# legal question



## OULobo (Mar 16, 2004)

This one's for any lawyers out there. 

My company just handed out a copy of the weapons policy for everyone to sign. I know this is just a backlash from the CCW permits taking effect this coming month, but the question involves the rights of the company vs. employee. In the policy it says they reserve the right to search the person and property of any employee, including vehicles, that is on property of the company. My question is, is it legal for the company to search my vehicle without my consent? I know that they can fire me or have it towed if I refuse to allow the vehicle to be searched, but if I am present, asked and I refuse do they have the right to do it anyway and do they have the right to do it without ever telling me? It seems to me that this is could be tresspassing, violation of privacy or unrightful search/seizure. Second question; If they find a weapon, who decides if that is a weapon or a tool (ball bats, machetes, sledge hammers, 2x4s, ect.) and if I voluntarily leave with the weapon can they still press charges, as they claim? If so, what is the charge?


----------



## Tgace (Mar 16, 2004)

You run into some sticky legal issues when it comes to stuff like this. As an LEO there is no way I could get away with something like this, but a business probably has some sort of legal agreement drawn up with the employees (an "if you want to work here, this is the way it is" type thing), even then, if they search you/your property after you refuse it I would say its an illegal search and they are opening themselves up to some major civil suits. If you are really concerned try dropping an e-mail to the ACLU and see what they say.


----------



## OULobo (Mar 16, 2004)

Thanks Tgrace. I was hoping you and any of the other LEOs would chime in on this.


----------



## Tgace (Mar 16, 2004)

Your profile says your from Ohio so...

http://www.acluohio.org/


----------



## Ceicei (Mar 16, 2004)

If you haven't already, you might want to do a post search over at http://www.packing.org and see how others with CCW permits handled similar issues with workplace searches.  Of course, State laws vary.  You might even want to post your question there too as there are others grappling with the new Ohio laws on CCW permits.

-Ceicei


----------



## Rich Parsons (Mar 16, 2004)

The company I work for has a weapon policy as well. No weapons on grounds or property. They define weapons as firearms and bladed weapons or impact weapons such as clubs excluding baseball/softball bats. No signed agreements, yet it is implied with the salaried agreement to follow company policies.

Just because others do it, does not mean it is right. The policy has been in place for years, mostly because of a few shootings at plants. Therefore a corporate wide policy even for engineers and office staff.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Mar 16, 2004)

It's private property, dude. And it belongs to them. They have every right to ban obviously-unsafe practices, and in fact their lawyers have probably demanded it.


----------



## jkn75 (Mar 16, 2004)

IMO, the company can do what they want. You are going onto private property and you subject yourself to their rules. If you are troubled by this and are able to, park your car off of their property and then you will only have to worry about the police.

IMO, a weapon will either be defined in the agreement or it will be what a reasonable person would think a weapon is. A car can be considered a weapon in the right circumstances so it will depend.



> My question is, is it legal for the company to search my vehicle without my consent? I know that they can fire me or have it towed if I refuse to allow the vehicle to be searched, but if I am present, asked and I refuse do they have the right to do it anyway and do they have the right to do it without ever telling me? It seems to me that this is could be tresspassing, violation of privacy or unrightful search/seizure.



IMO, they are a private entity. They do not have the right to search your vehicle. As you said they can fire you or tow the vehicle but that's it. 

They are not the government. The government only has the right to search your vehicle in certain, defined manners. 

Finally, the Constitution only protects citizens from government action. Therefore what they are doing is not search and seizure, in a constitutional sense, because they are not the government or acting under the color of government.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Mar 16, 2004)

Rich Parsons said:
			
		

> The company I work for has a weapon policy as well. No weapons on grounds or property. They define weapons as firearms and bladed weapons or impact weapons such as clubs excluding baseball/softball bats. No signed agreements, yet it is implied with the salaried agreement to follow company policies.
> 
> Just because others do it, does not mean it is right. The policy has been in place for years, mostly because of a few shootings at plants. Therefore a corporate wide policy even for engineers and office staff.


