Court Opinion

ID: 9710437
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 04:10:02.576823+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:22:56.861407
License: Public Domain

FLAHERTY, Chief Justice,
concurring.
Although I agree with the result reached by the majority, I write separately because I arrive at that result by different reasoning.
The majority holds that federal law was not violated by the random searches in this case pursuant to Vernonia School District v. Acton, 515 U.S. 646, 115 S.Ct. 2386, 132 L.Ed.2d 564 (1995). Acton holds that random searches may be upheld *56based on three factors: the nature of the privacy interest of those whose property was searched; the character of the intrusion; and the nature and immediacy of the government concern and the efficacy of the means utilized to address the concern. The majority concludes that the privacy interest of students in school lockers was minimal; the intrusion was minimal; and the government’s concern was significant. There was, therefore, under this test, no impermissible search.
With respect to Pennsylvania law, the majority holds that pursuant to Commonwealth v. Tarbert, 517 Pa. 277, 535 A.2d 1035 (1987) and Commonwealth v. Blouse, 531 Pa. 167, 611 A.2d 1177 (1992) “[wjhere the objective of the search outweighs the intrusion occasioned by the search it will be reasonable, and thus, constitutional to conduct a general search.” Op. at 360. In other words, if the interest of the government is said to be significant and the intrusion is said to be minimal, the search will be upheld. The majority finds that because drug use in schools is a serious matter and because the students had a minimal expectation of privacy in their lockers (they were forewarned that their lockers might be searched), the search did not violate Article I Section 8 of the Constitution of Pennsylvania.
I concur with the majority’s treatment of federal law, but I emphatically disagree with its treatment of Pennsylvania law.
Primarily, I take issue with the majority’s reliance on Tarbert and Blouse, for I cannot agree that the random stops conducted by police in those cases have any legitimacy under Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution of Pennsylvania or that the circumstances of those cases are similar to the circumstances of the case at bar. Under the patently anomalous decisions in Tarbert and Blouse — wrongly decided in my view — fundamental constitutional protections against government intrusion vanish when the government claims that a particular problem requires random police searches. This exception to the general requirement of probable cause or reasonable suspicion swallows the entire prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures, and is, therefore, unconstitutional.
*57I concur in the result reached by the majority, however, for the following reasons. First, the school environment is sui generis. Students are immature and in danger of harm which adults may be expected to avoid. Further, the harm may be serious, and finally, the mechanism for discovering the harm is not, as in adult society, well-defined. In adult society, the police are charged with the responsibility of arresting those who break laws, but in the society of children, the police function falls primarily to parents and teachers, who have mentoring duties which may supersede their police duties. Thus, it would not be reasonable to expect teachers to conduct investigations and surveillance in order to establish probable cause, although that is exactly what we do expect of police. When school officials, therefore, have particular and articulated reasons to believe that a drug epidemic has invaded the student body and insist that lockers must be searched, the situation is not similar to police expressing a concern that crime has got out of hand and that random searches of persons or cars or places must be conducted.
Second, students are required to be present at school and both they and their parents have a right to expect that their caretakers will provide a reasonable level of protection against drugs and violence.
Third, the lockers at issue belong to the schools and the students in this case had been informed that the school might search the lockers at any time.
And finally, the intrusion in this case was minimal in the context of the foregoing and in light of the minimal expectation of privacy which students had in the lockers.
Thus, I agree that the searches in this case do not violate the Constitution of Pennsylvania. I do not agree, however, that this result can be reached by way of Tarbert or Blouse.