K.K., 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.
This case reviews whether a school official's search of a student, which uncovered marijuana, was valid. The court affirmed the denial of the motion to suppress, holding that the search was permissible based on reasonable suspicion.
The appropriate standard for a search by a school official on school property is reasonable suspicion. The court held that the school official in this case had reasonable suspicion to search the appellant, and therefore the denial of the motion to suppress was correct.
“Where school officials initiate the search or police involvement is minimal, most courts have held that the reasonable suspicion test obtains.”
Establishes the legal standard for searches by school officials when police involvement is minimal.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA school official, acting on a tip that students were smoking marijuana in a restroom, entered the restroom. A school resource officer was present but…
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
ORFINGER, M., Senior Judge.
K.K. appeals from an adjudication of delinquency, following a plea of no contest to possession of less than 20 grams of cannabis wherein he reserved the right to appeal the denial of his motion to suppress. We agree that the appropriate standard to be applied in determining the validity of a search by a school official on school property is whether the official had a reasonable suspicion of illegal activity. See New Jersey v. T.L.O., 469 U.S. 325, 105 S.Ct. 733, 83 L.Ed.2d 720 (1985); State v. D.S., 685 So. 2d 41 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996); S.D. v. State, 650 So. 2d 198 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995). As was held in People v. Dilworth, 169 Ill.2d 195, 214 Ill.Dec. 456, 661 N.E. 2d 310 (1996), quoted with approval in D.S.:
“Where school officials initiate the search or police involvement is minimal, most courts have held that the reasonable suspicion test obtains. The same is true in cases involving school police or liaison officers acting on their own authority. However, where outside police officers initiate a search, or where school officials act at the behest of law enforcement agencies, the probable cause standard has been applied.” Dilworth, 214 Ill.Dec. at 463, 661 N.E. 2d at 317.
Here, the school official had a reasonable suspicion, based on information from some students, that other students were smoking marijuana in the boys restroom. He entered the restroom followed by the school resource officer who stood at the door and said nothing. Heavy smoke was evident (although from cigarettes) and smoldering butts were on the floor. The school official then searched the six or eight boys who were in the room and found the marijuana in appellant’s wallet. The resource officer neither initiated the search nor participated in it, although he was in the room where the search was conducted. Under these circumstances, and based on the law as we see it, the trial judge was correct in denying the motion to suppress.
AFFIRMED.
HARRIS and ANTOON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
M.D. v. State, 65 So. 3d 563 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011)…in the state has determined that the reasonable-suspicion standard is appropriate for searches of students on school grounds by school officials, including resource officers. See State v. J.H., 898 So. 2d 240, 241 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005); K.K. v. State, 717 So. 2d 629, 630 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998); State v. Whorley, 720 So. 2d 282, 283 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998); State v. D.S., 685 So. 2d 41, 43 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996). The only possible support for applying the probable-cause standard to a search by a school resource officer is…
-
R.L. v. State, 738 So. 2d 507 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999)….L. urges that since the deputy sheriff was involved in the incident, the standard for the search should be probable cause. We find the deputy’s involvement to be minimal and that reasonable suspicion was the appropriate standard. See K.K. v. State, 717 So. 2d 629 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998). Further, since a fellow student made the accusation in person, we find such allegation sufficient to raise reasonable suspicion and justified the search. The fact that the allegation was first made to the resource officer who pa…
-
J.R. v. State, 99 So. 3d 427 (Fla. 2012)…nsidered in D.J. II. . See M.D. v. State, 65 So. 3d 563 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011); State v. Whorley, 720 So. 2d 282 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998); State v. D.S., 685 So. 2d 41 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997); State v. J.H., 898 So. 2d 240 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005); and K.K. v. State, 717 So. 2d 629 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998). .The current version of section 90.201, Florida Statutes, is unchanged from the version in effect during J.R.’s trial.…
Authorities Cited
- New Jersey v. T. L. O., 469 U.S. 325 (U.S. 1985)
- State v. D.S., 685 So. 2d 41 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996)
- S.D. v. State, 650 So. 2d 198 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995)