. v. State, 409 So. 2d 1209 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982), the minor was standing in a school corridor talking to other students when a teacher walked by and believed that the boys were acting suspiciously, because they looked away from her. The teacher asked a security guard to take th…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- BWS Credit Servs., Inc. v. Fla. Dep't OF Commerce, 360 So. 2d 148 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978)