Title: In Re: Patrick Y.

State: maryland

Issuer: Maryland Supreme Court

Document:

In re: Patrick Y.
No. 27, Sept. Term, 1999
Search of public school student’s locker upon unconfirmed report of weapons or drugs in the
school.
District Court of Maryland
Montgomery County, Sixth District
Juvenile Division
Case No. J97-147A
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND
No. 27
September Term, 1999
______________________________________
IN RE: PATRICK Y.
_____________________________________
Bell, C.J.
Eldridge
Rodowsky
Raker
Wilner
Cathell
Harell,
   JJ.
______________________________________
Opinion by Wilner, J.
Dissenting Opinion by Bell, C.J.
______________________________________
Filed:   February 18, 2000
The District Court of Maryland , sitting as the  juvenile court in Montgomery County,
found petitioner to be a delinquent child by reason of his having had a deadly weapon and
a pager in his possession while on public school property.  He admitted possession of the two
items and complains only that they were unlawfully obtained by the State and, for that
reason, should have been suppressed.  The trial court rejected his contention that the seizure
of the items violated his Fourth Amendment rights, and the Court of Special Appeals
affirmed.  In Re Patrick Y., 124 Md. App. 604, 723 A.2d 523 (1999).  We agree and shall
affirm the judgment of the appellate court.
BACKGROUND
Petitioner was an eighth grade student at the Mark Twain School in Montgomery
County.  The school is a public middle and senior high school that, at its Rockville campus,
serves approximately 245 children with significant social, emotional, learning, and
behavioral difficulties.  The school publishes a set of “Policies Regarding Student Behavior,”
a copy of which was given to petitioner and his parent and was signed by them.  The
document states that the school is “committed to maintain a safe environment for students
and staff,” and advises:
“Mark Twain subscribes to Montgomery County Public
Schools’ Search and Seizure policy, which provides that the
principal or the administration’s designee may conduct a search
of a student or of the student’s locker if there is probable cause
to believe that the student has in his/her possession an item, the
possession of which constitutes a criminal offense under the
laws of the State of Maryland.  These items include weapons,
drugs or drug paraphernalia, alcohol, beepers and electronic
-2-
signalling devices.”
At approximately 10:40 on the morning of May 23, 1997, the school security officer,
Patrick Rooney, received information from a source he could not recall that “there were
drugs and or weapons in the middle school area of the school.”  Mr. Rooney alerted the
principal, who authorized a search of all lockers in the middle school area.  The record
indicates that the search was conducted by Mr. Rooney and one other person but does not
reveal how the search was conducted.  We do not know how many lockers were searched,
other than that the search did not extend beyond the middle school area, or how the search
was conducted.  No evidence was produced of whether the lockers were even locked or, if
locked, whether the school had a master key or a list of the combinations that would open
combination locks, although a fair inference can be drawn from the apparent ease with which
the search was conducted that the school had ready access to the lockers.  As petitioner was
not informed in advance of the intent to search his locker and was not present when his
locker was opened, it is clear that the locker was opened without his assistance or
permission.
Inside petitioner’s locker, Mr. Rooney found a bookbag, which he also searched.
Inside the bookbag were the two contraband items — a folding knife with a 2 ½ inch blade
and a pager — both of which, as noted, are expressly forbidden on school property.
Petitioner, it appears, was in some other, unrelated difficulty at the time of the search.  He
had threatened to leave the school building without permission and was being restrained on
that account when he was confronted with the knife and the pager, which he admitted were
-3-
his.  The issue raised by petitioner is whether the Fourth Amendment was violated “by a
search of Petitioner’s locker, based solely upon a vague and unsubstantiated rumor, ‘that
there were drugs and or weapons in the middle school area.’”
Petitioner asserts that (1) he had a legitimate expectation of privacy in his locker,
(2) whatever may be the Constitutional standard for conducting locker searches, the
published school policy required probable cause, which was lacking, (3) the school officials
did not have even a “reasonable suspicion,” that there was any contraband in his locker, and
(4) by opening his bookbag, the search exceeded any permissible scope that might have
justified opening the locker.  Relying principally on Vernonia School District v. Acton, 515
U.S. 646, 115 S. Ct. 2386, 132 L. Ed. 2d 564 (1995), the State contends that general
reasonableness, not probable cause, is the appropriate standard to apply and that, under that
standard, the search of petitioner’s locker and bookbag was justified.  It urges that petitioner
had, at best, only a limited privacy interest in his school locker, that the search of the locker
was a minimal intrusion, that school safety constitutes a compelling governmental interest,
that the locker search was an “efficacious” means of satisfying that interest, and that, on
balance, the minimal intrusion of the locker search was outweighed by the compelling
interest in school safety.
As noted, the issue raised in the petition for certiorari was limited to whether the
search of petitioner’s locker violated the Fourth Amendment.  That statement of the issue
does not include any complaint about the search of the bookbag or, indeed, whether
petitioner was entitled to relief solely because the locker search violated the published
-4-
Montgomery County School Policy.  Because it was not raised in the petition, we shall not
consider the search of the bookbag. The published school policy needs to be addressed, not
as an independent basis for suppression, but in the Fourth Amendment context of its effect
on petitioner’s reasonable expectation of privacy in  the locker.
DISCUSSION
Two Supreme Court cases have come to dominate the current debate over locker
searches in the public schools — Acton, supra, 515 U.S. 646, 115 S. Ct. 2386, 132 L. Ed.
2d 564, and New Jersey v. T.L.O, 469 U.S. 325, 105 S. Ct. 733, 83 L. Ed. 2d 720 (1985) —
although neither of them dealt with a locker search.  T.L.O., the earlier of the two cases,
involved the search of a student’s purse.  A teacher found T.L.O. and another student
smoking in a school lavatory, which constituted a violation of school rules, and took the
students to the vice-principal’s office.  When T.L.O. not only denied smoking in the lavatory
but of even being a smoker, the vice-principal opened her purse, found and removed a pack
of cigarettes, noticed cigarette rolling papers, and, knowing the connection of such papers
to the use of marijuana, searched the purse further.  The extended search revealed a small
amount of marijuana, certain paraphernalia, and other evidence implicating T.L.O. in drug
dealing.  The evidence was turned over to the police.  After questioning, the student admitted
that she had been selling marijuana at the school, and, based on that confession, she was
charged with delinquency.  The trial court denied her motion to suppress the evidence taken
from her purse, a decision set aside by the New Jersey Supreme Court.
