Opinion ID: 1160213
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Individualized Suspicion

Text: Relying on Burnham v. West, 681 F.Supp. 1160 (E.D.Va.1987), and In re William G., supra , Minor contends that the search of her purse was unlawful because [t]here was a complete lack of individualized suspicion that [she] possess[ed] marijuana. The facts in the case before us, however, are distinguishable from the facts in Burnham and William G.; therefore, we believe Minor's reliance on those cases is misplaced. In Burnham, a teacher detected a strong odor of marijuana in the hallways near the cafeteria at a time when classes were in progress and no students were in the halls. The scent of marijuana was reported to the principal, and when his cursory search for physical evidence proved unsuccessful, he ordered a search of all students' pocketbooks and bookbags, and of male students' pockets. Burnham, 681 F.Supp. at 1163-64. The court found the search to be a severe invasion of the expected privacy which demanded individualized suspicion in order to satisfy the justified at its inception prong of the reasonable suspicion standard. Id. at 1165-66. The court held that the searches were unjustified ab initio for lack of individualized suspicion. Id. at 1166. The places where the scent was detected were open hallways rather than confined areas to which only certain individuals had access, and the fact that these hallways led to the cafeteria indicated that nonstudents would reasonably be expected to use them during the time in question. Id. Therefore, the court articulated that the suspicion ... could not reasonably be narrowed even to the entire student body. Id. In William G., a student was caught concealing marijuana in his calculator case. The court held that the fact that the student (1) was truant from class, (2) was engaged in furtive gestures in attempting to hide his calculator case from view of the assistant principal, and (3) demanded a warrant did not create a reasonable suspicion upon which to base the search. Id. at 566-67, 709 P.2d at 1297, 221 Cal.Rptr. at 128. Reasonable suspicion requires articulable facts, together with rational inferences from those facts, warranting an objectively reasonable suspicion that the student or students to be searched are violating or have violated a rule, regulation, or statute. Id. at 564, 709 P.2d at 1295, 221 Cal.Rptr. at 126 (citations omitted). The assistant principal had no prior information which led him to believe that the student was in possession of marijuana, or that the student had otherwise violated the law or a school rule. William G., 40 Cal.3d at 566, 709 P.2d at 1297, 221 Cal.Rptr. at 128. The court, therefore, concluded that the search of the student's calculator case was illegal; consequently, the evidence obtained was inadmissible. Id. at 567, 709 P.2d at 1298, 221 Cal.Rptr. at 128. In T.L.O., [b]ecause the search of T.L.O.'s purse was based upon an individualized suspicion that she had violated school rules, 469 U.S. at 342 n. 8, 105 S.Ct. at 743, the Court declined to consider the circumstances that might justify school authorities in conducting searches unsupported by individualized suspicion. Id. However, it noted that in contexts other than school searches, individualized suspicion has usually been a prerequisite to a constitutional search or seizure. Id. An exception has been made only where the privacy interests implicated by a search are minimal and where other safeguards are available to assure that the individual's reasonable expectation of privacy is not subject to the discretion of the official in the field. Id.; see also William G., 40 Cal.3d at 568, 709 P.2d at 1299, 221 Cal.Rptr. at 130 (A rule requiring individualized suspicion discourages searches of a group, class, or entire student body where the school official has reasonable suspicion that there has been a violation of the law but is unable to focus that suspicion on a particular individual.) (Bird, C.J., concurring and dissenting); Burnham, 681 F.Supp. at 1165-66. Because a search of a student's wallet, purse or other bag carried on his or her person is undoubtedly a severe violation of subjective expectations of privacy, T.L.O., 469 U.S. at 338, 105 S.Ct. at 741, we conclude that individualized suspicion is a necessary element in determining reasonableness where, in this case, the principal emptied the contents of Minor's purse. Here, the odor of burning marijuana emanated from a confined area frequented by individuals who smoked marijuana. School officials did not observe any one else in the area except for Minor and three other students. Their suspicion could be reasonably narrowed to the four students found in the Tunnel and further narrowed to the Minor because she was one of two students carrying a purse. Thus, we conclude that the individualized suspicion element of the reasonableness standard was met, and the search was lawfully conducted.