This memorandum opinion was not selected for pub lication in the New Mexico Reports. Please 1 see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions. 2 Please also note that this electronic memorandum opinion may contain computer-generated 3 errors or other deviations from the official paper version filed by the Court of Appeals and does 4 not include the filing date. 5 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO 6 STATE OF NEW MEXICO, 7 Plaintiff-Appellee, 8

v. NO. 28,511 9 ROBERT F., 10 Child-Appellant. 11 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF SAN JUAN COUNTY 12 Sandra A. Price, District Judge 13 Gary K. King, Attorney General 14 Andrew S. Montgomery, Assistant Attorney General 15 Santa Fe, NM 16 for Appellee 17 Hugh W. Dangler, Chief Public Defender 18 Nancy M. Hewitt, Assist ant Appellate Defender 19 Santa Fe, NM 20 for Appellant 21 MEMORANDUM OPINION 22 VIGIL, Judge. 23 Robert F. (Child) appeals the denial of his motion to suppress and judgment of 242 delinquency for possession of drug paraphernalia. On app eal, Child argues the search 1 that produced the incriminating evidence wa s not substantiated under the standard of 2 reasonable suspicion. We affirm. 3 BACKGROUND 4 The events in question occurred at Me sa Alta Middle School in Bloomfield, 5 New Mexico where Child was a student. A teacher on duty reported to the principal 6 that Child had ingested an unknown substance while on campus. The teacher sent 7 Child to the principal’s office. Pursuant to school procedures, the principal directed 8 Child to the school nurse for a medical evaluation for any ill effects from the unknown 9 substance. After the medical evaluati on, the principal met with Child. Child 10 acknowledged that he had ingested a substance but he maintainedthe substance was 11 only to clean his system of drug residue. Th e principal proceeded to search Child and 12 found a pipe bowl. The prin cipal concluded from the smell of the object that it had 13 been used to smoke marijuana. 14 Child was subsequently charged w ith misdemeanor possession of drug 15 paraphernalia contrary to NMSA 1978, § 30-31-25.1(A) (2001). Child filed a motion 16 to suppress evidence asserting that the search was not supported by reasonable 17 suspicion and no “logical connection” existe d between the search for contraband and 183 any alleged wrongdoing. The di strict court denied the motion based on the fact that 1 the principal conducted the search based upon information from a teacher and from 2 Child himself that Child had taken some unknown substance. 3 DISCUSSION 4 On appeal, Child argues th e search was not substantiated under the standard of 5 reasonable suspicion and the evidence should have been excluded. Child’s plea and 6 disposition agreement reserves his right to appeal the district court’s denial of his 7 motion to suppress. 8 As “[a] motion to suppress evidence raises issues of fact and issues of law” we 9 employ a two-part standard of review. State v. Pablo R. , 2006-NMCA-072, ¶ 9, 139 10 N.M. 744, 137 P.3d 1198. “[F]ir st, we determine whether the findings of fact made 11 by the district court are supported by substantial evidence; second, we engage in a de 12 novo review of the application of the law to those facts.” Id. “We view the facts as 13 determined by the district court in the light most favorable to its ruling, [and] we 14 indulge all reasonable inferences in support of the district court’s ruling, and we 15 disregard all evidence and inferences to the contrary.” Id. (internal citations omitted). 16 As the reasonableness of a s earch is a matter of law, we consider the reasonableness 17 of the search de novo. Id. 184 Pursuant to maintaining order and discipline on school grounds, school officials 1 require neither a search warrant nor probable cause to search a student or their 2 belongings. State v. Crystal B. , 2001-NMCA-010, ¶ 14, 130 N.M. 336, 24 P.3d 771. 3 However, students do not forfe it their constitutional rights when at school, rather they 4 enjoy a legitimate expectation of priv acy that can only be intruded upon under a 5 reasonable showing of circumstances by school officials. State v. Tywayne H. , 1997- 6 NMCA-015, ¶ 7, 123 N.M. 42, 933 P.2d 251. 7 Reasonableness of student searches by pub lic school officials are measured by 8 the two-prong test announced in New Jersey v. T.L.O ., 469 U.S. 325, 341-43, (1985) 9 and followed in Pablo R ., 2006-NMCA-072, ¶ 11. A valid on-campus search of a 10 student by a school official requires (1) justification at its inception, and (2) 11 reasonable relation in scope to the circumst ances that grounded the initial justification. 