3) the method by which the search was conducted was outside of the directives that had been given by the school with regard to searching book bags and purses and using wands for students' bodies.
The fourth ranked issues were the fact that the substance in the pipe turned out to be cocaine. If the search is deemed illegal then we will have to accept a paraphernalia charge and argue against the possession of drugs charged with the argument that the pipe should not have been tested as it was gained as poisoned fruit.
When we prepare the defense we need to concentrate on the first issue which is the search itself.
Again, using the case of TLO v NJ the court found that the search of the student purse was unreasonable and a violation of the fourth amendment because the student had a cigarette in her hand, there was no need to move further with a search of her closed purse (T.L.O. v N.J. (http://www.tourolaw.edu/patch/NewJersey/).
In the case we are defending, the search of this student's person was in violation of the fourth amendment. She handed over her book bag, gave them permission to search it and stated she had to go as she was late to class. There was nothing found within her book bag that would later be able to be held as probable cause evidence to search her person. There is nothing in the report stating that the student had an odor of drugs about her person,...
While the officer said he believed she acted like she was high, he provided no evidence or examples of what lead him to this conclusion.
We need to attack the search of her person, citing the TLO v NJ court case and ask that the court find the search illegal therefore throw out the poisonous fruit evidence that was obtained during that search.
In the TLO case the court ruled that the authorities had no reasonable suspicion that there were cigarettes in the student's purse. In our case, the officer had no reasonable suspicion that the student's coat pocket would contain drugs therefore he had no right ot perform the search of her person.
The weakest argument we have is the argument that the school did not have the right to search because it has no claim as the parent substitute. Several courts have upheld school searches with the ruling that the school operates as the parent during school hours, therefore the student has no right to privacy from school authorities.
A suggest we develop a defense founded in the fourth amendment rights and prove the search was illegal.
References
T.L.O. v N.J. http://www.tourolaw.edu/patch/NewJersey/
Czubaj, Camilia Anne (1995) a legal analysis of school searches.
Journal of Education