I think every one should just carry a crocett set with them where ever they go. You got your hammers, sharp pointy things, and large heavy balls that fit in that pillow case everyone should carry. :uhyeah: 
Sean


----------



## Rich Parsons (Mar 16, 2004)

Touch'O'Death said:
			
		

> I think every one should just carry a crocett set with them where ever they go. You got your hammers, sharp pointy things, and large heavy balls that fit in that pillow case everyone should carry. :uhyeah:
> Sean


I actually made a mistake and had my training bag with me, and I had to drive through a sercurity check to get out. They searched the bag and wanted to take my rattan canes and other training toys. I asked for a receipt and also if they wanted the tire iron and they had better take the golf clubs from the guy over there. This guy just happened to be a senior unclassfied director.  A senior security guard asked why I had the equipment. Note he did not say weapons. I told him I used the equipment and tools in training for self defense. He said have a nice day. I left. All was fine. Yes they could have taken it. Yes I cuold have been in lots of trouble and had lots of paperwork to do. Yet they also knew I would raise a huge stink about discrimination and the big boys get to have their toys and the workers cannot.

Just be smart. Do not piss off the guards and all will be fine. Keep your toys in your trunk and do not bring them out while at work.


----------



## Chicago Green Dragon (Mar 16, 2004)

I think it depends on the municipality and the laws that govern that area. Like here in chicago you can not own a handgun. The city does not allow you to register it unless you are a LEO or someone with a license for their business or certain public officials.
So when they catch you with it, you are charged with possesion of an unregistered weapon. It is a city ordinance but federally you can buy it outside in the burbs. You bring it into the city limits and they can jam you up with it. As for the company dictating its policy. I would recommend getting in touch with a lawyer in your area to see how the law applies since it can vary from one place to another. There are some states which do not allow off duty outside law enforement officers to carry and they will proc. people who do.

Chicago Green Dragon

 :asian:


----------



## Tgace (Mar 16, 2004)

I think the issue here isnt so much the companies "right" to search persons/vehicles coming onto their property as it is the question of if they can search you/your vehicle by force if you refuse (right?). Not allowing weapons on business property is common. Subjecting employees to body searches less so. IMPO (in my professional opinion) the company would have the right to take job action on you if you refuse to be searched, break company policy and/or they could demand that you leave the property unless you submit to the search. If they search you, break into your car etc. without consent, they could be subject to the law...they arent the government... as somebody has posted before.


----------



## OULobo (Mar 16, 2004)

I'm going to try to answer as many posts as I can in one.


Ceicei 
"If you haven't already, you might want to do a post search over at http://www.packing.org and see how others with CCW permits handled similar issues with workplace searches. Of course, State laws vary. You might even want to post your question there too as there are others grappling with the new Ohio laws on CCW permits."

The CCW laws for OH go into effect this coming month, so the laws have yet to really be hashed out. I will see if anyone on packing.com has any ideas. Thanks.




Rich Parsons 
"Just because others do it, does not mean it is right. The policy has been in place for years, mostly because of a few shootings at plants. Therefore a corporate wide policy even for engineers and office staff. Just be smart. Do not piss off the guards and all will be fine. Keep your toys in your trunk and do not bring them out while at work."

Same situation. The policy has been around for years, but with the new CCW coming into effect, managment has decided to state the policy over again. I personally don't think I would bring a firearm to work so its a bit of a non-issue, but resent the company telling me they "reserve the right to search my vehicle without concent or notification."



rmcrobertson 
"It's private property, dude. And it belongs to them. They have every right to ban obviously-unsafe practices, and in fact their lawyers have probably demanded it."

Technically, my car is private property too, so they have no right to violate that boundry. I'm not arguing they have the right to ban weapons, just that they don't have the right to search me or my property without consent or notification. 



Chicago Green Dragon 
"I think it depends on the municipality and the laws that govern that area. Like here in chicago you can not own a handgun. The city does not allow you to register it unless you are a LEO or someone with a license for their business or certain public officials.
So when they catch you with it, you are charged with possesion of an unregistered weapon. It is a city ordinance but federally you can buy it outside in the burbs. You bring it into the city limits and they can jam you up with it. As for the company dictating its policy. I would recommend getting in touch with a lawyer in your area to see how the law applies since it can vary from one place to another. There are some states which do not allow off duty outside law enforement officers to carry and they will proc. people who do."

The law does allow me to carry with a CCW and it does allow them to ban guns from the property, but again, I'm bringing up the search issue. 




