R.L., 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.
The court held that reasonable suspicion, not probable cause, was the appropriate standard for a school official's search based on a student's tip.
A high school student was searched by an assistant principal after another student reported seeing him with marijuana. The tip was relayed through a s…
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 cases and more on FLexlaw
HARRIS, J.
R.L., a high school student, was called into the office of the assistant principal and searched. The marijuana thus discovered was the basis of this proceeding and the subject of the motion to suppress denied by the trial court and appealed to this court. We affirm.
The school resource officer, a deputy sheriff, was approached by a student who advised him that appellant was showing a bag of marijuana and trying to get rid of it. The resource officer passed this information on to the assistant principal minutes later when he saw the official in the hallway. This was the “reasonable suspicion” relied on to justify the official’s search of the student.
R.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 passed the information on to the school official does not, in our view, require a finding that the official “acted at the behest of law enforcement.” The school official took action on the allegation of a student passing on information that could be reasonably assumed to be within that student’s personal knowledge and acted appropriately.
AFFIRMED.
ANTOON, C.J., and PETERSON, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
T.A. v. State, 840 So. 2d 415 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See R.L. v. State, 738 So. 2d 507 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999).…
-
D.G. v. State, 961 So. 2d 1063 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007)…utional test. See State v. J.H., 898 So. 2d 240 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005); State v. Bullard, 891 So. 2d 1158, 1159-60 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005); State v. Whorley, 720 So. 2d 282 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998); State v. D.S., 685 So. 2d 41 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996); R.L. v. State, 738 So. 2d 507 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999). This principle finds particular application in the present situation. As was said in New Mexico v. Michael G., 106 N.M. 644, 748 P. 2d 17, 20 (1987), cert. denied, 106 N.M. 627, 747 P. 2d 922 (1987): Statements by eyewitness c…
Authorities Cited
- K.K. v. State, 717 So. 2d 629 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998)