HOW TO CONDUCT A SEARCH OF A STUDENT:

FROM POLICY TO HANDBOOK TO PRACTICE

Therold I. Farmer

Walsh, Anderson, Brown, Schulze & Aldridge, P.C.

6300 Lo Calma, Suite 200
Austin, Texas 78752
( 5 1 2 ) 454-6864
FAX (512)467-9318

70 N.E. loop 410, Suite 800

San Antonio, Texas 78216
(210)979-6633
FAX (210) 979-7024

511 E. John Carpenter Freeway, Suite 430

Irving, Texas 75062
(214) 574-8800
FAX (214) 574-8801

TASSP Assistant Principal Workshop

February 28, 2000

Contents:

A. Practical Principles for

Personal Searches................................................................................................
1
Locker Searches ................................................................................................. 2
Automobile Searches............................................................................................ 3

B. Chain of Custody........................................................................................................ 4

C. Interaction with Law Enforcement

Questioning Kids on Campus ............................................................................ 6
School-Police Protocols........................................................................................ 8
Seizures of the Person ....................................................................................... 10

D. Investigating and Interviewing .................................................................................. 11

Appendix .................................................................................................................... 16
What Isn't a Search?
Excerpts from TASB model Student Handbook
Excerpts from TASB model Student Code of Conduct
TASB sample local policies FNF
 HOW TO CONDUCT A SEARCH OF A STUDENT:
FROM POLICY TO HANDBOOK TO PRACTICE
Therold I. Farmer
Walsh, Anderson, Brown, Schulze & Aldridge, PC

A. PRACTICAL ISSUES IN CONDUCTING STUDENT SEARCHES

General Practical Principles

1. Team up. Have a witness with you from the beginning until anything you seize has
been secured. This practice reduces claims involving excessive force, abuse, missing
objects, "planted" evidence. It also provides corroboration in case of denial or a later
change in the student's story. And, of course, it may provide you a measure of personal
security in case the student becomes agitated or bellicose.

2. Escort. Don't just page or call over the intercom. Escort the student from the
classroom to the place the search is to occur.

3. No stops. Any request for a stop at the restroom or locker should be declined.

4. Bring everything. Have the student bring their personal belongings, including jacket,
hat, books, gym bag, book bag, back pack, purse.

Personal searches

1. Same sex. Any search that involves touching the student's body-even through
clothing-should be done by an administrator (or other employee) of the same sex as the
student to be searched.

2. Don't be a hero. If you have reasonable suspicion that a student possesses a weapon,
take appropriate precautions. If you think the weapon may be on the student's person.,
call for assistance by campus or district security or local law enforcement.

3. Privacy, please. Searches of the person should never be done in front of other
students. Use a private office or room.

4. Methodology. Have the student remove outer clothing such as jacket, cap, shoes.
Position yourself to the side of the student. Work from top to bottom on each side. Check
the middle of the back, inside the forearms, inside the thighs, behind the knees.
5. Crush, don't pat. The term "pat-down," although familiar to law enforcement and
school administrators alike, is a misnomer. Don't pat clothing; instead, crush the cloth with
your hands. A mere "pat" may easily overlook flat objects-particularly those attached to
the body or slipped between linings and outer materials of jackets.

6. This isn't bingo. When you find contraband, don't stop. Continue until all objects and
clothing have been investigated. There could be lots more. Remember TLO. Where
would we be today if Asst. Prin. Choplick had been content to find an open pack cf
Marlboros?

7. Look and touch. Examine any items that have been set aside from pockets, purses,
book bags. Pick them up and feel of themdon't just provide a visual inspection.

8. Remember you have five senses. Again, honor Mr. Choplick. He smelled cigarette
smoke on Ms. TLO, whose denial that she smoked will live in infamy.

Locker searches

Can't we do dragnet searches of lockers?

Know your policy. Some Texas districts have adopted dragnet or "administrative" searches
of lockers as the norm. Those districts have, I assume, experienced a history of
dangerous situations that would allow a court to tip the balance in favor of governmental
intrusiveness on personal privacy.

One Texas case walked right up the answer, but then backed away. In Shoemaker v.
State, 971 S.W.2d 178 (Tex. App.--Beaumont 1998), the Assistant Principal acted under
"color of school authority" in searching locker for credit cards stolen from Assistant
principal's own purse. Thus, the Texas statute requiring suppression of evidence obtained
illegally by a private citizen was held to be inapplicable. Although the items were owned
personally by the AP, she didn't exceed her authority in searching for them, regardless of
ownership. The case suggests in dictum that certain statements in the student handbook
reduce the student's expectation of privacy in the lockers-and therefore that locker
searches were permissible with the necessity of establishing reasonable suspicion. But
the court held explicitly that reasonable cause existed-thus reserving the
suspicionless-search question for another day.

Searching under the reasonable cause standard

1. Know your policy. Check your Student Handbook or Student Code of Conduct. Does
one of those documents let students know clearly that lockers are school property and that
they remain under the control of the school even when assigned to a particular student?
If so, the expectation of privacy is lower and the District's chances of withstanding a
Fourth-Amendment-based challenge are greater.