Tgace 
"I think the issue here isnt so much the companies "right" to search persons/vehicles coming onto their property as it is the question of if they can search you/your vehicle by force if you refuse (right?). Not allowing weapons on business property is common. Subjecting employees to body searches less so. IMPO (in my professional opinion) the company would have the right to take job action on you if you refuse to be searched, break company policy and/or they could demand that you leave the property unless you submit to the search. If they search you, break into your car etc. without consent, they could be subject to the law...they arent the government... as somebody has posted before. "

That's it dead on. I don't have a problem with them banning the guns and I can abide by that, but I don't like the idea that they think they have the right to search my property or person without my consent or notification. Just like you mentioned, I can accept job related sanctions or moving the vehicle/leaving the property, but that is the choice I should be given. I'm sure if I decided to tell them no, they would fine me or fire me, but I don't think they could stop me from stopping them from breaking into my car or physically trying to search me. It would be interesting to see them try.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Mar 16, 2004)

Sorry, but it is very much an issue of private property and workplace safety. They have every right to demand that you do NOT bring weapons into the workplace, and--for the same reasons that companies can drug test--they have every right to search. it's their property. Period.

And the cops already have, and have always had, the legal right to search selected areas of your car during traffic stops.

I might also note that if people weren't gun-mad, the problem would never arise.


----------



## Tgace (Mar 16, 2004)

I dunno, if you were a civilian security guard that forced an employee into being searched or "broke into" his vehicle, you may just get arrested. Private property dosent void penal law property/person offenses. It would all depend on the circumstances though. And again, the issue isnt about weapons, its about a business thinking they can FORCIBLY search an employees person/property.


----------



## Chicago Green Dragon (Mar 16, 2004)

Like I said before questions about search or seizure should be answered by a lawyer that practices in that municipality since different departments and municipalities have different ordinances that can be enacted.

Chicago Green Dragon

 :asian:


----------



## OULobo (Mar 16, 2004)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Sorry, but it is very much an issue of private property and workplace safety. They have every right to demand that you do NOT bring weapons into the workplace, and--for the same reasons that companies can drug test--they have every right to search. it's their property. Period.
> 
> And the cops already have, and have always had, the legal right to search selected areas of your car during traffic stops.
> 
> I might also note that if people weren't gun-mad, the problem would never arise.



As Tgrace stated, private property doesn't allow for assault and there is no work place safety issue if you ask them to leave or move their car and they comply. If you use the issue of drug testing, then I can still refuse to take the test. Given, I will have to face sanctions by my employer, but I still don't have to take the test if I choose not to. Why is search any different. My car is not their property, no matter where it is. It is my property. If they see a problem in my car and wish to eliminate the problem, then they can have it towed and impounded at the owner's expense, but again they can't forcibly enter it, as that could be damaging or tresspassing on my property ie the car. 

Consequently, officers have to have probable cause before they can search any part of your vehicle. 

It's not just a weapons issue, its an issue of personal rights. I may not want to be touched by a security guard. If I don't want to be touched I have the right to leave without being touched, whether they want to search me or not.

Another thing to bring up, is that about two weeks ago, while I was attending the Communtiy Police Academy, one of the officers mentioned that a local office building was putting up signs that notified of a no weapons on the premises policy. The officer said that the only time the police could step in was if someone got caught (someone in the building noticed that a person was wearing a weapon). He mentioned that the only real search methods that were allowed were passive systems like metal detectors or X-Ray. This sounds like is lends itsself somewhat to what we are discussing now.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Mar 17, 2004)

Again, there's a difference between government property and private property. And, as far as I know, companies that have a drug test policy may not force you to be tested--they are within their present rights, however, to a) refuse to hire you, b) dismiss you, if you refuse such testing.

More to the point, the chances seem to be that if you insist upon carrying weapons to work, YOU are the threat to everybody at work. Which is exactly why companies ban weapons.

I don't see what the big deal is, anyway. The chances are vanishingly small that you're going to need one of the damn things at work anyway--and even smaller that they're going to help you if you do. There are a lot simpler, and safer, and more-reliable, ways to protect yourself and the company anyway. 

It's also worth considering taking this as a moral issue--perhaps you should consider refusing to contribute to the increasingly-threatening and prone-to-violence quality of American society.


