R.D.S. v. State, No. M2005-00213-SC-R11-JV (Tenn. Feb. 6, 2007)
The Tennessee Supreme Court has ruled that a law enforcement officer conducting a student search on school grounds must have “probable cause” for the search, unless the officer is acting in the capacity of a school official. In that case, the lower “reasonable suspicion” standard for a search by school officials applies. Deputy Sharon Lambert of the Williamson County Sheriff’s Office, a school resource officer (SRO), questioned high school student G.N when he appeared intoxicated. When she found G.N. had skipped class and spent the time in the truck of a classmate named R.D.S., Deputy Lambert found the truck and R.D.S., who did not appear intoxicated. She informed R.D.S. that she was going to search his vehicle based on her observation of G.N. and his statements and asked R.D.S. to accompany her while she did so. The search yielded a bag of marijuana, which R.D.S. admitted was his. He was charged in juvenile court with possession of marijuana and drug paraphernalia. He filed a motion to suppress his incriminating statements on the grounds he had not been informed of his Miranda warnings and to suppress the evidence seized from his truck on the grounds his Fourth Amendment rights had been violated. The juvenile court denied his motion and found him delinquent. Appeals to a state trial court and an intermediate appeals court ensued.
The case reached the Tennessee Supreme Court, which found that the facts supported the trial court’s conclusion that R.D.S. was not in custody when he was questioned and noted that his incriminating statements were made after the search had been conducted. As a result, the high court rejected R.D.S.’s argument that the seized evidence was the “fruit of the poisonous tree” and therefore inadmissible. Turning to which standard governed the search, the court found that this turned on whether the deputy was acting in the capacity of a law enforcement officer or a school official. The law is well-established that police officers searching students on school grounds must have probable cause to believe a crime has been committed, while school officials are held to the more relaxed reasonableness standard established in New Jersey v. T.L.O., 469 U.S. 733, 740 (1985). Since the T.L.O. decision, the court noted, the presence of law enforcement in schools has increased as school districts utilize a variety of programs, such as SROs, to provide students with a safe learning environment. Most jurisdictions that have addressed the question have concluded that the reasonable suspicion standard applies to searches by SROs. Factors considered have included whether the officer was in uniform, whether the officer had an office on campus, and how long each day the officer remained at school.
Turning to the search in this case, the Supreme Court concluded that the reasonable suspicion standard governs searches “conducted by a law enforcement officer assigned to a school on a regular basis and assigned duties at the school beyond those of a ordinary law enforcement officer such that he or she may be considered a school official as well as a law enforcement officer, whether labeled an ‘SRO’ or not.” However, because the factual record was devoid of any factors to guide the court in determining which standard should be applied in this case, the high court remanded the issue to the trial court to develop the record further. Specifically, the high court instructed the trial court to “consider any evidence introduced regarding the specific duties of Deputy Lambert, including information about her daily activities, any interactions with students she has, any specialized training she has received, any agreements between the Williamson County Sheriff’s Office and Board of Education about the SRO program, any stated policies in regards to the SRO program in Williamson County, which governmental entity pays her salary, who are Deputy Lambert’s direct supervisors, what classes she teaches, what topics she lectures, what topics she counsels students, and whether she is in a uniform and armed.”
R.D.S. v. State, No. M2005-00213-SC-R11-JV (Tenn. Feb. 6, 2007)
Concurring/dissenting opinion
[Editor’s Note: A recent report by the Tennessee Department of Education identified this question as one school districts would need to confront as they consider the use of SROs. See below.]
NSBA School Law pages on Tennessee study