2. So nice to share? If the locker is shared by more than one student, the probability of
linking any contraband to a particular student is low.

3. Enforce locking. The lack of an enforced policy or rule requiring that locks be used
raises the risk of a successful "It-was-planted-on-me" defense.

4. Whether to have the student there. Although not required by law, many
administrators find that having the student present for the locker search is ordinarily
advantageous. Of course, the student should not be allowed so near the locker that he
can conveniently grab his grass and run. And if the risk of physical danger is high (e.g.,
if you're searching for a weapon), this "general" advantage is lost: You will want to keep
the student as far from the gun as you can get him.

5. Watch the face. One witness should be positioned in such a way that he/she can
watch the student's facial expressions and other reactions.

6. Take a tub. Prepare to empty the locker into a suitable container. Don't just riffle
through it. Take each object out and examine it. Take everything out before you put
anything back in.

Automobile searches

1. Know your policy. If your policy (or Student Code or Student Handbook) contains a
series of sequential steps in seeking entry into a locked automobile, be sure you follow
them in order. For example, at what point-if any-should you call the police to intervene7

2. Watch. Although not legally required, having the student present for the search is
ordinarily preferred. If you're searching for a loaded weapon, though, apply common
sense. Post a witness where the student's facial expression, "body language," and
responses may be observed.

3. Forced entry? Although legally you may make a forced entry if you have reasonable
cause to search, exhaust all other means first, including calling a locksmith to open the car.

4. No damage. Damage to the automobile should, obviously, be avoided.

 a. humidity
b. molds, mildews
c. drying of plants
d. caking of powders
e. corrosion of metals
f. amounts consumed by laboratory testing
g. color affected by exposure to light

Security:

Seized evidence must be kept secure. As a practical matter, you don't want others to have
access to dangerous substances or instrumentalities. As a legal matter, you're likely to
need the evidence for use at a hearing or trial. And, of course, you want to be able to deny
that anybody has had the opportunity to tamper with the evidence.

1. Consider using lock-seal envelopes such as are used by the Drug Enforcement
Administration (DEA) and many other law enforcement agencies for purpose of
preserving evidence.

2. Consider the security of the office, as well as the file, cabinet, vault, or safe in which
the evidence is maintained. Security is always a potential point of attack on the chain
of custody.

3. Exhibits that must be subjected to laboratory analysis must be handled in such a

way that the lab analyzed the item in the same condition in which it was seized.

What should you turn over to the police?

There are occasional threats of arrest for "possession of a controlled substance" that result
from campus administrators' possession of contraband they've seized from students.
Commonly, the matter never goes beyond the "threat" stage-but a few arrests have been
reported. Your author knows of no convictions. In any event, such a conviction would
be unlikely to "stick." However, you can spare yourself the embarrassment by developing
a high degree of communication and cooperation with your local law enforcement
agencies. . . . Which brings us to the topic of. . .
 C. INTERACTION WITH LAW ENFORCEMENT

Questioning of Students by Law Enforcement

Most Texas school districts have adopted policies governing their relations with other
governmental agencies, including local law enforcement. [See, for example, Policy GRA
(LOCAL), GKA (LOCAL).] Police officers' attempts to question students on campus
frequently provoke conflict. The campus administrator who understands the basis for the
various situations can reduce that conflict and assist in making schools and police the
valuable and respected "team" that they can be.

Three situations:

There are three very different classes of students whom law enforcement frequently
question at school.

1. Victims: alleged victims of child abuse or neglect (and their siblings, their step- and
foster-siblings, and other children of the home);

2. Suspects: students whom the police intend to arrest for crimes that have occurred
on or off campus; and

3. Witnesses: children whom police believe may have useful information regarding-but
no actual involvement in-criminal activity.

Here's an in-depth analysis of each:

1. Victims and the Unprotected: Questioning victims and potential victims of child
abuse
A common circumstance involving questioning at school occurs when the law
enforcement officer is the designated representative of the Child Protective Services
(CPS) Division, Texas Dept. of Protective and Regulatory Services, for the purpose
of conducting a child neglect or abuse investigation. See Educ. Code 38.004(a)

Public Purpose
The societal interest in permitting these investigations at school is the protection of
children. State statute gives Child Protective Service (CPS) investigators or law
enforcement officers designated by CPS the right to enter a school to investigate
reports of child abuse or neglect.
 The interview with and examination of the child may . . . be conducted at any
reasonable time and place, including the child's home or the child's school . .
Fam. Code 261.302.

School's duty:
The investigator has access at school to the child and to any other children of the
home. The scope of the investigation, which may occur at school (see above) may
include "an interview with" and "examination of any child in the home." Fam. Code
261.302. In context, the phrase "in the home" appears to mean "living under the
same roof-not a restriction on the site of the examination.