-5-
The U.S. Supreme Court initially granted certiorari to determine whether the
exclusionary rule enunciated in Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643, 81 S. Ct. 1684, 6 L. Ed. 1081
(1961) should apply in juvenile court proceedings, but it ordered reargument to consider the
broader question “of what limits, if any, the Fourth Amendment places on the activities of
school authorities.”  T.L.O., supra, 469 U.S. at 332, 105 S. Ct. at 737, 83 L. Ed. 2d at 728.
The ultimate resolution in that case was that the search did not violate T.L.O.’s rights under
that Amendment, but the Court warned that its disposition of the case on that basis was not
to be taken as an implicit determination “that the exclusionary rule applies to the fruits of
unlawful searches conducted by school authorities.”  Id., 469 U.S. at 333 n.3, 105 S. Ct. at
738, 83 L. Ed. 2d at 729.  The Court also made clear that its focus was on the right to search
the person or personal items carried by the student, which was the circumstance before it,
and that it was not addressing the question now before us of “whether a schoolchild has a
legitimate expectation of privacy in lockers, desks, or other school property provided for the
storage of school supplies.”  Id., 469 U.S. at 337 n.5, 105 S. Ct. at 740, 83 L. Ed. 2d at 732.
In that regard, it noted the conflict between Zamora v. Pomeroy, 639 F.2d 662 (10th Cir.
1981) and People v. Overton, 249 N.E.2d 366 (N.Y. 1969), holding that school
administrators had the right to search or consent to the search of student lockers, and State
v. Engerud, 463 A.2d 934 (N.J. 1983), holding that students have an expectation of privacy
in their lockers.
On the merits, the Court first determined, as a threshold matter, that the Fourth
Amendment does apply to searches conducted by public school officials.  Largely because
-6-
of the compulsory school attendance laws, public school officials, unlike their counterparts
in private school, do not stand in loco parentis in their dealings with students and therefore
do not have the exemption from Fourth Amendment requirements enjoyed by the parents.
They do not merely exercise authority delegated to them by the students’ parents, but act in
furtherance of mandated educational and disciplinary policies.
Proceeding from that premise, the Court then recognized that students were entitled
to bring to school “a variety of legitimate, noncontraband items,” that there was “no reason
to conclude that they have necessarily waived all rights to privacy in such items merely by
bringing them onto school grounds,” and that, as a result, the search of a child’s person or
of a closed purse or bag carried on the person was “a severe violation of subjective
expectations of privacy.”  Id., 469 U.S. at 337-39, 105 S. Ct. at 732-33, 83 L. Ed. 2d at 740-
41.  Against that right of privacy, however, the “substantial interest of teachers and
administrators in maintaining discipline in the classroom and on school grounds” had to be
balanced.  Id. at 339, 105 S. Ct. at 733, 83 L. Ed. 2d at 740.  In that regard, the Court took
note that, in recent years, the maintenance of order in the schools, which had never been
easy, had “often taken particularly ugly forms:  drug use and violent crime in the schools
have become major social problems.”  Id.  It acknowledged that, even in schools spared the
most serious problems, “the preservation of order and a proper educational environment
requires close supervision of schoolchildren, as well as the enforcement of rules against
conduct that would be perfectly permissible if undertaken by an adult.”  Id.  That imperative
requires “a certain degree of flexibility in school disciplinary procedures.”  Id. at 340, 105
-7-
S. Ct. at 733, 83 L. Ed. 2d at 742.
In striking the balance, the Court concluded that the warrant requirement of the Fourth
Amendment was unsuited to the school environment and that the generally applicable
probable cause standard was unnecessary.  Rather, it held, “the legality of a search of a
student should depend simply on the reasonableness, under all the circumstances, of the
search.”  Id. at 341, 105 S. Ct. at 734, 83 L. Ed. 2d at 742.  That, in turn, required a two-part
inquiry: whether the action was justified at its inception, and whether the search, as
conducted, was reasonably related in scope to the circumstances that justified the
interference in the first place.  As to that, the Court concluded:
“Under ordinary circumstances, a search of a student by a
teacher or other school official will be ‘justified at its inception’
when there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that the search
will turn up evidence that the student has violated or is violating
either the law or the rules of the school.  Such a search will be
permissible in its scope when the measures adopted are
reasonably related to the objectives of the search and not
excessively intrusive in light of the age and sex of the student
and the nature of the infraction.”
Id. at 341-42, 105 S. Ct. at 734-35, 83 L. Ed. 2d at 743.
The New Jersey Supreme Court had applied essentially the same principles in finding
the search unlawful, and the disagreement between the two courts was in their application
to the particular facts.  The U.S. Supreme Court concluded that the school officials had a
reasonable basis for believing that T.L.O. had been smoking in the lavatory and that her
purse might contain evidence of that conduct, in the form of cigarettes.  It was not
unreasonable, therefore, for the vice-principal to search the purse for cigarettes.  His
-8-
discovery of the rolling papers while looking for the cigarettes gave rise to a reasonable
suspicion that the purse also might contain marijuana, thereby justifying the extended search.
Because the search was reasonable in both inception and scope, the evidence was not subject
to suppression.
Acton, which was decided 10 years after T.L.O., involved a different kind of search
— random urinalysis for students involved in inter-scholastic athletics.  The Vernonia school
district, legitimately concerned over an increasing incidence of drug abuse on the part of
students, which had led to a significant escalation in discipline problems, especially among
student athletes, adopted a policy of requiring all students intending to engage in inter-
scholastic athletics, and the parents of those students, to sign a written consent to the random
drug testing of the students through urinalysis.  Special efforts were made to assure both
reasonable privacy in obtaining the specimens and confidentiality and  reliability of the test
results.  Acton and his parents refused to consent to the procedure and when, as a result,
Acton was not permitted to play football for his school team, he and his parents sued for
declaratory and injunctive relief, claiming that the policy violated his rights under the Fourth
and Fourteenth Amendments.
The Court began by observing that the ultimate measure of the Constitutionality of
a governmental search is reasonableness — balancing its intrusion on the individual’s Fourth
Amendment interests against its promotion of legitimate governmental interests.  Although
a search conducted by law enforcement persons normally requires a warrant, issuable only
upon a demonstration of probable cause, neither a warrant nor the probable cause standard
-9-
are required where special needs make them impracticable.  In T.L.O., the Court concluded
that the warrant requirement and the probable cause standard were not required in the student
search setting — that adherence to a probable cause standard would undercut the need of
school officials for freedom to maintain order.  The Acton Court held that, although the
search in T.L.O. was based on individualized suspicion of wrongdoing, that too was not an
“irreducible requirement” of the Fourth Amendment.  Acton, supra, 515 U.S. at 653, 115 S.