----------



## loki09789 (Mar 17, 2004)

Tgace said:
			
		

> I dunno, if you were a civilian security guard that forced an employee into being searched or "broke into" his vehicle, you may just get arrested. Private property dosent void penal law property/person offenses. It would all depend on the circumstances though. And again, the issue isnt about weapons, its about a business thinking they can FORCIBLY search an employees person/property.




That is the way I understand it as well. Before I got in to teaching, I worked as a security guard/supervisor and was a security coordinator (fancy name for the guy who works for the company that is contracting the security services).  The security guard or any company rep could only act as any civilian making a citizens arrest if you were suspected of wrong doing and intend on detaining you let alone plan on pushing a search.  They better have the cops on the way and an eye witness who saw the weapon/incident and can link it to your vehicle to justify any kind of searching by the LEO who arrive on the scene.

Anything less substantial can lead to you winning a civil case and possibly suing the company.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Mar 17, 2004)

loki09789 said:
			
		

> That is the way I understand it as well. Before I got in to teaching, I worked as a security guard/supervisor and was a security coordinator (fancy name for the guy who works for the company that is contracting the security services). The security guard or any company rep could only act as any civilian making a citizens arrest if you were suspected of wrong doing and intend on detaining you let alone plan on pushing a search. They better have the cops on the way and an eye witness who saw the weapon/incident and can link it to your vehicle to justify any kind of searching by the LEO who arrive on the scene.
> 
> Anything less substantial can lead to you winning a civil case and possibly suing the company.


In Michigan, technically the securiy guard cannot detain you. If they do it can be viweed as kidnapping.  Yet, in real big cases, they almost always have an officer on hand.


----------



## Nightingale (Mar 17, 2004)

I don't know about Michigan BUT:

in California, your employer cannot DEMAND that you submit to a drug test or search.  however, they may fire you if you refuse.

They can't forcibly break into your car to search it, but they can refuse to allow it on the property should you refuse the search.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Mar 17, 2004)

Nightingale said:
			
		

> I don't know about Michigan BUT:
> 
> in California, your employer cannot DEMAND that you submit to a drug test or search. however, they may fire you if you refuse.
> 
> They can't forcibly break into your car to search it, but they can refuse to allow it on the property should you refuse the search.


Basically the same form my experience.
:asian:


----------



## loki09789 (Mar 17, 2004)

Rich Parsons said:
			
		

> In Michigan, technically the securiy guard cannot detain you. If they do it can be viweed as kidnapping.  Yet, in real big cases, they almost always have an officer on hand.



Exactly Rich, I think it is basically true in all states, just laid out slightly differently.

The security guard, who has no more authority than any other civilian, could exercise a 'citizen's arrest' and reasonbly/legally detain someone that violates a law, but they had better have their ducks in a row (personally saw the crime, weapon... ).  If the guard or any business rep tries to detain a person because that person violates a company/property policy, they have no grounds for detainment UNLESS in the process of disciplining/firing/ejecting the person from the property that person responds in an illegal fashion (disorderly conduct, assault, vandalism, theft...).


----------



## OULobo (Mar 18, 2004)

I was at the CPA yesterday and asked the Captain about this situation and he said that if we are talking about a CCW instance, that the person needs to be observed with a gun before he can be arrested from carrying a weapon on to weapon restricted private property. He also stated that with a CCW if you are observed with a gun, you can get a charge for brandishing. 

As for forcing a drug test or search, a civilian or corp., they can't, period. Now they do have to right to fire or sanction, if you refuse, and they can have you forcibly removed if you refuse to leave of your own volition. The search issue is the same thing. They can request and you can refuse. At that point they can ask you to remove you car and if you refuse they can have it towed and privatly impounded for the towing charge. They cannot enter your car without consent. 

He described situation, in private security agencies, where if a person is detained by security, they better be able to prosecute. Otherwise it is viable to push for kidnapping or assault charges (though most companies toss six figures at anybody who pushes for charges and some will refuse to prosecute people the have justly caught because of worries of counter suit). 