2. Questioning "Target" Witnesses or Suspects

Sometimes the officer arrives at school intending to "take a child into custody"

Public purpose:
The societal interests in this situation are different from the ones served in child
abuse investigations. Here, the police are attempting to enforce criminal laws. If
a law enforcement officer arrives on campus intending to take a student into
custody because the student has allegedly violated criminal law, whether the
behavior is school-related makes no legal difference in where the child may be
taken into custody.

Process:
It is common for police officers to ask a few questions of a suspect before making
an arrest. Thus, there will likely be some limited questioning of the student (e.g.,
establishing identity, inquiries about others involved in the criminal conduct, etc )
before the officer takes the student into custody.
Although the Texas Family Code may suggest that the general rule is that law
enforcement will have a court order before taking a child into custody, the
exceptions to this general rule render the rule virtually meaningless.

School's Duty:
If the officer intends to take a particular child into custody, he/she has a "right" to do
so at school. Although the school district may attempt to negotiate time, place, and
circumstances (see below), and should establish the identity of the officer, school
officials do not have the power simply to refuse.

3. Questioning Non-target Witnesses

Law enforcement's desire to question children who may be merely "fact witnesses"
presents the most conflict-fraught circumstance. Campus administrators will do well to
think in advance about their responses to officers' attempts to question a "non-target"
witness-a student who may have information but who is unlikely to be arrested.

Public Purpose:
In connection with the legitimate police function of gathering information about
criminal activity, the primary societal interest is administrative convenience. Under
these circumstances, officers seek to question certain students at school not
intending to arrest them, but to gain information about the behavior of others. It is
convenient to enter schools to question students, because that is where students
predictably can be found at certain times. And, let's face it, mama isn't standing in
the way.

School's Duty:
Police lawful ability to question fact witnesses at school is not clearly established by
law. Texas law does not address the issue of questioning non-target witnesses who
are minors. There is no statutory "right" of law enforcement to question students
from whom they seek information but whom they do not intend to take into custody
at school. And yet the response by police officers to a campus administrator's
reluctance is sometimes a threat to charge with obstruction of justice or hindering
prosecution., (Although perhaps the threat is merely a bluff, the school official's duty
is not set out in law, either.)

Since no law sets out the school's duty, this is an opportunity either for constant
conflict orfor cooperation and agreement. The school's duty depends, ideally, upon,
protocols negotiated in discussions between local school officials and local law
enforcement officials. (Less ideally, it depends on the ad hoc decisions of school
officials and the attitude of law enforcement officers.) Juvenile prosecutors and
probation officers should also be included in the discussions.

What Would Locally-developed School-police Protocols Cover?

There's no state "model". Many of the matters are intensely local, depending on the
seriousness of juvenile problems, the effectiveness of current juvenile programs,
population, staffing limitations, and other school or law enforcement concerns.

These Issues are frequently important in school-police cooperation:

1. Small amounts of controlled substances: Is there some small quantity of marijuana

or other controlled substances below which law enforcement agencies are not
interested in responding?

2. Seriousness of criminal activity: Similarly, should there be thresholds on other

activity (minor vandalism, simple assaults, possession of paraphernalia or inhalants,

8
 possession of small quantitiesof alcohol) below which law enforcement does not want
to be involved7

3. Procedures in seizure of contraband and chain of custody: Are there procedures

(initials and date of seizure, lock-seal envelopes, secured place) that principals would
use when seizing contraband so that the "chain of custody" can be proven if the
evidence is needed later?

4. Sliding-scale of symbolism: Should there be a distinction (in access, in time of day,

in visibility) between taking custody of students for school-related incidents and for
non-school-related? Are there some offenses for which officers will arrive at the back
door instead of the front? Some for which they may proceed directly to the class9
Some for which they'll wait in the office for a school official to bring Little Johnny in7
Some for which they'll arrive quietly? In unmarked cars?

5. Questioning students at school for convenience: Should there be a threshold of

seriousness? Should law enforcement be required to conclude that it's unlikely they
can find the student after school? If questioning of non-target witness is allowed, who
will be present, where will it be done, wtio decides when, does principal have "veto"
or postponement power in extraordinary circumstances?

Under what circumstances will law enforcement be expected to call ahead anc
forewarn the principal of their arrival? All? How much notice to the principal is
reasonable?

To what extent will scheduled school events such as semester exams, TAAS tests,
and special assemblies, be taken into consideration? May the school just say "nc"
during those times? Will the "no" be honored?

6. Guns at school: Whether a first-time and apparently "innocent" (lacking intent)

student offender who has a gun in his pickup will be arrested, whether the weapon will
be confiscated, whether parents will be called--and, if so, who is responsible for the
call?

