Alcohol & Drugs: MIP, MIC, Intoxication Illegal Search and Seizure

[PapaSpice]

Please read the entire paragraph thanks.:

At my school we have a path in the back of the High School nicknamed the "smokers path". 2 Days ago I parked my car around the back of the school one morning instead of in the students parking lot because my class is closer there and I barely made it to class on time. I couldn't risk being tardy again. I had detention that day after school. School ends at 2:59 and detention begins at 3:15. When school let out at 2:59 me and my one friend when out the back of school, Jumped in my car and drove out of school property and around to the bottom of the "smokers path". (The beginning of the path is the end of school property)
I parked my car along the road about 30 feet away from the end of the path. We both smoked a ciggerate. Then we exited my car and walked down the raod 30 feet to the path and followed it up to school to attend detention. When we rentered school property a teacher confronted us and asked us why we were coming back. We told her we had detention and she said were not allowed to do that. We were allowed to go back and attend detention anyways. THe teacher we spoke to outside came into the detention room and informed the detention teacher that we both left school property and returned. The next day I was absent from school. The day after that I returned. It was a normal day until I got called to the office at the end of 6th period. The principal took me into his office and said that he wanted to search my bookbag. I asked him how he had reason to search my bag. he said he did because I left school property the other day and came back. There was NO teacher who saw me smoke a ciggerate, I was far from the path, much less the school. And if they did, we were off school property anyways. The principal said he needed to search for ciggerattes. (I think it was because we came up back to the school through the "smokers path") He proceeded to search my bookbag and found a bag a marijuana. I beleive he had no cause to search me. If you review the supreme court case of New Jersey VS T.L.O. (Link included) The girl that had her pocketbook searched was caught smoking in the lavatory the same day and when searched after that. I was never caught in such an act. I was searched out of the blue with no probabable cause. Please tell me if i have a case for an illegal search defense. THank you.

 

[Michael Wechsler]

First, in what context are you asking about an illegal search? Do you want to sue the school as a plaintiff? Are you being charged and are currently a defendant in a case against you?

Second, there are many factors in determining whether or not a search was illegal. The link is not included to the case of the NJ Supreme Court. It is likely that a probable cause standard was used. The facts do not have to be identical, only the application. The fact that you had just returned from an area that you admit is known to be frequented by smokers, presents a very good question that may not yield a clear cut answer. In your case, it is possible that you also acted and/or smelled as though you were under the influence of marijuana. I'm not saying that this is fact, I'm stating that it is just one possibility amongst many. There may also be other facts and circumstances that weigh upon the conclusion. Suffice it to say that being caught returning from the "smoker's path" is not a fact that helps you. As stated above, the context here is most important as well.

 

[PapaSpice]

Both. I'm being charged and I want to sue the school. I read in the NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF ATTORNEYS GENERAL
SCHOOL SEARCH REFERENCE GUIDE 1999 located at this url:
Search Refference Guide
That a school official must have resonable cause to search someone. Example: A female student was caught smoking in the lavatory. The principle would have a resonable cause to search her pocket book for ciggerrates even though he had no direct knowledge that she had put the ciggerrates in there. Thats an example from the guide. In my case. The principal got a report that i left school property and came back. No reason to search. My friend that was with me the entire time and also was confronted and gave his name was not searched. Only me for the same reason. Do i have a chance in court?

Thanks
Mike

 

[Michael Wechsler]

Are you being represented by an attorney? There are many factors that could come into play, such as any other circumstances that could factor into the equation. It seems that you were seen leaving school and returning just a few minutes later from a place that is well known to be used for smoking. It's not like you came in through the front door. You don't need to be seen smoking for a search to be reasonable. Your conduct or appearance could be give rise to a reasonable search. The example in the guide is just an example.

The guide does say that if you were searched by a school official and not pursuant to law enforcement, the standard is "reasonable grounds" or "reasonable suspicion" that a search will uncover evidence of the crime. This is below the "probable cause" standard for the police.

If you have an attorney, he/she will be familiar with all the facts and circumstances surrounding your case. Should you attack the reasonableness of the search? Absolutely. Does it mean that your version will be persuasive? Maybe, maybe not. This seems like gray area to me and some facts may weigh more than others, including facts that may not have been provided. You may want to cross examine the principal to specifically elicit what his/her grounds were for suspicion and hopefully it will yield inconsistent testimony.

 

[PapaSpice]

But still.. The place i was seen coming from is off school property. Whast the difference if i 'm out at wal-mart and the principal rolls up and sees me smoking a cig. He can't search me the next day in school. SO why should he be aloud in this case? And I'm absolutely sure they didn't see me smoking. Plus i was seached 2 days later. And my friend that road along in my car and came up the path with me Didn't get searched.

 

[Michael Wechsler]

Why does it make a difference that you were seen coming from a place that is off school property? The key is whether the search was made with reasonable cause for suspicion. If there is a Walmart next to the school and you are seen smoking there and then cross the street a few moments later... would you say that a search is unreasonable simply because you weren't on school grounds? You might do better attacking the reasonableness of the search... e.g. you parked in the back and perhaps could have gone to your car. I don't know the area around the school. You may also want to ask why your friend didn't get searched but you did. Why was one more reasonable than another, etc.

 

[PapaSpice]

But a teacher didn't see me smoke a ciggerate. I was only seen leaving school at 2:59 and coming back for detention at 3:15 through the smokers path. I actually wasn't seen leaving school but when i came back up the path after parking at the road at the end of it, a teacher confronted us at the property line. The rule violation of leaving adn returning to school for detention has no physical evidence assoicated with it. Thus no search can be done on that basis. I think the school just assumed since i came back up through the path that I was smoking. I have also never had any infractions relating to ciggerrettes ever before.

 

[Michael Wechsler]

I think that the point being made is that "reasonable cause" does not in any way require one checking you to have absolute proof of possession. Seeing you smoke is proof of possession. Seeing you throw away a match would give reasonable cause that you have been smoking if there was no reason for you to be lighting a match for any other reason on a street and there was no fire in sight. Reasonable grounds here might be that you left the school grounds for 5 minutes, went to the "smoker's path" where people are known to smoke, and returned 5 minutes later. One might reasonably conclude that your only purpose in doing so was to smoke since that is what virtually everyone else seems to do. Additionally, if your eyes were bloodshot or you smelled of marijuana or you were acting like someone who might be a little high, given the circumstances that may also be reasonable grounds for a search.

I don't think anyone is saying that the above interpretations or something similar are definitely "reasonable grounds." What I think is being said and the point I'm trying to relate is that different people may interpret those words differently.

I also think that your argument fails because you keep on concentrating on the fact that nobody actually saw you. What I can say is that seeing you with possession is not required. What is being iterated above is that you would do best to attack the reasonableness of the search by attacking the reasonableness of the reasons given. Perhaps your returning from the path alone isn't sufficient, especially if there could be many other reasonable explanations for your brief absence.