I should qualify that I am paraphrasing the Captain and that these are based on Ohio Revised Code and local ordinances.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Mar 18, 2004)

loki09789 said:
			
		

> Exactly Rich, I think it is basically true in all states, just laid out slightly differently.
> 
> The security guard, who has no more authority than any other civilian, could exercise a 'citizen's arrest' and reasonbly/legally detain someone that violates a law, but they had better have their ducks in a row (personally saw the crime, weapon... ). If the guard or any business rep tries to detain a person because that person violates a company/property policy, they have no grounds for detainment UNLESS in the process of disciplining/firing/ejecting the person from the property that person responds in an illegal fashion (disorderly conduct, assault, vandalism, theft...).


Riddle me this Batman,

I saw a guy with his hands in the arcade game box taking out quarters. I stopped him. He was about 14 and I was about 20. I ran. I chased him. I dragged him to the office and locked us in and called the police. The police called his parents and arrested me before the parents showed up. For assaulting a minor and kidnapping a minor. (* Holding against his will *)

The company lawyers were at a loss. They were not bring charges against teh company for money, so they could not pay off the parents, The state was bring charges against me for criminal action. As to being arrested, I hand cuffed and read my rights, and then the only thing I said was, I have to lock the doors and I want my lawyer. They agreed to let me turn myself in, later after the owner showed up. He is the one who called his lawyers. I turned myself in, and repeated my request for a state provided attorney.  The detective asked me a few questions. What did I do. Enginering Student at U of Mich. I work there to help pay the bills. He did not ask me about the incident, I did not volunteer information other than public infoprmation about myelf and or my character. A/B Student at a good school, etc., ..., . Yet The DA dropped all charges against me and the other guy. Me, because the other guys had a record and was caught stealing eslewhere, and as he had not left the property, he could have been trying to bring me the money for safe keeping. They got him on the other charges. Yet, I do not like handcuffs.

So, even if you got your ducks in a row, be prepared to spend time being processed and or questioned.

Just my experience, not saying it will go this way everytime.
:asian:


----------



## loki09789 (Mar 18, 2004)

Rich Parsons said:
			
		

> Riddle me this Batman,
> 
> I saw a guy with his hands in the arcade game box taking out quarters. I stopped him. He was about 14 and I was about 20. I ran. I chased him. I dragged him to the office and locked us in and called the police. The police called his parents and arrested me before the parents showed up. For assaulting a minor and kidnapping a minor. (* Holding against his will *)
> 
> ...



Well, the one duck out of row was that he didn't demonstrate his intent clearly in that instance because he hadn't tried to leave with the money... technicallity yes but that is the way it goes.  Also, if you didn't see him break into the machine, it could have been someone else and he 'could have been' trying to bring the money to you as you said.

Bunch of BS, but the evidence has to be tight or it can be disputed.

Along the same lines, I was working mall security after the service and got a call that a group of kids were beating up on a girl outside through the dispatch.  I ran outside and saw a kid prying a landscaping stake out of the ground and others were circled up around this girl and there was shouting.

I used my Drill Instructor's voice and told them all to get against the wall of the building (cops were already called).  There wasn't enough room, so I told three of them to get on the ground.

My reasoning was that I was there, acting as a civilian, trying to stop any harm based on the report and my observations.  I was detaining all parties involved in a way that did not put myself or the percieved victim in further danger.  The cops came, and it turned out that it was just a group of kids watching two girls argue over a boy....and my boss got mad at me.

I asked him straight out "What was I suppose to do?" and told him what I was working from.  Interestingly, on of the LEO was the uncle of one of the girls and threatened to charge me... but nothing happened.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Mar 18, 2004)

loki09789 said:
			
		

> Well, the one duck out of row was that he didn't demonstrate his intent clearly in that instance because he hadn't tried to leave with the money... technicallity yes but that is the way it goes. Also, if you didn't see him break into the machine, it could have been someone else and he 'could have been' trying to bring the money to you as you said.
> 
> Bunch of BS, but the evidence has to be tight or it can be disputed.


Paul, Yep not all the ducks in a row. Just to let everyone think about it before the go out and perfrom a citizen's arrest. And yes lots of BS.



			
				loki09789 said:
			
		

> Along the same lines, I was working mall security after the service and got a call that a group of kids were beating up on a girl outside through the dispatch. I ran outside and saw a kid prying a landscaping stake out of the ground and others were circled up around this girl and there was shouting.
> 
> I used my Drill Instructor's voice and told them all to get against the wall of the building (cops were already called). There wasn't enough room, so I told three of them to get on the ground.
> 
> ...