7. Fights: Some school districts have adopted a policy that requires calling the police
in the event of a fights. Are the police agreeable to responding to every fight? Were
they initiallybut are now cooling to the idea of "zero tolerance"? (Do you know9)
What will be the response of the community when the news hound, during a slow
news day, decides to print the headline

CRIME WAVE ROCKS LOCAL JUNIOR HIGH

Police officials today identified the BUTTOCKS MIDDLE SCHOOL as the location in the county
experiencing the highest concentration of police calls over a six-month period. Police were called
 to BMS 53 times over the past six months. IS YOUR CHILD SAFE 7 Police blotters viewed by our
intrepid reporter showed 26 assaults by threat, 4 assaults with bodily injury, 7 terroristic threats, and
3 batteries. Tearful parents interviewed for this story reported that their children returning home
from BMS frequently experienced torn clothing, bruises, and black eyes . . . . [Ad nauseam.]

Communications about why schools do what they do: School officials need to
help police officers understand the rationale behind the district's decisions to adopt
certain procedures. If school officials decline to explain such rationales ("That's
always been our policy"), law enforcement officials often presume that the school
officials are being territorial, arbitrary, or obstructionist.

May the district require that an administrator be present for questioning?

In general, local policies are enforceable only against those persons overwhom the district
holds authority. The district does not have authority over law enforcement or CPS
investigators. According to a Texas Attorney General's opinion, a school official may
neither refuse to permit CPS investigator to interview a child at school nor require that
school personnel be present during child abuse investigation. DM-476 (1998).

Even assuming that the school had such a policy and that law enforcement voluntarily
complied with the policy, law enforcement officers may nonetheless interrupt the
questioning to take the child into custody.

Should parents be told of questioning?

In the past, many school districts had policies that required their administrators to notify a
child's parent or guardian of the arrival of investigators or police officers who intended to
question the child. More recently, many districts have modified this requirement by giving
the campus administrator much discretion by permitting the investigator's request to control
the question, or by eliminating the notice altogether.

At times law enforcement officers have a legitimate need to avoid "tipping off" parents or
guardians to the fact that questioning of the student is occurring, such as cases of possible
child abuse or possible criminal activity involving an accessory or co-conspirator in the
same household.

Seizures of the person Notifying

Parent of Taking Student Into Custody: Whose Job?

State statute requires any person who takes a child into custody to "promptly give notice
of his action and a statement of the reason... to the child's parent, guardian or custodian."

10
Family Code 262.109 ("Promptly" is undefined.) Who are these persons? Police
officers, juvenile probation officers, and officers of the juvenile court have the powerto take
a juvenile into custody-the juvenile equivalent of an "arrest."

Practically, the school (not the police station) will be the first place the parent will call when
the student doesn't arrive home at the usual after-school time. Although the school is not
obligated by law to make the contact, officials should consider having a procedure to tei!
parents that the cops came and dragged Little Johnny off to the Juvie.

D. INVESTIGATING AND INTERVIEWING Suggestions for

Investigating Student Disciplinary Incidents General Observations

1. No formula. These guidelines are suggested for use in investigating general

allegations of student misconduct. Complaints of sexual harassment or sexual abuse will
require more stringent procedures. These guidelines are not intended as a formula; they
should be modified to suit the specific situation at hand.

2. Your job. A campus administrator can and must question students and others in trying
to determine what the facts are, whether discipline of a student is appropriate, and what
type of discipline should be imposed.

3. Sliding scale. The seriousness of the allegations and consequent "level" of discipline
should guide the formality with which you conduct a disciplinary investigation. If expulsion
is possible, keep in mind that all the protections of constitutional due process must be
safeguarded. If a short-term suspension or AEP is possible, a "Goss-type" conference
(see explanation below*) should be provided. But if the maximum punishment is, say, a
few days in ISS, following all these guidelines would be "overkill" because no formality of
any kind is required-just a reasonable basis for your decision.

4. Miranda warnings not required. By contrast with criminal law, the "accused" has no
right to be represented by an attorney in the investigation stage of a student disciplinary
process. Furthermore, questioning students is not a "search," so you need neither consent
nor reasonable suspicion to ask questions and require answers, whether written or oral.
(Miranda warnings do apply to law enforcement officers when they are questioning
students who may be suspects in a crime, probably including school district police officers
if they are commissioned "peace officers.")

5. No "Fifth." Similarly, the constitutional privilege against self-incrimination does not

apply to a school disciplinary proceeding.

11
6. Dual role. In a disciplinary investigation, you need not be objective. At some point, you
are both accuser and initial decision-maker. That's the way our system is structured and
you need not feel apologetic about it. (By contrast, of course, in a sexual-harassment
investigation you must maintain objectivity.)

7. Involving parents. Know the policy-based circumstances under which parents must
be contacted. A parent conference is not required by law before questioning or as part cf
an investigation-but is often appropriate, particularly if the offense is serious or surprising
or if the disciplinary sanction is severe. In any case, to use the threat of parental contact
as a "weapon" against a student's lack of cooperation is ill-advised.

Conducting the Investigation

1. Tie down evidence. Secure any physical evidence such as suspected controlled
substances, empty bottles, stolen property, weapons. (See above on "Chain of Custody.")

2. Do your own investigation. If there's a police investigation of the same behaviorai

incident, go ahead and do your own investigation regardless.

