Opinion ID: 794394
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The contraband in Phaneuf's purse

Text: 29 We finally turn to the search of Phaneuf's purse and the discovery of the cigarettes and lighter. Contrary to the conclusion of the district court, we believe that the discovery of this particular contraband has such a tenuous connection to the alleged marijuana on her person so as to be of relatively little consequence in deciding whether the strip search for drugs was reasonable. 30 The facts surrounding the discovery of the cigarettes raise questions as to whether or not it was a justification for the initiation of the search, or merely later advanced as a justification after school officials had decided to conduct the search. According to Phaneuf's testimony, school officials apparently saw the cigarettes in her purse during the initial search immediately before boarding the bus for the school picnic—a search the parties do not dispute was specifically intended to discover contraband. Yet, according to Phaneuf, the school officials apparently didn't say a word about the cigarettes at that time. More importantly, the re-checking of Phaneuf's bag only happened to occur prior to the strip search because Fraikin felt uncomfortable performing the search, and Cipriano looked in the bag while waiting for Phaneuf's mother to arrive. These facts raise questions as to whether Cipriano had made up her mind to conduct the search before she re-checked the bag. 31 Furthermore, the district court concluded that the discovery of the cigarettes was the linchpin of this case: that the cigarette generated a heightened level of suspicion justif[ying] the extended level of intrusion necessary to conduct a search of Kelly Phaneuf's person. Phaneuf, 330 F.Supp.2d at 80. But the probative force of the cigarette find is limited, at best. Use of tobacco might be barely relevant if the school was interested in Phaneuf's marijuana use generally. It is of significantly less relevance in evaluating (1) whether Phaneuf brought marijuana to school and (2) whether she was smuggling marijuana in her clothing. The school acted unreasonably in treating all contraband alike: Surely, a discovery of cigarettes cannot alone support a suspicion that a student is carrying a firearm or is bootlegging gin. Without further explanation, the school cannot vault from the finding of one type of (commonly used) contraband, to a suspicion involving the smuggling of another. 32