Dealt with friends or family of officers before. Not fun.

Ia lso had instance of where I saw a guy **** back to swing at a girl. I reached out and stopped him with a check, and then he got in my face where I grabbed his throat. (* Not really the best thing to do for a legal point of view *) Yet this did get the attention of his 9 friends. Well to say after the guy passed out in my grasp his friends jumped me and it was not pretty for either side. The polce said I started, because I touched him first. They told me straight up that I should have let him hit the girl and then press charges. As she was a friend and an employee of mine I just could not let that stand. So, I Asked for an address and name of the officer. I wanted to hand it out to all of the parents in the future who wanted to press charges for why I did nto do anything.

oh well, "them days are over" ( I hope )


----------



## edhead2000 (Mar 21, 2004)

And I'm just mad that Rite Aid made me sign a form last week stating that I would no longer wear blue jeans to work.


----------



## OULobo (Apr 5, 2004)

Follow up question: 

I recently had the chance to talk to a police K-9 handler and one of his regular duties was high school searches for contraband. My question involves a comment he made. He stated that it was not illegal for him to search any car in the school parking lot with or with out reasonable suspicion. What gives him this right, when it is known that he can't do this type of search during a traffic stop? Is it that the students are minors (although he seemed to indicate that the same policy applied to teachers and most of the cars are private property of the parents)? Is it something to do with school property (is school property considered private eventhough it is patroled by police and owned by the city, therefore owned by the public)? While I understand the search to be of reasonable suspicion and legal if the dog signals, what gives the officer the right to search even if it doesn't?


----------



## Nightingale (Apr 5, 2004)

when I was in high school and college, we had to sign papers when we got our parking passes (or, in case of high school, the parents had to sign) that said it was ok for them to search our cars.

maybe that's why...


----------



## OULobo (Apr 5, 2004)

Good answer, but what if you are a visiting parent or guest speaker that never signed the form? What if the student borrows a car from someone other than his parents that didn't sign a constnet form (grandparents, adult sibling, ect) and takes that in to the lot?


----------



## Tgace (Apr 5, 2004)

Some case law on school searches is...

NEW JERSEY v. T. L. O. 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

469 U.S. 325

January 15, 1985, Decided



JUSTICE WHITE delivered the opinion of the Court. 

We granted certiorari in this case to examine the appropriateness of the exclusionary rule as a remedy for searches carried out in violation of the Fourth Amendment by public school authorities. Our consideration of the proper application of the Fourth Amendment to the public schools, however, has led us to conclude that the search that gave rise to the case now before us did not violate the Fourth Amendment. Accordingly, we here address only the questions of the proper standard for assessing the legality of searches conducted by public school officials and the application of that standard to the facts of this case. 

On March 7, 1980, a teacher at Piscataway High School in Middlesex County, N. J., discovered two girls smoking in a lavatory. One of the two girls was the respondent T. L. O., who at that time was a 14-year-old high school freshman. Because smoking in the lavatory was a violation of a school rule, the teacher took the two girls to the Principal's office, where they met with Assistant Vice Principal Theodore Choplick. In response to questioning by Mr. Choplick, T. L. O.'s companion admitted that she had violated the rule. T. L. O., however, denied that she had been smoking in the lavatory and claimed that she did not smoke at all. 

Mr. Choplick asked T. L. O. to come into his private office and demanded to see her purse. Opening the purse, he found a pack of cigarettes, which he removed from the purse and held before T. L. O. as he accused her of having lied to him. As he reached into the purse for the cigarettes, Mr. Choplick also noticed a package of cigarette rolling papers. In his experience, possession of rolling papers by high school students was closely associated with the use of marihuana. Suspecting that a closer examination of the purse might yield further evidence of drug use, Mr. Choplick proceeded to search the purse thoroughly. The search revealed a small amount of marihuana, a pipe, a number of empty plastic bags, a substantial quantity of money in one-dollar bills, an index card that appeared to be a list of students who owed T. L. O. money, and two letters that implicated T. L. O. in marihuana dealing. 

