S.D., A JUVENILE, APPELLANT,
v.
THE 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.
S.D., a juvenile, appealed the denial of his motion to suppress evidence of a firearm found during a school security detention. The court affirmed the denial, holding that the school security employee's investigatory stop based on an anonymous tip describing a student with a gun was reasonable under the circumstances.
The investigatory detention was reasonable and lawful. Under New Jersey v. T.L.O., when school security (not law enforcement) conducts a search, legality depends on the reasonableness under all the circumstances. The anonymous tip describing a student with a gun, combined with the clothing description, approximately 150 students in the gym, and the possibility that S.D. was carrying a firearm, made the brief investigatory detention reasonable.
[1] A school security employee's stop and detention of a student is permissible under the reasonableness standard when law enforcement is not involved.
[2] The reasonableness of a student search by school personnel is determined by the circumstances of the search.
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“When law enforcement is not involved 'the legality of a search of a student should depend simply on the reasonableness, under all the circumstances, of the search.'”
Establishes the applicable legal standard for school security searches not involving law enforcement, citing New Jersey v. T.L.O.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAn anonymous tip informed a school security employee that a student in physical education class at Miami Central High School was carrying a gun and pr…
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 Delinquency Petition cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
S.D., a juvenile, appeals from the denial of his motion to suppress evidence. We affirm.
S.D. is a student at Miami Central High School. Through an anonymous tip, a school security employee learned that a student in physical education class had a bulge in his pants and was believed to be in possession of a gun. This anonymous tip also gave a description of the clothing the student was wearing.
The school security employee went to the gym, approached S.D., and told him to go outside; at this time, S.D. was not free to leave. The school security employee did not notice a bulge in S.D.’s pants. As they were walking, the school security employee asked S.D. whether he could search him; S.D. did not respond. As they were entering the locker room, a firearm dropped out of S.D.’s pants.
A petition for delinquency was filed charging S.D. with carrying a concealed firearm. S.D. filed a motion to suppress evidence on the ground that the stop and detention was not founded on a reasonable suspicion, thus tainting the subsequent seizure of the firearm. The motion was denied. S.D. entered a plea of nolo contendere reserving his right to appeal the denial of his motion to suppress evidence.
As the record demonstrates, the school security employee was not a law enforcement officer and was not acting at the behest of law enforcement officials. As such, the standard enunciated in New Jersey v. T.L.O., 469 U.S. 325, 105 S.Ct. 733, 83 L.Ed.2d 720 (1985), is applicable. When law enforcement is not involved “the legality of a search of a student should depend simply on the reasonableness, under all the circumstances, of the search.” T.L.O., 469 U.S. at 341, 105 S.Ct. at 742. In the instant case, under all the circumstances, the actions of the school security employee were reasonable. An anonymous tip indicated that a student in physical education class was carrying a gun. The anonymous tip gave a description of the clothing the student was wearing, thereby enabling the school security employee to immediately approach S.D. upon entering the gym. When taking into consideration that there were approximately 150 students in the gym and that it was possible that S.D. was carrying a firearm, the school security employee’s action of stopping S.D. for a brief investigatory detention was reasonable. Accordingly, we affirm the denial of the motion to suppress.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. D.S., 685 So. 2d 41 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996)…look in deciding the instant case. Specifically, we hold that M.J. v. State does not correctly state the law. Rather, we find that the cases upon which we rely, New Jersey v. T.L.O., 469 U.S. 325, 105 S.Ct. 733, 83 L.Ed.2d 720 (1985), S.D. v. State, 650 So. 2d 198 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995), and People v. Dilworth, 169 Ill.2d 195, 214 Ill.Dec. 456, 661 N.E. 2d 310 (1996), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 116 S.Ct. 1692, 134 L.Ed.2d 793 (1996), which were decided after M.J. v. State, correctly state the law. The United States…1 / 2
-
J.D. v. State, 920 So. 2d 117 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006)…in this case. Id. at 1210. The court thus affirmed the denial of the motion to suppress. The Third District Court of Appeal also applied a lesser standard of reasonableness in determining that a stop of a student was permissible in S.D. v. State, 650 So. 2d 198 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995). There, the school officials received an anonymous tip that S.D. was seen in his physical education class with a bulge in his pants which was believed to be a handgun. The school security official approached S.D. while in class an…
-
J.A.R. v. State, 689 So. 2d 1242 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)…o. 2d 41 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996) (holding in case involving search of student suspected of possessing drugs that “school police officer,” as school official, needs only reasonable suspicion to conduct search of student on school property); S.D. v. State, 650 So. 2d 198 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995) (school security employee is not law enforcement officer and may perform search permitted by T.L.O.). The danger created by students carrying guns, knives, and other weapons is now apparently sufficient to warrant random suspicion…
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
- New Jersey v. T. L. O., 469 U.S. 325 (U.S. 1985)