M.M., A MINOR BY HER MOTHER AND NEXT FRIEND, C.M., AND M.F., A MINOR BY HER MOTHER AND NEXT FRIEND, A.F., PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS CROSS-APPELLEE,
v.
IRVING ANKER, STEPHEN R. AIELLO, JOSEPH BARKAN, AMELIA ASH, ROBERT CHRISTEN, LUIS RIVERA, JAMES REGAN, ISAIAH ROBINSON, JR., CARLTON IRISH, LESTER SPEISER, LUCILLE AMICONE, STEPHEN HEITNER, IRA EWEN, JEROME KATZ, ALAN SOLO AND JOHN AND JANE DOE EACH INDIVIDUALLY AND IN THEIR OFFICIAL CAPACITY, DEFENDANTS, STEPHEN HEITNER AND LUCILLE AMICONE, DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES CROSS-APPELLANTS
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.
Searches in a school setting can be reasonable with less than probable cause, but highly intrusive searches like strip searches require probable cause.
The school officials searched a student based on mere suspicion that the student might have stolen an unidentified object. The search was highly intru…
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
PER CURIAM:
We affirm on Judge Dooling’s opinion, reported at 477 F.Supp. 837, No. 78 C 492 (E.D.N.Y. Feb. 6, 1979).
For purposes of clarifying our holding, we note our agreement with Judge Dooling that there are searches in the school enclave that satisfy Fourth Amendment requirements when based on less than probable cause. Judge Dooling was also correct in finding that the initial decision to search M.M. was predicated on no more than mere suspicion that M.M. “might” have stolen some unidentified object. We recognize, however, that teachers have a unique relationship to their students, both in administering discipline as part of their educational function, and in protecting the well-being of all children in their care and custody.
Accordingly, these interests justify greater flexibility when applying the Fourth Amendment in a school setting. See, e. g., Bellnier v. Lund, 438 F.Supp. 47, 53 (N.D.N.Y.1977); People v. Scott D., 34 N.Y.2d 483, 358 N.Y.S.2d 403, 315 N.E. 2d 466 (1974) (Breitel, C. J.); cf. Ingraham v. Wright, 430 U.S. 651, 97 S.Ct. 1401, 51 L.Ed.2d 711 (1977).
We are also of the view that as the intrusiveness of the search intensifies, the standard of Fourth Amendment “reasonableness” approaches probable cause, even in the school context. Cf. Dunaway v. New York, - U.S. -, -, 99 S.Ct. 2248, 60 L.Ed.2d 824 (1979). Thus, when a teacher conducts a highly intrusive invasion such as the strip search in this case, it is reasonable to require that probable cause be present. We conclude Judge Dooling correctly held that defendants Heitner and Amicone failed to make this showing.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
New Jersey v. T. L. O., 469 U.S. 325 (U.S. 1985)
-
Bilbrey v. Garland Brown, 738 F.2d 1462 (9th Cir. 1984)
-
Blackburn v. Linwood Snow, 771 F.2d 556 (1st Cir. 1985)
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Dunaway v. New York, 442 U.S. 200 (U.S. 1979)
- Ingraham v. Wright, 430 U.S. 651 (U.S. 1977)