M.S., 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 school officials lacked reasonable suspicion to search M.S. based on another student's actions.
School officials detained M.S. and other students who had left campus. After another student eluded officials and contraband was found, officials sear…
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 Unreasonable Searches And Seizures cases and more on FLexlaw
FARMER, J.
M.S. argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress contraband. We agree.
School officials spied M.S. and three other students outside the school building exiting the premises during school hours. They told the students to return to the campus, and the students did so. Once they were back inside the school grounds, M.S. was detained while using a pay phone. One of the other students eluded officials, however, running into the administration building and disappearing. The officials found marijuana in the administration building bathroom.
School officials conducted a search of M.S., saying that “the totality of the circumstances led us to believe that we would be derelict in our duties unless we did conduct a search based on our suspicion at that time of the other student.” M.S. was found carrying two bags of marijuana. In other words, school officials justify the search of M.S. because the other boy may have gone into the boy’s room and they discovered contraband there.
The Fourth Amendment’s prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures applies to searches performed by school officials. New Jersey v. T.L.O., 469 U.S. 325, 333, 105 S.Ct. 733, 83 L.Ed.2d 720 (1985). In order for the search of a student to be justified at its inception, there must be reasonable suspicion, based upon the totality of the circumstances, that the student possesses something he should not have. Id.
Though school officials may have had a reasonable suspicion that the other student was “Smokin’ in the Boys’ Room,” 1 their suspicion as to the other boy could not be transferred to M.S. See T.A. O’B. v. State, 459 So. 2d 1106 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984). There was no basis for any suspicion that M.S. possessed contraband.
REVERSED.
WARNER and KLEIN, JJ., concur. . As originally recorded by Brownsville Station.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
C.A. v. State, 977 So. 2d 684 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008)…(or pass anything to) the other student, and she simply associated C.A. with her suspicion that the other student possessed marijuana. C.A. is correct that suspicion by association or transference is not “reasonable suspicion.” * See M.S. v. State, 808 So. 2d 1263 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002); R.J.M. v. State, 456 So. 2d 584 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984). Conclusion C.A.’s points on appeal are well taken. The school officials’ instructions constituted a Forth Amendment search, and that search was not founded upon a “reasonable…
Authorities Cited
- New Jersey v. T. L. O., 469 U.S. 325 (U.S. 1985)
- T.A. O'B. v. State, 459 So. 2d 1106 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984)