Case Name: STATE of Louisiana v. William August MORA, Jr.
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1975-01-20
Citations: 307 So. 2d 317
Docket Number: No. 54884
Parties: STATE of Louisiana v. William August MORA, Jr.
Judges: SUMMERS, J., dissents and assigns reasons.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 307
Pages: 317–326

Head Matter:
STATE of Louisiana v. William August MORA, Jr.
No. 54884.
Supreme Court of Louisiana.
Jan. 20, 1975.
Rehearing Denied Feb. 21, 1975.
Guy J. D’Antonio, II, Reed, Reed & D’Antonio, Metairie, for defendant-relator.
William J. Guste, Jr., Atty. Gen., Barbara Rutledge, Asst. Atty. Gen., Knowles M. Tucker, Dist. Atty., Bernard E. Boud-reaux, Jr., Asst. Dist. Atty., for plaintiff-respondent.

Opinion:
BARHAM, Justice.
Relator was convicted of possession of marijuana, a violation of La.R.S. 40:966C, and was sentenced to six months' imprisonment in the parish jail. We granted cer-tiorari upon relator's application to review the trial court's denial of a motion to suppress the marijuana which formed the basis of the prosecution and a motion to suppress a confession. We find merit in relator's arguments alleging error in the trial court's ruling on his motion to suppress the marijuana and we therefore pretermit consideration of relator's other comlpaint.
At the time that the marijuana was seized, relator was a seventeen-year-old high school senior who was participating in a physical education class at the school he attended. Each participant changed from street clothes to gym clothes before joining in the class activities and, in accordance with a customary practice, placed his wallet and other valuables in an individual small canvas bag provided for that purpose. Once the small valuables bags were filled, they were all placed in a large duffel bag which was locked for safekeeping in the instructor's office for the duration of the class.
On the day of the search and seizure, relator obtained his small valuables bag from the instructor. The instructor testified at the hearing on the motion to suppress that the relator turned his back while filling the canvas bag, that his actions were furtive, and that he experienced some difficulty in placing his wallet, which appeared to be bulky, into the small canvas bag. Once the small valuables bag had been placed in the duffel bag, the instructor locked the duffel bag in his office. The instructor further testified that after reflecting on relator's furtive actions and considering them in light of his knowledge that some of relator's companions were narcotics users and that there was talk of the use of drugs by different student groups, he decided to inspect the contents of relator's wallet. When he opened the wallet, he found a plastic bag which contained a leafy green substance. Believing the substance to be marijuana, he summoned the school principal. The principal concurred in the instructor's belief and notified the juvenile authorities, to whom the marijuana was ultimately released. Relator's prosecution ensued and the motion to suppress the marijuana was heard and denied.
The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I, § 7 of the Louisiana Constitution of 1921 (in effect at the time of the search in question) safeguard persons from unreasonable searches conducted without a warrant. However, the applicability of these constitutional prohibitions against unreasonable searches and the exclusionary rule of Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643, 81 S.Ct. 1684, 6 L.Ed.2d 1081 (1961) is limited to cases where the seizure is effected by governmental agencies. Concomitantly, the fruits of searches and seizures conducted by private persons are not subject to exclusion. See e.g., Barnes v. United States, 373 F.2d 517 (5th Cir. 1967). See also Burdeau v. McDowell, 256 U.S. 465, 41 S.Ct. 574, 65 L.Ed. 1048 (1921). Therefore, before we can decide the constitutionality of the search itself, we must initially determine whether the instructor and the school principal who effected the search and seizure were functioning as private persons, exempt from the stricture of the constitutional provisions, or as governmental agents, subject to those provisions.
Principals and instructors, like others employed by the State through its school boards, are responsible for public education in this State and are charged with the responsibility of implementing the policies of the State in this respect. By state law a teacher is authorized to hold each pupil strictly accountable for disorderly conduct at school. A principal may suspend from school any pupil who is guilty of willful disobedience or who uses tobacco or alcholic beverages in any form in school buildings or on school grounds or whom commits any other serious offense. La.R.S. 17:416. Because of the function of these school officials and their strict accountability to the State, we must conclude that these school officials, insofar as they are discharging their duties by enforcing State policies and regulations, are within the purview of the Fourth Amendment's prohibition; therefore, their students must be accorded their constitutional right to be free from warrantless searches and seizures.
We must now consider whether the search and seizure effected by these State officials violated the constitutional stricture against unreasonable searches and seizures and whether suppression of the seized marijuana was consequently mandated under Mapp.
"The general rule is that a search conducted without a warrant is per se unconstitutional. Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218, 93 S.Ct. 2041, 36 L.Ed.2d 854 (1973) " State v. Tant, 287 So.2d 458, 459 (La.1973). However, it is possible for a search without a warrant to be constitutional, if and only if it falls within one of those categories recognized as "specifically established and well-delineated exceptions" to the warrant requirement. See Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443, 91 S.Ct. 2022, 29 L.Ed.2d 564 (1971), citing Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 88 S.Ct. 507, 19 L.Ed.2d 576 (1967). Two examples of such exceptions are searches incident to a lawful arrest and certain automobile searches.
We hold that a search on school grounds of a student's personal effects by a school official who suspects the presence or possession of some unlawful substance is not a "specifically established and well-delineated" exception to the warrant requirement and that the fruits of such a search may not be used by the State prose-cutorial agency as the basis for criminal proceedings.
For the reasons assigned, the relator's motion to suppress is maintained and his conviction and sentence are reversed.
SUMMERS, J., dissents and assigns reasons.
SANDERS, C. J., and MARCUS, J., dissent for reasons assigned by SUMMERS, J.