3. Interview witnesses. As promptly as possible, interview witnesses to corroborate the

complaint, a report, or your suspicions. If the incident involves one student's misconduct
toward or with another student, other witnesses may include the complainant's or the
alleged perpetrator's friends. Interview individuals who may be able to corroborate facts,
but there's no need to interview "character" witnesses (the one's who'll say "I've known
Student C since kindergarten and he'd never do a thing like that"). Questioning of fact
witnesses should include finding out whether they are willing to testify at an expulsion
hearing.

4. Get statements. To require a statement in the student's own writing, in the student's
own words, and signed by the student is a sound practice. This reduces later accusations
that the investigator "put words in the mouth" of the student. Grammar and spelling are not
at issue so long as the statement can be read and understood.

Pre-lnterview Preparation

1. Gather documents: Gather all pertinent information and become familiar with it:
applicable policy, student handbook, extracurricular rules, Student Code of Conduct, prior
disciplinary referrals, your own logs and notes of conferences with teachers and parents
concerning this student or related incidents.

2. List interviewees: Make a preliminary list of the persons who should be interviewed.
Following each interview, consider revision (expansion) of this list. Are there more leads?
You don't have to chase down each one, but-particularly when no professional educator

12
is a witness to the alleged misbehavior-- you should ordinarily attempt to interview any
persons the student names who might offer exculpatory evidence

3. Prepare questions: Most administrators-even experienced onesfind it useful tc

prepare questions in advance. At the very least, prepare "lines of questioning" or list
specific facts you need to determine. Even with specific preparation, you must of course
remain open to unanticipated themes or facts.

Interviewing Witnesses

1. Record? Remember that you may not lawfully audio-record or video-record a student's
statement without written parental consent. If you believe audio- or video-recording of a
student statement is desirable, get prior written consent from the parent. Educ. Code
26.009. No parental consent is needed, however, to require oral or written statements frorr,
students. (These principles apply both to the "suspect" student and" students who are
merely potential sources of information.)

2. Statements. A written statement should be the product of any pertinent student

interview. To require a statement in the student's own writing is ordinarily the preferred
practice, but the investigator may prepare a statement based on the interview.

3. Notes. For each ordinary un-recorded interview, take detailed notes. A good practice
is to have a second administrator or other professional with you during the interview whc
can take notes while you ask, listen, and observe. This permits you, as interviewer, tc
concentrate on your questions and the student's responses-including the student's "body
language" and facial expressions.

4. Purpose. State your purpose at the outset; telT'why we're here."

5. Calming. If the student witness appears frightened, you may discuss with then
consequences of and protection from retaliation

6. Confidences. Avoid unnecessarily divulging the names of other students. Maintain

confidentiality to the extent possible and as allowed by law-but do not promise
confidentiality. (Some disclosure may be necessary in order to complete a thorough
investigation-and testimony may be needed at a hearing )

7. Questioning. Ask at least some open-ended questions-that is, questions that cannot
be answered merely "yes" or "no." For example, "What did Student A do?" "How do you
know Student B7" . . . instead of "Did Student A kick you?" "Don't you have English I with
Student B?"

13
8. Detail. If the student uses conclusory language ("she hurt him"), ask what the student
saw, observed, knows. (Where were you standing/sitting9 Did you see anything in her
hand9 Did you hear him cry out9 Did you see any blood9 Whe^e9)

9. Probe. If you're dissatisfied with the level of detail being provided, consider using
follow-up questions that probe: "Can you give me an example of something Student A said
that made you think Student B had smoked with him9"

10. Confession. If the accused student makes an admission or confession, read it back
and get a verbal confirmation.

11. Goss requirements. Your interview of the accused student is a good opportunity for
a "Goss-type" hearing (see below*) if that has not already been done. Tell the student
what facts you believe will serve as the basis for discipline and-frcm the Student Code of
Conduct-the range of disciplinary techniques that may be applied to this particular kind of
misconduct. If your interview of the accused student is intended to be a "Goss-type" give-
and-take hearing, it's important to permit the student to talk-to "tell his/her side of the
story." You may ask explicitly, "Now, what's your side of the story?" Or, "What do you
remember about that event?" With assertive, strong-willed, or defensive students, there's
generally no need to prompt. But, regardless of the personality of the student. Gcss
requires a certain amount of listening on your part.

12. Accused's version, include the accused student's version of the stony in ycur
interview notes.

13. Closing. At the end of the interview, ask "Is there anything else you'd like to add?,"
summarize your interview notes, then ask the witness to review them for accuracy and sign
the summary if it accurately reflects their statements. If the witness declines to sign the
summary or allow use of his or her name, note that fact and retain the unsigned document.

14. Identifying. Identify your interview notes by date, beginning and ending time, persons
present, and identity of interviewee.

15. Review. Most notes have gaps in them. Review the notes immediately to fill in ga
and complete ideas. Don't wait until your memory fades and then try to reconstruct what
was said.

