ED 674 Case Analysis

Mark Strezelecki

April 20, 1998

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania vs. Cass

The case of Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Appellant, v. Vincent Francis Cass, Appellee was argued in the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania in September of 1996 and a decision was rendered in January 1998. At the heart of this case was the court's ruling regarding the level of protection entitled to public school students under the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution and Article 1 Section 8 of the Pennsylvania Constitution . In its decision the court maintained that students are subject to search when the search is reasonable given all the circumstances at its inception and if the search itself is reasonably limited in its scope to the initial objective prompting the search.

The case involved an incident at Harborcreek High School in Harborcreek Township in Erie County, Pennsylvania. The school's principal had announced on the morning of April 12, 1994 that the school would be undergoing a safety inspection and that all students were to remain in their respective classrooms. The safety inspection was, in reality, a sweep search for drugs involving the use of police officers and canines. The dogs were led past the school's 2,000 lockers and searches were conducted of 18 lockers where the dogs indicated a suspicion of illegal drugs. The search resulted in the discovery of marijuana, a pipe, a roach clip and rolling papers in the locker of Vincent Cass. Mr. Cass was suspended for ten days and criminal charges were filed against him for possession of marijuana and possession of drug paraphernalia. Mr. Cass filed to suppress the evidence of criminal charges based on the Fourth Amendment and Article 1 Section 8 of the Pennsylvania Constitution's protections against unreasonable search and seizure.

The school's principal had initiated the search based upon information given by other students regarding drug use in the school; observations by teachers of suspicious activity by students, such as passing small packages between themselves in the school's hallways; increased use of the school's drug counseling program; calls of concern from parents; and, the discovery of students in possession of large sums of money while on school grounds. The principal admitted he had no specific information regarding Mr. Cass and that the search was a general search. The school had a written policy regarding searches and the policy was issued to students on two occasions, once at the beginning of the school year and on March 1, 1994 six weeks prior the search at issue.

The trial court granted the motion to suppress the evidence. Applying the reasonable suspicion standard to the facts in this case, the court concluded that this search did not meet that standard. The court did recognize the "good intentions" of the principal but did not agree that they justified such a sweeping search. The Superior Court affirmed the decision of the trial court and the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania granted the Commonwealth's petition For Allowance of Appeal and reversed the decision.

In making its decision the court considered several things. The justices first turned to the cases of New Jersey v TLO (1985) and Veronia School District v Acton (1995). In New Jersey v. TLO the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a school required "reasonable suspicion" and not the more stringent standard of "probable cause" in conducting a search. In Acton it was decided that a school policy of random drug testing of students voluntarily engaged in athletics did not violate the Fourth Amendment prohibition against unreasonable searches. In Acton the issue was one of a general search and the court looked for guidance examining the rationale developed in cases involving searches of a generalized suspicious nature. Specifically, the court examined cases dealing with roadblocks for drunk driving (Michigan State Department of Police v Sitz ), random drug testing of customs officers (Treasury Employees v VonRaab) suspicionless drug testing of railway employees (Skinner v Railway Labor Executives Association) etc.. The court concluded that where the privacy interests implicated by the search were minimal and where an important governmental interest furthered by the intrusion would be placed in jeopardy by a requirement of individualized suspicion, the search may be considered reasonable despite the absence of individualized suspicion. In other words, prior cases dictated that a sweep search was permissible if it aided in a governmental interest that would be hampered by the requirement of individual suspicion.

The Acton court required three conditions to be met in a general search and applied them to the unique setting of the school environment. The court claimed that one must consider the nature of the privacy interest upon which the search intrudes; the character of the intrusion and the nature and immediacy of the governmental concern; and, the efficacy of the means used to address that concern. In the Acton case the court found that great consideration was given to the privacy of the students involved and that the results were not used for disciplinary or law enforcement procedures. The court maintained that the nature and immediacy of the government concern regarding drug use "can hardly be doubted" and that deterring drug use among students is important.

In the case of Cass, the TLO decision gave little guidance since this was a school wide search andTLO dealt with an individual. The court concluded that it was necessary in the Cass case to examine whether the school's decision to conduct the search was "reasonable". The justices concluded that it was considering the district"s warning in the Code of Student Conduct, the fact that the lockers were property of the school, and that the combinations were kept in the school"s office. Further, the court maintained that the lockers were often opened for purposes of repair. For these reasons the justices ruled that students had only a limited expectation of privacy regarding the lockers. They also concluded that case law made clear that a canine sniff was not considered a search under the Fourth Amendment and that in this instance the search was minimally intrusive. They also felt the nature and immediacy of the concern justified the means used. The school, they stated, had a compelling interest in deterring drug use and searching the entire school served not only the purpose of discovering drugs but to warn the entire student body not to bring illegal substances to school. Since the principal believed the evidence of drug use to be schoolwide rather than associated with one individual or group, the schoolwide search itself was reasonable.

They next had to turn to the issue of whether Article 1 Section 8 of the Pennsylvania Constitution provided greater protection to Mr. Cass than the Fourth Amendment. The court noted that the student's measure of privacy with regard to the locker was limited and the need to protect students in general further limited that right. In examining the issue of whether the sweep search violated that limited right the court turned to two cases: Commonwealth v Tarbert and Commonwealth v Blouse. In these cases, Pennsylvania courts upheld the use of roadblocks to identify drunk drivers because the state had a compelling interest in removing drunk drivers from the roads and the intrusion made was limited in comparison with the state's interest. So, in looking at Cass, they claimed the school had a compelling interest, the intrusion was minimal and they also cited the facts of prior warnings, etc. to conclude that the intrusion was minimal.

They also examined case law from other jurisdictions to support their judgment. They noted that no state in its constitution gives greater protection than the Fourth Amendment. They list cases in other states where the TLO basis of reasonable cause for locker searches was upheld ( State v Joseph T. in West Virginia 1985, In the Interest of PEA 1988 in Colorado, In the Matter of Gregory M. 1993 in New York, etc.). They maintain that other states would follow the Acton decision.

They noted that Pennsylvania case law gives "significant protection" for the privacy rights of its citizens where the individual possesses a reasonable expectation to privacy at the time the search was initiated. They contend, however, that the privacy rights in this case, considering the minimal intrusion of privacy in the "unique setting of the school environment pales in significance to the public need to be served". They concluded that Article 1 Section 8, therefore, gives no greater protection than the Fourth Amendment and remanded the case for resolution in trial court consistent with their decision.