Mr. Choplick notified T. L. O.'s mother and the police, and turned the evidence of drug dealing over to the polise. At the request of the police, T. L. O.'s mother took her daughter to police headquarters, where T. L. O. confessed that she had been selling marihuana at the high school. On the basis of the confession and the evidence seized by Mr. Choplick, the State brought delinquency charges against T. L. O. in the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court of Middlesex County. Contending that Mr. Choplick's search of her purse violated the Fourth Amendment, T. L. O. moved to suppress the evidence found in her purse as well as her confession, which, she argued, was tainted by the allegedly unlawful search. 

The New Jersey Supreme Court agreed with the lower courts that the Fourth Amendment applies to searches conducted by school officials. The court also rejected the State of New Jersey's argument that the exclusionary rule should not be employed to prevent the use in juvenile proceedings of evidence unlawfully seized by school officials. 

With respect to the question of the legality of the search before it, the court agreed with the Juvenile Court that a warrantless search by a school official does not violate the Fourth Amendment so long as the official "has reasonable grounds to believe that a student possesses evidence of illegal activity or activity that would interfere with school discipline and order." According to the majority, the contents of T. L. O.'s purse had no bearing on the accusation against T. L. O., for possession of cigarettes (as opposed to smoking them in the lavatory) did not violate school rules, and a mere desire for evidence that would impeach T. L. O.'s claim that she did not smoke cigarettes could not justify the search. Moreover, even if a reasonable suspicion that T. L. O. had cigarettes in her purse would justify a search, Mr. Choplick had no such suspicion, as no one had furnished him with any specific information that there were cigarettes in the purse. Finally, leaving aside the question whether Mr. Choplick was justified in opening the purse, the court held that the evidence of drug use that he saw inside did not justify the extensive "rummaging" through T. L. O.'s papers and effects that followed.


...This case is the foundation for many search+seizure issues on school property, while vehicles arent mentioned, there is case law stemming from this case that supports it.


----------



## OULobo (Apr 5, 2004)

So the situation between school administrators and students is directly analogous to the situation between police and civilian, as they need "reasonable grounds" to believe illegality before a search. So in this case the school was found at fault and the student's complaint was justified, right? In such, students retain their fourth amendment rights even on school grounds.


----------



## 8253 (Apr 6, 2004)

hope this ends well


----------



## Tgace (Apr 6, 2004)

OULobo said:
			
		

> So the situation between school administrators and students is directly analogous to the situation between police and civilian, as they need "reasonable grounds" to believe illegality before a search. So in this case the school was found at fault and the student's complaint was justified, right? In such, students retain their fourth amendment rights even on school grounds.



No, the lower court found in favor of the girl..the US Supreme court overturned it.


----------



## loki09789 (Apr 6, 2004)

Tgace said:
			
		

> No, the lower court found in favor of the girl..the US Supreme court overturned it.



Off topic, but related to the school issue.  The general policy that I have seen in the schools I have worked in is that they can search the lockers as they wish because the lockers belong to the school, therefore random, general searches are okay.  Also allows teachers/administrators to go into student lockers to get school items or personal items if a student is absent or needs to leave quickly for an emergency but needs something from the locker.

The line is drawn at personal items (bags, containers....) that belong to the student that should not (though I have seen over zealous teachers/prinicipals violate this on occasion) be searched without student permission if there is no reasonable cause.

So if it is a general search with no reasonable suspicion, teachers/administrators can open lockers, look around but not go into bags, lunch boxes....  BUT if, like in the case of a tip about a gun, drugs, theft... teachers/administrators can go into lockers AND search the students private containers and bags.  The most reasonable way that I have seen this done is with the student aware of the search and the guidelines that are being used to justify the search.  The student(s) are either in an office or even present for the search depending on the school/situation (I wouldn't want a student suspected of a gun to be within arms reach of the item during a search personally).  There are school districts that even use police cooperation/presence for procedural witnessing and guidance to make sure they are 'ducks in a row.'


----------



## OULobo (Apr 6, 2004)

I figured the whole "lockers are school property thing" gives the school carte blanch on search, but I guess a personal container like a bag or purse would have an expectation of privacy that would require a warrent. I do know that a signal from a K-9 trumps it all and allows for search. That is why the local police here use the dog for all school searches. Of course a dog will usually only signal on a gun, bombs or drugs (strong scents), they won't help on any contraband that doesn't emit an odor (knives, stolen goods) or is not a completly illegal object (alcohol).


----------