16. Beware. As you write your notes, be aware that they will probably be subject to
"discovery" in any lawsuit that's related to the subject matter of your investigation. So,
write your notes as though an opposing lawyer-and possibly a judge or jury-will read
them.
ps
14
*Goss: A brief review

A "Goss-type hearing" is actually a conference-usually in the administrator's office-m

which the student must be told what he/she is charged with and have an opportunity to tell
his/her side of the story. If the student denies the charges, the student should be told what
evidence the school is relying on. The conference can be short, simple, informal and oral.
See, Goss v. Lopez, 419 U.S. 565, 95 S.Ct. 729, 42 L.Ed.2d 725 (1975). The conference
is sometimes described as "give-and-take." The only people required to be present are the
student and the administrator who'll make the disciplinary decision or recommendation
The case requires such a "hearing" for a short term suspension. In Texas, it is advised
before a removal to AEP

15
APPENDIX

A. What Isn't a search?

These behaviors don't implicate the Fourth Amendment:

1. Questioning a student
2. Sniffing an odor emanating from a car or a bag
3. Smelling a student's clothing, breath, or hands
4. Comparing handwriting samples
5. Examining items thrown into the trash or otherwise discarded
6. Using a trained dog to sniff inanimate objects (e.g., cars, lockers, or book bags)
7. Observing what's in plain view
8. Watching a particular student especially closely

B. Excerpts from Student Handbook: TASB Model Handbook (TASB Policy Service,
Suppl. July 1999):

Lockers are school property and remain underthe control and jurisdiction of the school
even when assigned to an individual student. The student has full responsibility for the
security of the assigned locker, for making certain that the locker is locked, and that the
combination is not available to others.
Searches of lockers may be conducted at any time there is reasonable cause to
believe that they contain articles or materials prohibited by District policy, whether or not
a student is present.
The parent will be notified if any prohibited items are found in the student's locker.

C. Excerpts from Student Code of Conduct: TASB Model Student Code of Conduct
(TASB Policy Service, July 1999):

The District has the right to search a vehicle driven to school by a student and parked
on school property whenever there is reasonable cause to believe it contains articles or
materials prohibited by the District.
The District has the right to search a student's locker whenever there is reasonable
cause to believe that it contains articles or materials prohibited by the District.

0. Sample local policies FNF from TASB files:

The samples that follow are included for discussion purposes only. Rely only on
your own locally-adopted policies. If you're interested in urging the local adoption of
language from any of these samples, ask your appropriate district administrator to contact
your district's Policy Service representative.

16
STUDENT RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES FNF
INTERROGATIONS AND SEARCHES (LOCAL)

SCHOOL Administrators, teachers, and other professional personnel mav

QUESTIONING question a student regarding the student's own conduct cr the cor
duct of other students In the context of school discipline, student
have no claim to the right not to incriminate themselves

POLICE GR OTHER For provisions pertaining to student questioning by ia-v enforce-

AUTHORITIES ment officials or other lawful authorities, see GRA (LOCAL)
QUESTIONING
LOCKERS AND Students have full responsibility for the security ofiheiHockers an:
VEHICLES vehicles parked on school property and shall m^Kecertain they ar-.
locked and that the keys and combination are^jot giveru*6!others.
Students shall not place, keep, or maintain an ^ lockers or vehicles
parked on schc^property tha^tsforbidderjjfcy District policy.
arch is locked, the student
Lockers and vehicle searchec they con-by DisTncT policy.
by school offici tain Students rohibited items found in
articles or shalliae their lockers roperty.
respon or veoj^s.
park
shall be askec _e vei^e. If the
student refuses, the District shall
con-.ent's parents. If the parents also
refuse to permit the searched, the District may contact
local law enforce-Tcials and turn the matter over to
them.

PARENT The student's parent or guardian shall be notified if any prohibitec

NOTIFI articles or materials are found in a student's locker or vehicle
parked on school property, or on the student's person as a result c
a search conducted in accordance with this policy

DATE ISSUED: 04/17/1990 ADOPTED: 1 of 1

UPDATE 36 FNF (LOCAL)-
A
STUDENT RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES: FNF
INTERROGATIONS AND SEARCHES (LOCAL)

INTERROGATIONS Administrators, teachers, and other professional personnel may

BY SCHOOL question a student regarding the student's own concuct or the con-
OFFICIALS duct of other students. In the context of school discipline, students
have no claim tc the right not to incriminate themselves
BY POLICE OR Fcr provisions pertaining to student questioning by la/; enforcement
OTHER officials or other lawful authorities, see GRA(LOCAL).
AUTHORITIES
LOCKERS AND Students have full responsibility for the security of theiuJockers,
VEHICLES and for vehicles parked on school property. It is the^Tuaent's re-
sponsibility to ensure that lockers and vehicles*a*reTocked and that
the keys and combinations are not given to others. nts shall
not place, keep, or maintain any article or mate forbidden
chocl
by District policy in lockers or in ve*q|cjes
parked
ty.
School officials may or^fehiclespaxkelj on school se
property, if to^lie#gnhat they contain y
the^Us re Districtpoucy. Students shall be
items found in their iockers or in ve-
rty.