12 Id. A search justified at its inception carri es reasonable grounds that the search will 13 deliver evidence that the student has violated the law or school policy. Id. Such 14 searches are reasonably related in scope wh en “the measures adopted and used are 15 reasonably related to the objectives of the search and are not ex cessively intrusive in 16 light of the age and sex of the student and the nature of the alleged infraction.” Id. 17 A justifiable search of a student on schoolgrounds requires specific articulable facts 185 that support a reasonable suspicion at the in ception of the search that the student is 1 engaging in a prohibited activity. Id . ¶¶ 11, 16. 2 The search of Child on school grounds was prompted by explicit facts giving 3 rise to a reasonable suspicion that the s earch would turn up ev idence that Child had 4 violated the law. The principal relied on the teacher’s report to him and Child’s 5 admission that he did ingest an unknown substance for the purpose of cleaning his 6 system of drug residue, thus implicitly admitting that he had used drugs. These facts 7 standing alone or in combination merit the principal’s search of Child for possession 8 of illegal substances or substances thatstudents are not permitted to take on campus 9 without school-nurse supervision. The i ndividualized reports of drug use and Child’s 10 admission generated a clear “nexus” and “l ogical connection” to search Child for 11 items related to drug use on campus. See Pablo R. , 2006-NMCA-072, ¶¶ 12, 14 12 (finding no logical connection between the s earch of student for drug paraphernalia 13 and student being out of class without a hall pass). The search in question was 14 reasonably related in scope to the circumstances that grounded the initial suspicion of 15 prohibited drug use and the search producedevidence of drug use on campus that is 16 both illegal and a violation of school regulations. 17 While Child questions the source of th e information and its legitimacy, such 186 objections do not affect the finding that th e search of Child was based on reasonable 1 grounds. “The fact that the principal[ ] did not know the identity of the complaining 2 student[s], while relevant in a probable causecase, does not affect the finding that this 3 search was based upon reasonable grounds.” State v. Michael G. , 106 N.M. 644, 647, 4 748 P.2d 17, 20 (Ct. App. 1987). In Michael G. , we addressed validity of student 5 informants and declared “[a] student’s direct statement to a person in authority, 6 indicating personal knowledge of facts wh ich establish that another student is 7 engaging in illegal conduct, may provide school authorities reasonable grounds to 8 search the second student[].” Id. While the opinion warns the relaying of rumors or 9 suspicions will not provide reasonable basis, it gives school officials the “obligation 10 to investigate the circumstances” if there is reason to suspect the complaining student 11 is lying. Id. Before searching Child , the principal received information from a teacher 12 about suspected wrongdoing by a student. Both the principal and the teacher are 13 persons with “authority to enforce sc hool rules governing students on property 14 belonging to the public school and while students are under the control of the public 15 school.” Crystal B. , 2001-NMCA-010, ¶ 17. Therefore, the teacher acted with 16 discretion in reporting a possible infraction and health hazard that jeopardized school 17 student safety, and in proceeding to search Child to address the threat, the principal 187 had both an individualized suspicion and “eyewitness information that an infraction 1 had occurred.” See Kennedy v. Dexter Consol. Schs. , 2000-NMSC-025, ¶ 17, 129 2 N.M. 436, 10 P.3d 115. 3 Child’s statement confirmed the reasona ble suspicion and provided additional 4 initiative to search Child for items relate d to drug use on campus. Child admitted to 5 having taken substances, insisting the subs tances ingested were merely to cleanse 6 drugs from his system. This admission implie s that Child had drugs in his system and 7 possibly more in his possession. The admissi on revealed a need tosearch Child for 8 samples of the substance Child admitted to taking. In light of such compelling and 9 corroborated information, the principal proceeded to search Child and the search 10 provided the incriminating drug paraphernalia. 11 CONCLUSION 12 The order of the district court denying Child’s motion to suppress is affirmed. 13 IT IS SO ORDERED. 14

15 MICHAEL E. VIGIL, Judge 16 WE CONCUR: 17

18 CYNTHIA A. FRY, Chief Judge 198 1 CELIA FOY CASTILLO, Judge 2