This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.
Facts
A high school student was stopped by campus service aides for walking in a school hallway without a pass during class time. The student appeared nervous and fidgety, prompting the aides to escort him to the security office, where they conducted a search. The search revealed a pipe with marijuana residue, a black marker, a lighter with gang-related initials, and brass knuckles. The student claimed he was on his way to obtain a late pass as instructed by his teacher. The aides admitted they had no specific suspicion of criminal activity or safety concerns (paras 2-6).
Procedural History
- District Court, Bernalillo County: Granted the student's motion to suppress evidence, ruling that the search was not supported by reasonable suspicion (paras 1, 8).
Parties' Submissions
- State (Appellant): Argued that the search was justified based on the student's nervous and fidgety behavior, which raised safety concerns. Claimed the search was reasonable under the circumstances (paras 15-16).
- Child (Appellee): Contended that the search was unconstitutional as it lacked reasonable suspicion and was based solely on a hunch. Asserted that being out of class without a pass did not justify a search for contraband (paras 14-16).
Legal Issues
- Was the search of the student justified at its inception under the Fourth Amendment?
- Did the search meet the standard of reasonableness required for searches conducted by school officials?
Disposition
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decision to suppress the evidence (para 18).
Reasons
Per Vigil J. (Fry and Robinson JJ. concurring):
The Court applied the two-prong test from New Jersey v. T.L.O., requiring that a search be justified at its inception and reasonable in scope. The Court found that the search was not justified at its inception because there was no reasonable suspicion that the student had violated the law or school rules in a manner that would warrant a search. The student's nervousness and fidgety behavior were insufficient to establish reasonable suspicion, as they were not supported by specific, articulable facts. The aides admitted they had no prior knowledge of wrongdoing or safety concerns, and the search was based on a mere hunch (paras 12-16).
The Court also noted that the district court could have rejected the aide's testimony about the student's nervousness, as it was inconsistent with the written report and the student's testimony. The Court emphasized that reasonable suspicion must exist before the search begins and cannot be retroactively justified by the discovery of contraband (paras 16-17).
The Court concluded that the search violated the Fourth Amendment and upheld the suppression of the evidence (para 18).