STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
J.H., A CHILD, 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 Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed a trial court's suppression order in a case involving a high school student's marijuana possession. The court held that even if custodial interrogation required a Miranda warning, the drugs would have been inevitably discovered based on reasonable suspicion to search, which is the applicable standard for school resource officers searching students.
The court reversed the suppression order, holding that although custodial interrogation might have required a Miranda warning, the suppression was improper because the school resource officer had reasonable suspicion to search J.H., and the drugs would have been inevitably discovered under that lesser standard.
[1] School resource officers need only reasonable suspicion to search students at school.
[2] Reasonable suspicion, rather than probable cause, is the standard for searches of students by school officials or school police officers.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“T.L.O. held that the probable cause standard for searches does not apply to the search of a student at school by a school official, and that reasonable suspicion is all that is required.”
Establishes the applicable legal standard for searches of students by school officers.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJ.H., a high school student, was approached by a school resource officer after another student reported that J.H. had possessed marijuana earlier that…
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
KLEIN, J.
The trial court granted J.H.’s motion to suppress on the ground that he was in custody when he turned over drugs to a school resource officer without a Miranda warning. We reverse because the officer had reasonable suspicion to search J.H. and the drugs would have inevitably been discovered.
J.H. was a high school student. A police officer working at the school was told by another student found with marijuana that J.H. had possessed marijuana earlier that day. The officer contacted the dean, the dean asked J.H. to step out of class, and the officer asked J.H. if he had anything improper on him. In response, J.H. reached into his pocket and handed the officer the marijuana.
J.H. moved to suppress arguing that a Miranda warning was required because this was custodial interrogation by the officer, and the trial court granted the motion. The state argues that the lack of a Miranda warning should not have been dispositive because the officer only needed reasonable suspicion to search J.H. New Jersey v. T.L.O., 469 U.S. 325, 105 S.Ct. 733, 83 L.Ed.2d 720 (1985) (reasonable sus picion is all that it necessary for a school official to search a student at school). Because the officer had reasonable suspicion to search J.H., the state argues, the drugs would have been discovered inevitably. J.A.R. v. State, 689 So. 2d 1242 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997) came to that conclusion under similar facts where it was reported that the student had a gun.
T.L.O. held that the probable cause standard for searches does not apply to the search of a student at school by a school official, and that reasonable suspicion is all that is required. In State v. D.S., 685 So. 2d 41 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996), the court, after citing cases from other jurisdictions, held that school police officers are held to the same standard as school officials, reasonable suspicion, in order to search students at school. State v. Whorley, 720 So. 2d 282 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998) (holding school resource officers need only reasonable suspicion for a search).
J.H. acknowledges that the standard is reasonable suspicion, but argues that the tip was no more reliable than that of an anonymous informant and required independent corroboration. This was not, however, an anonymous informant, and was sufficient to comply with the reasonable suspicion standard.
We agree with J.A.R. Accordingly, although the trial court may well have been correct in concluding that any custodial interrogation by the officer required a Miranda warning, that should not have been dispositive, because the drugs would have been discovered inevitably without interrogation.
Reversed.
GROSS and MAY, 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)…firearms on school grounds. Every other District Court 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-cau…
-
D.G. v. State, 961 So. 2d 1063 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007)…by an informant known to the “investigator” — as opposed to a paid confidential informant or a simple anonymous tipster — is widely regarded as itself providing the reasonable suspicion necessary to meet that constitutional 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 princ…
-
S.C. v. State, 54 So. 3d 567 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See State v. J.H., 898 So. 2d 240 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005).…
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)
- State v. D.S., 685 So. 2d 41 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996)
- State v. Whorley, 720 So. 2d 282 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998)
- J.A.R. v. State, 689 So. 2d 1242 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)