In Re D.E.M. 727A.2d 570 (PA Super. 1999)

Facts:

On April 8, 1997, a Shillington Borough Police officer went to the Governor Mifflin Middle School to inform the principal and the assistant principal that he had received an anonymous tip that D.E.M. had a gun on school property. The officer then left. Governor Mifflin Middle School has an established policy to investigate all rumors concerning anything that may jeopardize the health, safety, or welfare of the students and faculty. At the beginning of each school year, students receive a copy of Governor Mifflin Middle School's behavior code, which specifically prohibits the possession of knives and/or firearms on school property. The principal called D.E.M. to his office and asked him if he had anything on him that was against school rules. D.E.M. answered no. He was then asked if he would empty his book-bag. He did and nothing was found. D.E.M. was then asked to empty his pockets and became agitated and scared. A sheathed knife was found in one pocket. He was then asked if he had a gun in school to which he answered yes and stated that it was in his coat in P.Q.'s locker. P.Q. was called to open his locker and D.E.M.'s coat was searched by the principal. The principal found a loaded gun in the jacket pocket. Pennsylvania State law requires school officials to report the discovery of any firearm to local law enforcement officials. In accordance with its policy, the school contacted the Shillington Borough Police Department and turned the gun and knife over to them. D.E.M. was arrested and charged with possession of a weapon on school property, carrying a firearm without a license, possession of a firearm by a minor, and altering or obliterating identification marks.

On April 28, 1997, D.E.M. filed a pre-trial motion to suppress the physical evidence found by the school officials. The suppression hearing found that the principal and assistant principal were acting as "agents" of the police because of the police tip, and they should have provided a Miranda warning prior to their search. This court found that without the police tip, there was no reasonable suspicion by the school to do the search. The motion to suppress the physical evidence was granted.

The Commonwealth appealed to the Pennsylvania Superior Court on the basis that suppressing the physical evidence would hinder the prosecution.

Decision:

The Superior court reversed the decision on suppression and sent the case back for trial. The court decided that the school officials did not act as agents of the police when they detained or questioned a student and Miranda warnings were not required to be offered by school officials. The school authorities were required to follow the implemented school policies and did not need to have a warrant or probable cause to initiate a search of a student or their property on school grounds, just reasonable suspicion. The court realized schools need leniency in the area of search and seizure in order to ensure the safety of the student population.

Basis for the Decision:

Based on Washington v. McKinnon, 88 Wash.2d 75, 558 P.2d 781 (1977) school officials did not act as agents of the police when the police relayed the anonymous tip. The police were just the source of the rumor and in no way involved themselves in the investigation. The court balanced D.E.M.'s limited right to control his person while in school with the need of the school to maintain order and determined that the questioning of D.E.M. by school officials was reasonable.

School officials met the two part test established the United States Supreme Court which assesses the reasonableness of a school search conducted by school officials. The two part test states: Determining the reasonableness of any search involves a twofold inquiry: First one must consider "whether the … action was justified at its inception, Terry v. Ohio 392 U.S. at 20, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889,44 Ohio Ops 2d [0.0.2d] 383; second, one must determine whether the search as actually conducted "was reasonably related in scope to the circumstances which justified the first place." Ibid.

In regard to Miranda rights, Pennsylvania law makes it clear that Miranda rights do not attach, and warnings are not required, when school authorities detain and question a student about conduct that violates school rules. In re S.K., 436 Pa.Super. 370,647 A.2d 952, 955n.3 (1994).

Written by Brian Landis, Ron Lorson and Reba Welteroth, Summer 2000.