Ct. at 2391, 132 L. Ed. 2d at 574.  Suspicionless searches to conduct drug testing had been
upheld for railroad personnel involved in train accidents and Federal customs officials, and
random automobile checkpoints had been approved to search for drunk drivers, illegal
immigrants, and contraband.
Turning then to the first aspect of the question — the degree of intrusion on a
legitimate expectation of privacy — the Court confirmed earlier holdings that students in a
public school setting, while not shedding their Constitutional rights at the schoolhouse gate,
nonetheless have a lesser expectation of privacy than do adults.  Simply as unemancipated
minors, they lack “some of the most fundamental  rights of self-determination.”  Id. at 654,
115 S. Ct. at 2391, 132 L. Ed. 2d at 575.  Although public school officials do not stand
entirely in loco parentis with respect to the students, they do exercise a “custodial and
tutelary” authority that permits “a degree of supervision and control that could not be
exercised over free adults” and that cannot be ignored in conducting a “reasonableness”
inquiry.  Id. at 655-65, 115 S. Ct. at 576, 132 L. Ed. 2d at 2392.  Reflecting on the target
group at issue, the Court held that legitimate privacy interests were even less with regard to
 Because Acton arose from a declaratory judgment action, the question left open in T.L.O.,
1
of whether the exclusionary rule would apply in a juvenile court proceeding even if the search was
-10-
student athletes, who are required to dress and undress in locker rooms not noted for their
privacy, and who, in other ways as well, have a reduced expectation of privacy.  The degree
of intrusion manifested by the drug testing program on that reduced expectation, the Court
held, was not significant in light of the procedures used in its implementation.
Addressing then the “nature and immediacy of the governmental concern,” the Court
noted the “compelling” need to deter drug use by schoolchildren.  Indeed, it recognized that
the effects of a drug-infested school extend beyond those using the drugs and impact as well
on the entire student body and faculty by disrupting the educational process.  That general
concern was heightened in the particular case both by the special vulnerability of student
athletes to harm when either on drugs themselves or in contact with other athletes on drugs
and by the significant increase in disciplinary problems actually experienced in the Vernonia
schools that was attributed to drug use.  Rejecting Acton’s suggestion that a less intrusive
alternative was possible — testing only on suspicion of drug use — the Court observed that
it had “repeatedly refused to declare that only the ‘least intrusive’ search practicable can be
reasonable under the Fourth Amendment.”  Id. at 663, 115 S. Ct. at 2396, 132 L. Ed. 2d at
581.  The net holding was that “when the government acts as guardian and tutor the relevant
question is whether the search is one that a reasonable guardian and tutor might undertake,”
and in Acton, the answer was in the affirmative.  Id. at 665, 115 S. Ct. at 2396-97, 132 L. Ed.
2d at 582.1
unreasonable, was not presented.  None of the lower court decisions since T.L.O. have addressed that
issue, even when the case did arise from a juvenile court proceeding.  The State has not raised the
issue in this case, but instead has assumed that the exclusionary rule would apply and defends on the
ground that the search was not violative of the Fourth Amendment.  We too shall assume, arguendo,
that the Mapp v. Ohio exclusionary rule would apply.
-11-
Petitioner regards T.L.O. as the more relevant case, requiring some individualized
suspicion as a necessary predicate for a locker search.  He seems to view Acton as limited
to student athletes and their lesser expectation of privacy, noting the Court’s reference to
their “communal undress,” the fact that inter-scholastic athletics was a voluntary endeavor,
and the further fact that, in Acton, most of the parents approved the drug-testing policy.  We
do not regard Acton as being so limited.
Expectation Of Privacy
Both T.L.O. and Acton instruct us as to the analytical process that should be followed.
First, we must determine whether, and to what extent, petitioner had a legitimate expectation
of privacy in his locker.  Although that is ultimately a legal issue, it depends on the facts.
In In Interest of Isiah B., 500 N.W.2d 637 (Wis. 1993), the school system adopted a written
policy, communicated to the students, that school lockers were the property of the school,
that the school retained exclusive control over them, and that periodic general inspections
may be conducted by school authorities for any reason, at any time, without notice, and
without a warrant.  The school administration had pass keys to all of the lockers, and
students were forbidden to put private locks on them.  In light of that overall policy, the court
-12-
concluded that students had no reasonable expectation of privacy in the lockers made
available for their use.  See also Shoemaker v. State, 971 S.W.2d 178 (Tex. App. 1998)
(school had written policy, discussed with the students, that lockers remained under the
jurisdiction of the school and were subject to search at any time upon reasonable cause, and
school officials had pass key that opened all lockers); and cf. People v. Overton, 229 N.E.2d
596 (N.Y. 1967); S.A. v. State, 654 N.E.2d 791, 795 (Ind. App. 1995).
In the absence of such a clear policy, and especially when there is a contrary policy
purporting to limit the ability of the school authorities to conduct a search, courts have
concluded that students do have some legitimate privacy interest, even if a limited one.  In
Com. v. Snyder, 597 N.E.2d 1363 (Mass. 1992), where the school published a written policy
that students had the right not to have their lockers subjected to unreasonable search, the
court concluded that a student had a reasonable expectation of privacy, notwithstanding that
the school officials had the combinations to the locks.   In Com. v. Cass, 709 A.2d 350, 353
(Pa. 1998), where the written policy, communicated to the students, was that lockers were
subject to search without warning when school officials “have a reasonable suspicion that
the locker contains materials which pose a threat to the health, welfare and safety of students
in the school” and school officials were able to open lockers by use of a master key and by
having required access to any combinations on private locks used by the students, the court
found a “minimal” privacy expectation.  In State v. Joseph T., 336 S.E.2d 728 (W. Va.
1985), the court found a right of students to security against unreasonable searches and
seizures by public school officials.  Although school officials had a master key that would
-13-
open all lockers, the student handbook noted that the Fourth Amendment protected “all
citizens” from unreasonable searches and seizures and declared that students “do have rights
to privacy and may reasonably expect that their lockers will not be searched unless
appropriate school officials consider a search absolutely necessary to maintain the integrity
of the school environment and to protect other students.”  Id. at 737 n.10.  See also State v.
Michael G.,  748 P.2d 17 (N.M. Ct. App. 1987); In Interest of Dumas, 515 A.2d 984 (Pa.
