A.B., 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 juvenile student appeals the denial of her motion to suppress marijuana found in her purse by school officials based on an overheard fragment of conversation. The Florida Second District Court of Appeal reverses, holding that the school officials lacked reasonable suspicion to conduct the search under the applicable legal standard for student searches in public schools.
The court reversed and remanded, holding that the school officials did not have reasonable suspicion to search the appellant's purse. The court adopted a multi-factor test for determining reasonable suspicion in school searches, including consideration of the child's history, the prevalence of the problem at the school, exigencies of timing, reliability of information, the official's experience with the student, and the official's experience with the type of problem.
[1] School officials may search a student based on reasonable suspicion, not probable cause.
[2] A school search is justified if the information used to justify it is reliable and has probative value.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“In Nelson v. State, 319 So.2d 154 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975), this court adopted the reasonable suspicion standard to be applied to searches and seizures by school officials at a public school.”
Establishes the applicable legal standard for school official searches of students.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA teacher at a high school overheard a partial conversation in the hallway in which someone stated '[Appellant] has got something.' The teacher report…
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 School Searches cases and more on FLexlaw
LEHAN, Judge.
This case involves application of the reasonable suspicion standard to a search by a school official of a student at a public school. Appellant, a juvenile, appeals an order denying her motion to suppress marijuana found when a school official searched appellant’s purse. We reverse.
A teacher at appellant’s high school overheard part of a conversation in the school hallway. The statement heard was “[Appellant] has got something.” The teacher related what he had overheard to another teacher, who apparently worked with appellant’s grade level. The second teacher took appellant to the dean’s office, looked in appellant’s purse and found some marijuana.
A petition for adjudication of delinquency was filed charging appellant with possession of less than 20 grams of cannabis. Appellant filed a motion to suppress the seized contraband, alleging that the search of the purse was illegal. The motion was denied.
In Nelson v. State, 319 So. 2d 154 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975), this court adopted the reasonable suspicion standard to be applied to searches and seizures by school officials at a public school. In State v. D.T.W., 425 So. 2d 1383 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983), the First District Court of Appeal outlined a number of factors which can be considered in determining whether a reasonable suspicion to search exists under those circumstances. The First District listed the following factors:
(a) consideration of the child’s age, history and record in school;
(b) the prevalence and seriousness of the problem in the school to which the search was directed;
(c) the exigencies in making a search without delay and further investigation;
(d) the probative value and reliability of the information used as a justification for the search; and (e) the particular teacher or school official’s experience with the student.
As noted in D.T.W., this list is merely a starting point in determining whether reasonable suspicion to search exists and is not a complete and exhaustive list of all possible considerations. We would add to the list: experience of the involved school officials with the type of problem to which the search was directed.
In the case before us, the record contains virtually no information bearing upon the foregoing factors. In particular, the reliability of the information used to justify the search cannot be determined. The identity of the participants in the overheard conversation was unknown, and there is no evidence as to the existence or prevalence of a drug problem at the school or as to the experience of either teacher in dealing with such a problem. There is little or no probative value to a statement that a student “has got something,” heard out of context and with no background information. The “something” could be anything from a class assignment to a disease.
The only evidence offered to show that the teacher who heard the statement had a basis for a suspicion was his testimony that he had been a teacher for a long time, and “sometimes you hear certain things and you just know. I felt something was wrong.” We find the record in this case insufficient to show that the school officials had a reasonable suspicion allowing them to search appellant’s purse. Appellant’s motion to suppress should have been granted.
REVERSED AND REMANDED FOR PROCEEDINGS CONSISTENT HEREWITH.
OTT, C.J., and RYDER, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
S.V.J. v. State, 891 So. 2d 1221 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005)…he probative value and reliability of the information used as a justification for the search; and the particular teacher or school official’s experience with the student. State v. D.T.W., 425 So. 2d 1383, 1387 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983). In A.B. v. State, 440 So. 2d 500, 501 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983), this court stated that these factors are simply a starting point and “not a complete and exhaustive list of all possible considerations.” The court noted that the “experience of the involved school officials with the type of…
-
A.S. v. State, 693 So. 2d 1095 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)…v. State, 459 So. 2d 1106 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984)(holding that a teacher who testified that two students exhibited “suspicious” behavior and saw what seemed to be some type of “exchange,” was not enough to establish reasonable suspicion); A.B. v. State, 440 So. 2d 500 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983)(holding that a reasonable suspicion was not present when a search was based on a teacher hearing other students in the hallway commenting that one student “has got something”). The state argues that because appellant had a prior…
-
T.J. v. State, 538 So. 2d 1320 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989)…e first place,’ ibid. T.L.O., 469 U.S. at 341, 105 S.Ct. at 742-743. In determining whether a search is “justified at its inception,” this court has utilized factors suggested in State v. D.T.W., 425 So. 2d 1383 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983). A.B. v. State, 440 So. 2d 500 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983). These factors attempt to balance the child’s interest in privacy with the school’s interest in maintaining discipline and assuring the safety of other students. As the Supreme Court correctly notes: “Maintaining order in the cla…1 / 2
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- State v. D.T.W., 425 So. 2d 1383 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983)
- Klenge M. Nelson, II v. State, 319 So. 2d 154 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975)