articles or
mat responsible
USEO for hicleHcltKed o
DOGS to
____e^rch is locked, the student shall be askea
icie. Ifthe student refuses, the District shall con-
nt's parents. If the parents also refuse to permit a
ehicle, the District may turn the matter over to loca!
'cement officials.
The District shall use specially trained nonaggressive dogs to sniff
out and alert officials to the current presence of concealed prohib-
ited items, illicit substances defined in FNCF(LEGAL), and alcohol.
This program is implemented in response to drug and alcohol re-
lated problems in District schools, with the objective of maintaining
a safe school environment conducive to education.
Such visits to schools shall be unannounced. The dogs shall be
NOTICE used to sniff vacant classrooms, vacant common areas, the areas
around student lockers, and the areas around vehicles parked on
school property. The dogs shall not be used with students. If a
dog alerts to a locker, a vehicle, or an item in a classroom, it may
be searched by school officials. Searches of vehicles shall be con-
ducted as described above.
At the beginning of the school year, the District shall inform stu-
dents of the District's policy on searches, as outlined above, and
shall specifically notify students that:
1. Lockers may be sniffed by trained dogs at any time.

DATE ISSUED: 04/10/1996 1 of 2

UPDATE 51 FNF (LOCAL)-
B
STUDENT RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES: FNF
INTERROGATIONS AND SEARCHES (LOCAL)

INTERROGATIONS Administrators, teachers, and other professional pe r sonnel may

BY SCHOOL question a student regarding the student's own conauct or the con-
OFFICIALS duct of other students. In the context of school discipline, students
have no cl aim to t h e right not to incriminate themselves

BY POLICE OR For provisions pertaining to student questioning by l a w enforcement

OTHER officials or other lawful authorities, see GRA(LOCAL)
AUTHORITIES
LOCKERS AND Students have full responsibility for the security of
VEHICLES theiolpckers, dent's re-
and for vehicles parked on school property. It is t ocked and that
NOTICE sponsibility to ensure that lockers and vehicles^re Students shall
the keys and combinations are not given to others, ans forbidden
not place, keep, or maintain any article or material chocl
by District policy in lockers or in vlq^cjes
parked o,

ty-
School on school
se to^blie#g*mat they contain y
Districnxrucy. Students shall be
items found in their iockers or in ve-
rty.
officials
may
property, if theceJs
re articles or mat'
responsible for
hiclefacatked
to sTs^rch is locked, the student shall be askea
nlocRfihe vehicle. Ifthe student refuses, the District shall con-
stSgjent'sparents. If the parents also refuse to permit a
ehicle, the District may turn the matter over to local
enforcement officials.
i The District shaii use specially trained nonaggressive dogs to sniff
out and alert officials to the current presence of concealed prohib-
ited items, illicit substances defined in FNCF(LEGAL), and alcohol.
This program is implemented in response to drug and alcohol re-
lated problems in District schools, with the objective of maintaining
a safe school environment conducive to education.
Such visits to schools shall be unannounced. The dogs shall be
used to sniff vacant classrooms, vacant common areas, the areas
around student lockers, and the areas around vehicles parked on
school property. The dogs shall not be used with students. If a
dog alerts to a locker, a vehicle, or an item in a classroom, it may
be searched by school officials. Searches of vehicles shall be con-
ducted as described above.

USE At the beginning of the school year, the District shall inform stu-
DOGS dents of the District's policy on searches, as outlined above, and
shall specifically that:
notify students
1. Lockers may be sniffed by trained dogs at any time.

DATE ISSUED: 04/10/1996 1 of 2

UPDATE 51 FNF (LOCAL)-
B
STUDENT RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES FNF
INTERROGATIONS AND SEARCHES (LOCAL)

INTERROGATIONS Administrators, teacners. and other professional personnel may

BY SCHOOL question a student regarding the student's own conduct or the con-
OFFICIALS duct of other students. In the context of school discipline, students
have r,c claim to the right not to incriminate themselves
BY POLICE OP For provisions pertaining to student questioning cy law enforcement
OTHER officials or cther lawful authorities, see GRA(LOCAL)
AUTHORITIES
LOCKERS AND Students have full responsibility for the security of theirjpckers. and
VEHICLES for vehicles parked on school property. It is
the^Todent's re- ocked and that
sponsibility to ensure that lockers and vehic! djfcts shali
the keys and combinations are not given to or.' forbidde-;
not place, keep, or maintain any article or mate chool piof>er-
by District policy in lockers or in
veQjtJes parked
ty-
School on schoci
officials se toX25ue^that they contain y
Districtpoiicy. Students shall be d
items found in their lockers or in ve-