Super. 1986); and S.C. v. State, 583 So. 2d 188 (Miss. 1991), finding a privacy interest in
student lockers without discussion of published school policy or general access to lockers
by school officials.
As noted, the only factual evidence in this record bearing on whether petitioner may
have had a legitimate expectation of privacy was the school policy statement that he and his
parent signed which, in sharp distinction to the kinds of statements evident in the above-cited
cases, purports to limit the right of school officials to search lockers to situations in which
the official has “probable cause”  to believe that the student has in his/her possession an item
that is contraband under the criminal law of the State.  On its face, and without regard to the
broader legal context, that document, published by the local school authorities, could serve
as a basis for an expectation that lockers will not otherwise be searched.  That local policy
cannot be considered in a vacuum, however.  There is a statute enacted by the General
Assembly, supplemented by a by-law adopted by the State Board of Education, that defines
and controls the authority of school officials to search public school lockers, and it is that
State policy that determines whether, and to what extent, petitioner had any reasonable
-14-
expectation of privacy in the locker assigned to him.
Maryland Code, § 7-308 of the Education Article states:
“(a) Authority to search student. — (1) A principal, assistant
principal, or school security guard of a public school may make
a reasonable search of a student on the school premises or on a
school-sponsored trip if he has a reasonable belief that the
student has in his possession an item, the possession of which
is a criminal offense under the laws of this State or a violation
of any other State law or a rule or regulation of the county
board.
(2) The search shall be made in the presence of a third
party.
(b) Authority to search school. — (1) A principal, assistant
principal, or school security guard of a public school may make
a search of the physical plant of the school and its
appurtenances including the lockers of students.
(2) The right of the school official to search the locker
shall be announced or published previously in the school.
(C) Rules and regulations. — The [State] Department [of
Education] shall adopt rules and regulations relating to searches
permitted under this section.”
(Emphasis in text added).
The State Board of Education has adopted a by-law, which constitutes an agency
regulation, consistent with the legislative direction.  The by-law, found in COMAR
13A.08.01.14E and F., mirrors the statute.
The plain words of the statute and by-law establish a State policy distinguishing
between the search of students and the search of lockers.  In conformance with the
requirements of T.L.O., the search of a student requires a reasonable belief on the part of the
-15-
school official that the student has contraband in his or her possession.  School lockers, on
the other hand, are not regarded as the personal property of the student.  They are classified
as school property, part of the “plant of the school and its appurtenances,” and, no doubt
because of that, school officials are permitted to search the lockers as they could any other
school property.  No probable cause is required; nor is any reasonable suspicion required.
This policy is deliberate and has a long history.  At least as early as 1970, before there
was a statute on the subject, the State Board of Education had in effect a by-law, having the
force of law, dealing with searches on public school property by both police officers and by
school officials.  Police officers were permitted to conduct searches, including searches of
lockers, only upon a warrant.  By-law 740 provided, in relevant part, that police officers,
“upon the authority of a search warrant,” may search that part of the school premises
described in the warrant, and that “investigative searches” would be permitted only upon the
authority of a search warrant “or in any case where the search is essential to prevent
imminent danger to the safety or welfare of the pupil or other persons or school property.”
Such a search, the by-law continued, “shall not include a pupil’s assigned locker unless
specified in the search warrant.”  A more liberal policy was applied to searches by school
officials, who, unless the search was “in connection with a police investigation,” were
permitted, at any time, to “conduct such searches as are essential to the security, discipline
and sound administration of the particular school.”  No probable cause, or even
individualized reasonable suspicion, was required when the search was conducted by school
officials for their own purposes.
-16-
The first statute dealing with school searches was enacted in 1973.  See 1973 Md.
Laws, ch. 759, enacting a new § 96A to former Article 77 of the Code.  Like the current law,
the statute drew a sharp distinction between searches of students and searches of lockers.
Under § 96A(a), principals, assistant principals, and authorized public school security
officers were permitted to conduct a reasonable search of a student on school premises if the
official “has probable cause to believe that the student has in his possession an item, the
possession of which constitutes a criminal offense under the laws of this State.”  Section
96A(b), however, permitted those officials, without any determination of probable cause or
reasonable suspicion, to conduct a search of “the physical plant of the school and every
appurtenance thereof including students’ lockers.”  The only complement to that authority
was the direction that the right of the official to search the locker must be previously
announced or published within the school.  Subsection (c) required the State Department of
Education to adopt regulations “relating to searches permitted under this section.”
Except for style changes, § (b), treating student lockers as school property and
permitting designated school officials to search them as they could search other school
property, without satisfying any minimum standard, has remained intact since 1973.  In 1982,
§ (a) was amended as a result of In Re Dominic W., 48 Md. App. 236, 426 A. 2d 432  (1981),
in which the Court of Special Appeals concluded that the search of a student suspected of
breaking into another student’s locker and stealing money and a watch was invalid because
there was no probable cause to justify the search.  The court noted, apart from any Fourth
Amendment concern, that the Legislature, by statute, required probable cause for such a
-17-
search.  In the next session, the General Assembly, at the urging of a county school board,
amended § (a) — by then recodified as § 7-307(a) of the Education Article — to permit the
search of a student upon a “reasonable belief” that the student is in possession of an item,
the possession of which is a criminal offense.
The initial State Board of Education by-law, adopted prior to 1970, remained intact,
and thus inconsistent with the 1982 amendment, until 1990, when it was amended to provide
that the designated school official could make a reasonable search of a student on the school
premises if the official had a reasonable belief that the student was in possession of an item,
the possession of which was a criminal offense.  See COMAR 13A.08.01.14E (Supp. 10).
The by-law dropped any reference to the search of school property or lockers.  In 1997, the
by-law was amended in two respects.  First, it was broadened to permit the search of a
student on either school property or on a school-sponsored trip, if the school official has a
reasonable belief that the student is in possession of an item, the possession of which
constitutes a violation of any State law or a rule or regulation of the local school board.
Second, and more significant for our purposes, a new section was added to track the statutory
provision dealing with searches of school property, authorizing the designated school
officials to search lockers as part of the physical plant and appurtenances.
Although educational matters affecting the counties are under the control of the
county board of education (see § 4-101(a) of the Education Article), the authority of the
county school boards is always subject to statutes enacted by the General Assembly and to
the supervening authority of the State Board of Education.  A county board cannot adopt and
-18-
enforce a policy affecting the operation of the public schools or the rights, privileges, or
obligations of public school students that is inconsistent with public general law or with by-
laws of the State Board of Education, which have the force of law.  See Wilson v. Board of
Education, 234 Md. 561, 200 A.2d 67 (1965); Bd. of Education of Prince George’s County
v. Waeldner, 298 Md. 354, 470 A.2d 332 (1984). By both statute and State Board of
Education by-law, school lockers are treated as school property and are subject to search by
designated school officials in the same manner as other school property.  It is not within the
power of a local school board or superintendent, or any subordinate official, to establish and
enforce a policy that provides otherwise.
The Montgomery County policy statement upon which petitioner relies is obviously
inconsistent with the governing State law.  It imposes probable cause to believe that the
student is in possession of an item, the possession of which constitutes a criminal offense as
the standard necessary to justify a search of both students and lockers, which, under State
law, is not the test for either.  Accordingly, that local policy is invalid and nugatory and
cannot serve as a basis for a student to have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the locker
provided by the school.  To rule otherwise — to give effect to the county policy statement
as creating an expectation of privacy sufficient to create a Fourth Amendment threshold for
school officials to meet — would give that policy a precedence over the statute and State
Board of Education by-law, which it clearly cannot have.
In light of the supervening State policy, this case is more akin to the situation in In
Interest of Isiah B., supra, 500 N.W.2d 637, in which the Wisconsin court found no
 Chief Judge Bell, in dissent, takes the position that the direction in § 7-308(b)(2) (and the
2
conforming direction in the State and  Montgomery County school board regulations) that the right
of a school official to search lockers be announced or published in the school effectively allows each
school in the State to develop its own policy regarding locker searches, based simply on what the
principal chooses to announce or publish.  We did not deal specifically with the county school board
regulation because it was neither mentioned nor relied upon by either party, but, as it is generally
consistent with the statute and the State Board by-law, it adds little to the issue.  It too treats lockers
as part of the “school premises” and imposes no requirement of probable cause or even reasonable
ground in order for school officials to search the lockers.  The policy statement published by the Mark
Twain school is as inconsistent with the county school board regulation as it is with the State statute
and State Board by-law.
Section 7-308, in our view, was intended to establish a uniform State-wide policy regarding
searches of students and school property in the public schools.  The direction in § 7-308(b)(2) that
the policy, as it relates to lockers, be announced or published in each school was for the obvious and
salutary purpose of ensuring that students would be given actual notice of the policy, to eliminate any
basis for an expectation of privacy on their part.  We cannot imagine — and there is certainly nothing
-19-
reasonable expectation of privacy, than to those cases in which a valid published policy
precluding “unreasonable” searches or requiring “reasonable suspicion” to conduct a search
led to a finding of some minimal expectation of privacy.  As petitioner could have no
reasonable expectation of privacy in the school locker, the search of it by the school security
officer, upon direction of the principal, did not violate any Fourth Amendment right of
petitioner.
Because we conclude that, in light of § 7-308 and the State Board of Education by-
law, petitioner had no reasonable expectation of privacy in the locker temporarily assigned
to him, we need not consider, if he had such an expectation, what the nature of it would be
and whether the governmental interest in conducting the search and the limited nature and
extent of the intrusion manifested by the search would nonetheless suffice to justify the
search.2
in either the statute itself or in its legislative history to support such a suggestion — that, in directing
such announcement or publication, the General Assembly could possibly have intended to allow each
school to depart from that policy simply by announcing, at its whim, a different policy.  Such a
construction of § 7-308(b)(2) would be wholly unreasonable; it would not only allow each school to
have its own policy, but would allow each school periodically to change its policy, from year to year
or day to day, just by announcing a different policy.  The legal and practical consequences of such
a construction would extend beyond mere confusion and  uncertainty to utter chaos.  The problem
in this case is not with the State law or with the State Board or county board regulations but with the
fact that the policy statement issued by the Mark Twain school was not in compliance with either the
law or those regulations and, for that reason, is invalid and nugatory.
-20-
JUDGMENT AFFIRMED, WITH COSTS.
The knife and the pager were in a bookbag in the locker, which also was searched.
1
No issue of the propriety of that search has been presented, however. 
 The Montgomery County Public Schools Regulation on Student Rights and
2
Responsibilities, states in pertinent part:
“III. Guidelines 
“N. Search and Seizure
     
“1. The principal, assistant principal, or security
-21-
Dissenting opinion by Bell, C.J.:
The majority holds that a knife and a pager, recovered as the result of
a search of the petitioner’s school locker,  were properly admitted into evidence during the
1
petitioner’s delinquency proceedings.  When the search occurred, the petitioner was an
eighth grade student at the Mark Twain School in Montgomery County and, as such, subject
to that school’s “Policies Regarding Student Behavior,” a copy of which he and his parent
had received and signed for.   In addition to stating the school’s commitment “to
maintain[ing] a safe environment for students and staff,” the policy this document announces
on the search of school lockers is as follows:  
“Mark Twain subscribes to Montgomery County Public Schools’ Search and
Seizure policy,  which provides that the principal or the administration’s
[2]
assistant may conduct a reasonable search of a
student on the school premises or on a school-
sponsored activity under the following conditions:
“a) He/she has reason to suspect
that the student is in possession of
an item, the possession of which
constitutes a criminal offense under
the laws of Maryland or a violation
of any other state law or a rule or
regulation of the school board,
“b) He/she conducts the search in
the presence of a third party who is
of majority age.
*     *     *     *
              
“ 4. The principal, assistant principal, or security
assistant, may conduct a search of school
premises including lockers.
      
  
“5. When a search of a student’s locker is to be
conducted, the principal, assistant principal, or security
assistant should make a reasonable effort to obtain the
consent of the affected student(s) prior to the search.
 
“6. The principal will inform parents and
students, in writing, at the beginning of each
school year regarding the laws and policies
governing 
search 
and 
seizure, 
including
specifically the right to search lockers.”
Regulation History: New Regulation, August 19, 1994; revised June 27, 1997; revised July
20, 1998.
The Montgomery County Public Schools Regulation on Search and Seizure states:
“III. Procedures
“A. The principal of each school will inform parents and
students about the laws, policies, and regulations regarding
search and seizure through distribution of the MCPS student
handbook at the beginning of the school year.
“B. Authorized personnel conducting a search of a student’s
person, possessions, or locker will make a reasonable effort to
obtain the consent of the student prior to the search.  A third
party of majority age must be present at the time of a search of
-1-
a student.