may

property,
if theirs re
articles or responsible for
hic!e^Ba?rJ<ed
to slgarch is locked, the student shail be askec e. Ifthe
student refuses, the District shaii con-arents. Ifthe
parents also refuse to permit a ehicle, the District may
turn the matter over to local element officials.
The District shali use specially trained nonaggressive dogs tc sniff
out and alert officials to the current presence of concealed prohib-
ited items, illicit substances defined in FNCF(LEGAL), and alcohol.
This program is implemented in response to drug and alcohol re-
lated problems in District schools, with the objective of maintaining
a safe schoci environment conducive to education.
Such visits to schools shall be unannounced. The dogs shall be
NOTICE used to sniff vacant classrooms, vacant common areas, the areas
around student lockers, and the areas around vehicles parked or
school property. The dogs shall not be used with students. If a
dog alerts to a locker, a vehicle, or an item in a classroom, it may
be searched by school officials. Searches of vehicles shall be con-
ducted as described above.
At the beginning of the school year, the District shall inform stu-
dents of the District's policy on searches, as outlined above, and
shall specifically notify students that:
1. Lockers may be sniffed by trained dogs at any time

1 of 2
 STUDENT RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES. FNF
INTERROGATIONS AND SEARCHES (LOCAL)

student shall be called out of class and asked by the prmcipa

to open the locker. If the student refuses the Iccke' shaii be
opened by the principal.

Vehicles parked on school property may be sniffed by trained

dogs at any time.

Classrooms and other common areas nay be smfied by

trained dogs at any time when students are not present.

If contraband of any kind is found, the possessingrStudep.t

shall be subject to appropriate
disciplinary ac tip Ann accordance with the
This policy shall be included in the student hanc reviewec
during the orientation assembly.

PARENT The student's parent nibited

NOTIFICATION articles or materials irra student's
vehicle parked^jfliscK ent's person, as a
result of a sea this policy.
Student Code
of Conduc

This sample is drawn from the TASB file of customized local policies created for individual 2 of 2
districts. Please be aware that adoption by your district will require editorial and legal
review to ensure Ks appropriateness for Inclusion In your localized policy manual.
 STUDENT RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES FNF
INTERROGATIONS AND SEARCHES (LOCAL)

INTERROGATIONS Administrators, teachers, and other professional personnel may

BY SCHOOL question a student regarding the student's own conduct or the con-
OFFICIALS duct of other students In the context of school discipline, students
have no claim to the right not to incriminate themselves
BY POLICE OR For provisions pertaining to student questioning by law enforcement
OTHER officials or other lawful authorities see GRA(LOCAL)
AUTHORITIES
LOCKERS AND Students have full responsibility for the security of their lockers, and
VEHICLES for vehicles parked on school property. It is the^Jucient's re-
sponsibility to ensure that lockers and vehicles#af?Tiocked and that
the keys and combinations are not given to onrers. Students shall
not place, keep, or maintain any article or matefm^^Ws forbidden
by District policy in lockers or in ve^des park'ed^Kschool property.
School officials may sejarTn lockup, dT&ehicles parkScTbn school
property, if thereJs reasQnablejgnlise toceHeyaJnat they contain
articles or matejfets proBbitt^By District^iicy. Students shall be
responsible for arjsirohiffifed items found in their
lockers or in ve-
archns locked, the
student shall be askec
^ ^ student refuses, the
District shall con-
'denrsTpa rents. If the parents also refuse to permit a
ie>vehicle, the District may turn the matter over to loca!
ment officials.
USE The District shall use specially trained nonaggressive dogs to sniff
DOGS
out and alert officials to the current presence of concealed prohib-
ited items, illicit substances defined in FNCF(LEGAL), and alcohcl.
This program is implemented in response to drug and alcohol re-
lated problems in District schools, with the objective of maintaining
a safe school environment conducive to education.
Such visits to schools shall be unannounced. The dogs shall be
used to sniff vacant classrooms, vacant common areas, the areas
around student lockers, and the areas around vehicles parked on
school property. The dogs shall not be used with students. If a
dog alerts to a locker, a vehicle, or an item in a classroom, it may
be searched by school officials. Searches of vehicles shall be con-
ducted as described above.
NOTICE At the beginning of the school year, the District shall inform stu-
dents of the District's policy on searches, as outlined above, and
shall specifically notify students that:
1. Lockers may be sniffed by trained dogs at any time. When
the dog indicates tha possibility that drugs are in a locker, the
This sample Is drawn from the TASB file of customized local policies created for Individual 1 Of 2
districts. Please be aware that adoption by your district will require edKoriai and legal
review to ensure Its appropriateness for Inclusion In your localized policy manual.
STUDENT RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES FNF
INTERROGATIONS AND SEARCHES (LOCAL)

2 Vehicles parked on scnoo1 oroperty may be sniffed by uz^e:

dogs at any time

3. Classrooms and other common areas may be sniffed b>

trained dogs at any time when students are net present

4. If contraband of any kind is found, the possessing stjce~;

shall be subject to appropriate disciplinary achen in accc-
dance with the Student Code of Conduct.

PARENT The student's parent or guardian shall be notified if anyc-rohibite"

NOTIFICATION articles or materials are found in a student's lockerrfn'astudents
vehicle parked on school property, or on the
stt5pems person as result of a search

conducted in accordance wil

2 of 2