“C. Authorized school personnel may search a student’s person,
if the authorized person has a reasonable belief that the student
has possession of an item, the possession of which is a criminal
offense under the laws of Maryland or a violation of any other
state law or MCPS policy, regulation, or rule.”
Administrative History: Formerly Regulation No. 270-7 May 21, 1979 (directory information
updated, October 1986); revised June 11, 1993; revised October 4, 1996.
-2-
designee may conduct a search of a student or of the student’s locker if there
is probable cause to believe that the student has in his/her possession an item,
the possession of which constitutes a criminal offense under the laws of the
State of Maryland.  These items include weapons, drugs or drug paraphernalia,
alcohol, beepers and electronic signalling devices.” 
Not surprisingly, the petitioner relied heavily on this policy in arguing that the evidence
against him should be suppressed.
The majority reviews and analyzes the “Supreme Court cases that [have] come to
dominate the current debate over locker searches in the public schools,” ___ Md. at ___, ___
A.2d at ___, [slip op. at 4], New Jersey v. T.L.O, 469 U.S. 325, 105 S. Ct. 733, 83 L. Ed.2d
2d 720 (1985) and Vernonia School District v. Acton, 515 U.S. 646, 115 S. Ct. 2386, 132
L. Ed. 2d 564 (1995) and recognizes the arguments upon which the parties relied.  See ___
Md. at ___, ___A.2d at ___ [slip op. at 3].    But to reach its decision in this case, it did not
The majority opinion correctly summarized the State’s argument:
3
“Relying principally on Vernonia School District v. Acton, 515 U.S. 646, 115
S. Ct. 2386, 132 L. Ed. 2d 564 (1995), the State contends that general
reasonableness, not probable cause, is the appropriate standard to apply and
that, under that standard, the search of petitioner’s locker and bookbag was
justified.  It urges that petitioner had, at best, only a limited privacy interest in
his school locker, that the search of the locker was a minimal intrusion, that
school safety constitutes a compelling governmental interest, that the locker
search was an “efficacious” means of satisfying that interest, and that, on
balance, the minimal intrusion of the locker search was outweighed by the
compelling interest in school safety.”
___ Md. ___, ___, ___a.2d ___, ___ (2000) [slip. at 3].
In its brief in this Court, the State did cite the State statute and posit that an argument
4
could be made based on it that the petitioner had no expectation of privacy.   That was done
as apart of another argument, that while it is “an open question,” whether students possess
any privacy interest in their lockers, based on Maryland law, a finding could be made that
a lowered, or no legitimate privacy interest existed; it was not advanced as the dispositive
argument that the majority finds it to be.
Maryland Rule 8-131 (a) provides:
5
“(a) Generally.  The issues of jurisdiction of the trial court over the subject
matter and, unless waived under Rule 2-322, over a person may be raised in
and decided by the appellate court whether or not raised in and decided by the
trial court.  Ordinarily, the appellate court will not decide any other issue
unless it plainly appears by the record to have been raised in or decided by the
trial court, but the Court may decide such an issue if necessary or desirable to
guide the trial court or to avoid the expense and delay of another appeal.”
-3-
accept the State’s argument  or even totally reject the petitioner’s.   In fact, in rejecting the
3
petitioner’s arguments and determining that the school policy is inapplicable and, indeed
irrelevant, the majority advances, and finds dispositive, an argument that the State neither
relied upon  nor presented to the trial court and on which neither the trial court nor the Court
4
of Special Appeals rested its decision.    
5
In truth, the petitioner has had no opportunity to respond to the majority’s argument and
neither party has briefed the issue.   This is another reason that only the issue we took this
case to decide, rather than the issue the majority has chosen, should be addressed. 
Unless otherwise indicated, all references are to Maryland Code (1978, 1999 Repl.
6
Vol.) of the Education Article.
-4-
Acknowledging that, “[o]n its face, and without regard to the broader legal context,
[the school policy], published by the local school authorities, could serve as a basis for an
expectation that lockers will not otherwise be searched,” ___ Md. ___, ___, ___ A.2d ___,
___ ( 2000)[slip op. at 14], the majority concludes that Maryland Code (1978, 1999 Repl.
Vol.) § 7-308 of the Education Article  trumps that policy; “it is th[e] State policy [embodied
6
in this statute] that determines whether, and to what extent, petitioner had any reasonable
expectation of privacy in the locker assigned to him.” ___ Md at ___, ___A.2d at ___ [slip
op. at 14].
Section 7-308 provides:
“(a) Authority to search student. — (1) A principal, assistant
principal, or school security guard of a public school may make
a reasonable search of a student on the school premises or on a
school-sponsored trip if he has a reasonable belief that the
student has in his possession an item, the possession of which
is a criminal offense under the laws of this State or a violation
of any other State law or a rule or regulation of the county
board.
-5-
“(2) The search shall be made in the presence of a third
party.
“(b) Authority to search school. — (1) A principal, assistant
principal, or school security guard of a public school may make
a search of the physical plant of the school and its
appurtenances including the lockers of students.
“(2) The right of the school official to search the locker
shall be announced or published previously in the school.
“(c) Rules and regulations. — The [State] Department [of
Education] shall adopt rules and regulations relating to searches
permitted under this section.”
As required by statute, the State Board of Education has adopted a by-law, which  mirrors
the statute. See, COMAR 13A.08.01.14E and F.   
To the majority, 
“The plain words of the statute and by-law establish a State policy
distinguishing between the searches of students and the search of lockers.  In
conformance with the requirements of T.L.O., the search of a student requires
a reasonable belief on the part of the school official that the student has
contraband in his or her possession.  School lockers, on the other hand, are not
The majority is correct that there is a conflict between the State statute and the school
7
policy as it relates to the search of the student’s person.   At issue here, however, is the
search of the student’s locker, as to which I demonstrate infra, no such conflict exists. 
Section  4-101 addresses the function of the county boards.   It provides:
8
“(a) Educational matters that affect the counties shall be under the control of
a county board of education in each county.
“(b) Each county board shall seek in every way to promote the interests of the
schools under its jurisdiction.” 
-6-
regarded as the personal property of the student.  They are classified as school
property, part of the ‘plant of the school and its appurtenances,’ and, no doubt
because of that, school officials are permitted to search the lockers as they
could any other school property.  No probable cause is required; nor is any
reasonable suspicion required.”
___ Md. at ___, ___ A.2d at ___ [slip op. at 15].     After tracing the history of the State
7
statute and the accompanying by-law, it concludes:
“Although educational matters affecting the counties are under the control of
the county board of education (see § 4-101(a) of the Education Article ), the
[8]
authority of the county school boards is always subject to statutes enacted by
the General Assembly and to the supervening authority of the State Board of
Education.  A county board cannot adopt and enforce a policy affecting the
operation of the public schools or the rights, privileges, or obligations of
public school students that is inconsistent with public general law or with by-
laws of the State Board of Education, which have the force of law.  See
Wilson v. Board of Education, 234 Md. 561, 200 A.2d 67 (1965); Bd. of
Education of Prince George’s County v. Waeldner, 298 Md. 354, 470 A.2d
332 (1984). By both statute and State Board of Education by-law, school
lockers are treated as school property and are subject to search by designated
school officials in the same manner as other school property.  It is not within
the power of a local school board or superintendent, or any subordinate
official, to establish and enforce a policy that provides otherwise.”
Id. at ___, ___ A.2d at ___ [slip op. at 18].    Finally, asserting that the Montgomery County
school search policy “is obviously inconsistent with the governing State law,” the majority
-7-
holds that  it “is invalid and nugatory and cannot serve as a basis for a student to have a
reasonable expectation of privacy in the locker provided by the school.”  Id. at ___, ___A.2d
at ___ [slip op. at 19].
I dissent.  
 As hard as the majority tries, it has not persuasively explained why the issue that we
took this case to decide -whether the search of petitioner’s school locker violated the Fourth
Amendment - has not been presented.  To be sure, it can not be gainsaid that the petitioner
had an expectation of privacy.    Not only was there a school policy granting a level of
privacy, but it was communicated in the student policies, and given to the petitioner and his
parent, both of whom were required to sign it in acknowledgment of receipt.  Thus, the
critical issue is whether the petitioner could legitimately rely on the policy, and whether the
policy could give rise to an expectation of privacy.
 The test of a valid privacy expectation is whether a subjective expectation of privacy
existed that society would recognize as reasonable. See, O’Connor v. Ortega, 480 U.S. 709,
715, 107 S.Ct. 1492, 1497 (1987).  Generally, Fourth Amendment protections are based on
the petitioner’s legitimate expectation of privacy in light of the relevant circumstances. See,
Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 359, 88 S. Ct. 507, 515, 19 L. Ed. 2d 576, 586(1967).
Whether, in a given circumstance, a petitioner’s expectation of privacy is legitimate and
reasonable is determined by  “balancing the need to search against the invasion which the
search entails.” T.L.O., 469 U.S. 325, 337, 105 S. Ct. 733, 740, 83 L. Ed.2d 720, 731 (1985);
see also, Camara v. Municipal Court, 387 U.S. 523, 536-37, 87 S. Ct. 1727, 1735, 18 L.
-8-
Ed.2d 930, 940 (1967).   The totality of the circumstances, including the nature of the  thing
alleged to be the basis of the expectation, the actions of the petitioner and of the school, all
inform that determination.
Cases on searches of a student’s person teach that “reasonableness of the
circumstances” is the correct standard. T.L.O., 469 U.S. at 341, 105 S. Ct. at 742, 83 L.
Ed.2d at 734; Acton, 515 U.S. at 652, 115 S. Ct. at 2390, 132 L. Ed.2d at 574.  In T.L.O.,,
 the Supreme Court held that, 
“Determining the reasonableness of any search involves a twofold
inquiry: first, one must consider whether the action was justified at its
inception ...second, one must determine whether the search as actually
conducted was reasonably related in scope to the circumstances which justified
interference in the first place.”  
Id. at 341-42, 105 S. Ct. at 742, 83 L. Ed.2d at 734-35. While the Supreme Court has
declined to extend this analysis to school lockers, other courts have, reaching different
results.  The majority argues that many cases involving the search of school lockers have
held that the limited use of lockers, as well as their accessibility by administrators via keys
or combinations, impart no real expectation of privacy. See, e.g. Zamora  v. Pomeroy, 639
F.2d 662 (1980), People v. Overton, 249 N. E.2d 366 (1969).  Other jurisdictions have held
that students do have a legitimate expectation of privacy in their school lockers. See, e.g.
State v. Engerud, 463 A.2d 943 (N.J. 1983), State v. Michael G., 748 P.2d 17, 19 (N.M.
1987), In Interest of Dumas, 515 A.2d 984, 985-86 (Pa. Super. 1986), State v. Joseph T.,336
S. E.2d 728, 737 (W. Va.1985).  
While differing on whether an expectation of privacy was created, these courts agree
The school policy requires probable cause for the search of a student’s locker.   I
9
have found no case upholding the probable cause standard as necessary in a school
environment, but then I have not come across a case in which the school, by its policy
statement, created that level of privacy.   In any event, the information on which the school
in this case acted did not approach reasonable suspicion; the non-individualized tip which
sparked the search of petitioner’s locker fell far below both the school policy and that found
applicable by the courts that have addressed the issue.  
-9-
that a published school policy may determine if there is an expectation of privacy as well as
its  the extent.   See, e.g. Zamora  v. Pomeroy, 639 F.2d at 665 (The court held there was no
reasonable expectation of privacy where the published school policy “state[d] that lockers
remain under the jurisdiction of the school, notwithstanding the fact that they were assigned
to individual students; that the school reserved the right to inspect all lockers at any time...”);
State v. Joseph T., 336 S. E.2d at 737 (The court found grounds for a locker search based on
a “reasonable suspicion” of violation of school rules, where the student handbook stated that
“[s]tudents do have rights to privacy and may reasonably expect that their lockers will not
be searched unless appropriate school officials consider a search absolutely necessary to
maintain the integrity of the school environment and protect other students.”).   
The school policy is thus the standard against which to judge whether the petitioner’s
expectation of privacy was reasonable in light of the circumstances. See, T.L.O., 469 U.S.
at 338, 105 S. Ct. at 741, 83 L. Ed.2d at 732 (quoting Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 526,
104 S. Ct. 3194, 3200, 82 L. Ed.2d 393, 402.   See also, Rawlings v. Kentucky, 448 U.S. 98,
104, 100 S. Ct. 2556, 2561, 65 L. Ed.2d 633, 641 (1980).  
9
The State statute exists, to be sure, but it is by no means as clear as the majority says
-10-
it is, nor is the local school policy obviously inconsistent with that statute.   It also is quite
clear that there has been utterly no compliance with the statutory requirement of prior
notification, a circumstance which, by itself, would seem to call for suppression of the search
fruits and reversal of the delinquency judgment. 
Whether the school policy conflicts with and, therefore, is invalid in light of the State
statute is an issue involving statutory interpretation.   The majority relies on a plain reading
of the State statute to demonstrate the conflict with the local school policy.   As I view it,
giving the statute a plain reading demonstrates only that the language of the statute is at best
ambiguous.  Once the ambiguity is exposed, it is obvious to me that the reading the majority
gives the State statute is simply wrong. 
I concede that, by giving subsection (b) (1) a liberal interpretation, one could
conclude, as the majority does, that it gives the officials mentioned an absolute or
unconditional right to search the physical plant of a school, including its lockers.   So reading
the statute renders subsection (b) (2) irrelevant; if the majority is correct, there is no reason
for a requirement of prior notice.  Prior notice of what the law has already clearly proscribed
hardly seems  necessary.   Moreover, as the majority opinion makes clear, failure to give the
notice does not affect the validity of the search.   See ___ Md. at ___ n.2, ___ A.2d at ___
n.2 [slip op. at 20].   It is well settled that a statute should not be  interpreted so as to render
any part of it meaningless, surplusage, superfluous, or nugatory.  Gordon Family Partnership
v. Gar on Jer, 348 Md. 129, 138, 702 A.2d 753, 757 (1997); GEICO  v. Insurance Comm'r,
332 Md. 124, 132, 630 A.2d 713, 714 (1993).
-11-
On the other hand, when § 7-308 is read in its entirety, another plausible
interpretation becomes evident.   Subsection (1) (a) sets forth a clear standard that governs
the search of a student on school premises or while on a school sponsored trip - reasonable
belief  - and the only condition placed on the official conducting the search is that the search
be made in the presence of a third person.  See subsection (a) (2).  This is to contrasted with
section (b), which is structured quite differently.    While subsection (b) (1), permits certain
school officials to search the physical plant, including lockers, subsection (b) (2) addresses
only lockers, requiring the prior announcement or publication of  “[t]he right of the school
official to search the locker.”   Because § (b) does not contain an express standard, even
though it treats lockers differently, perhaps necessarily so, from the other parts of the
physical plant over which the school officials have complete control and to which they have
not ceded any rights to the students, I believe that a fair reading of that section as a whole
is that the school officials are given the right to search the lockers, but the extent of that
right, the standard to govern the exercise of that right, is left to the determination of the
individual schools, which determination is required to “be announced or published
previously in the school.”  Thus, rather than being inconsistent, the State statute and the local
policy are totally consistent.
The interpretation I give §7-308 (b) is consistent with and true to the rules of statutory
construction.   See, Roberts v. Total Health Care, Inc., 349 Md. 499, 523, 709 A.2d 142, 154
(1998) (“When interpreting any statute, Court must look to the entire statutory scheme, and
not any one provision in isolation, to effect the statute’s general policies and purposes.”)
-12-
(quoting County Commissioners v. Bell Atlantic, 346 Md. 160, 178, 695 A.2d 171, 180
(1997)); Hyle v. Motor Vehicle Admin., 348 Md. 143, 149, 702 A.2d 760, 763 (1998) (“In
interpreting statute, Court of Appeals construes statute as a whole, interpreting each
provision of statute in context of the entire statutory scheme.”) (quoting Blondell v.
Baltimore Police, 341 Md. 680, 691, 672 A.2d 639, 645 (1996)); Condon v. State of
Maryland-University of Maryland, 332 Md. 481, 491, 632 A.2d 753,758 (1993) (“All parts
of statute are to be read together to determine intent, and reconciled and harmonized to the
extent possible.”) (quoting Wheeler v. State, 281 Md. 593, 596, 380 A.2d 1052); Williams
v. State, 329 Md. 1,15-16,  616 A.2d 1275,1282 (1992) (“Court attempts to divine legislative
intent from entire statutory scheme, as opposed to scrutinizing parts of statute in isolation.”)
(quoting Forbes v. Harleysville Mutual, 322 Md. 689, 697, 589 A.2d 944 (1991); Jones v.
State, 311 Md. 398, 405, 535 A.2d 471 (1988)).    Moreover, under this interpretation  every
part of the statute has meaning.
Furthermore, this interpretation makes good common sense.   The schools in this State
are not monolithic; they are different.   School officials are the ones best able to assess and
define their school’s needs and set the basic rules and regulations pertaining to discipline and
ensuring the safety of the school.  The Legislature simply provided the flexibility as to locker
searches to allow individual schools to determine the standard to be applied to the search of
school lockers, based on the school environment and experience.  This interpretation
accounts for the promulgation by the school of a policy as to lockers and explains why the
The  county policies which correspond to the Mark Twain School search and seizure
10
policy have been in effect since 1979 and 1994, respectively.   It should be noted, under
COMAR 13A.01.02.01B, that,
“B. Power to Stay Action of County Boards.
The State Superintendent of Schools shall have the authority, either at the request of
the President of the State Board of Education, or on his or her own motion, to order a stay,
not to exceed 60 days in duration, of any action taken by way of rule, regulation, resolution,
bylaw, or other order; provided, however, that the stay be issued within 5 days of the date
notice of the action is received by the State Board of Education from the local board, that the
stay may be dissolved at any time by the State Board of Education.”
-13-
policy was not overridden by the State Board, as it could have done.   If the majority
10
interpretation were correct, there would be no reason for individual schools to  address locker
searches through their own policies.     
While § 7-308 (b) (1) grants certain public school officials the right to search student
lockers, it fails either to clearly delineate a  State-wide standard to govern that right to search
or clearly to prohibit schools from defining for themselves the extent of their right to search
lockers.  The conclusion reached by the majority, that Maryland school districts may not
impose conditions on the right to search lockers or formulate different standards, flies in the
face of the statute. 
 Section 7-308 (b) clearly conditions a school official’s  right to search a student’s
locker on the student having been given prior notification.  In the case sub judice, previous
notice of an absolute right to search was never given; indeed, the notice that was given was
that the exact opposite situation applied.   Therefore, I would hold that this is a sufficient
basis on which to hold that the school had no right to search, even if the State statute is
controlling.  Invoking the right post hoc not only is unfair under the circumstances, but it
-14-
violates expressly what is unambiguously the language of the statute and thus the intent of
the Legislature.   The majority argues that, because the school’s announced policy was
invalid, compliance with the State statute is excused.   That can not be correct.    As my
mother put it to me years ago, “two wrongs do not make a right.”