IN THE INTEREST OF A.D., A MINOR, Appellant,

933 MDA 2003 (2004 PA Super 36)

Facts of the Case

On April 10, 2003, two female Wyoming High School students discovered during their gym class that money had been taken from their purses. The two students had left their purses on the gymnasium bleachers during their participation in class activities. Other students, including A.D., who were not participating in class activities, had remained seated in the bleachers.

Upon returning to the bleachers, the two victims discovered that money was missing from their purses and immediately reported the theft to their physical education teacher. The teacher then separated the students who had been participating in the activities from those who had remained in the bleachers, and called the Assistant Principal. The Assistant Principal, with assistance from a female hall monitor, searched the students who had remained in the bleachers. Although the Assistant Principal was accompanied by a police officer, the officer did not participate in the searches.

In A.D.’s book bag the Assistant Principal discovered a sum of money rolled up in a sock equal to the amount of money missing from the victims’ purses. The Assistant Principal also found in A.D.’s book bag one victim’s missing social security information and a movie ticket stub belonging to the other victim. Subsequently, on April 21, 2003, the Court of Common Pleas of Luzerne County held a delinquency hearing for A.D. and adjudicated her delinquent and in violation of her probation, and committed her to the Youth Services Agency of Pennsylvania (Criminal, No. 03-291).

The issue raised by A.D. in this case for review by the Superior Court was whether the trial court erred in denying A.D.’s motion to suppress evidence. A.D. asserted she was subjected to an unconstitutional search, because she was subjected to a warrantless search and seizure by the school’s Assistant Principal who acted as an “agent of the state,” and that she was not read her Miranda rights prior to the search of her book bag.

Also at issue, the Commonwealth argued that the A.D. had waived the suppression issue altogether because she failed to file before the juvenile hearing a timely pretrial motion to suppress the evidence in this case.

Decision

The Superior Court gave no consideration to the Commonwealth’s claim that the A.D. had waived the suppression issue by failing to file a timely pretrial motion to suppress the evidence.

The Superior Court affirmed the decision of the trial court that declined A.D.’s motion to suppress evidence, and affirmed the trial court’s delinquency adjudication and dispositional order.

Basis for the Decision

With regard to the Commonwealth claim that the A.D. had waived the suppression issue by failing to file a timely pretrial motion to suppress the evidence, the Superior Court noted that the Commonwealth’s claim was improperly based upon the application of the Rules of Criminal Procedure to juvenile proceedings. See Pa.R.Crim.P. 574(A), (D). Moreover, In re J.V., 762 A.2nd 376 (Pa.Super. 2000) and In the Interest of Brown, 417 A.2nd 1188 (Pa.Super. 1980) juvenile courts were provided discretion to consider oral suppression arguments at the time of the hearing.

In affirming the trial court’s denial of A.D.’s motion to suppress evidence, the Superior Court first asserted that the Assistant Principal was acting as a school official, and not as an “agent of the state.” In re D.E.M., 727 A.2nd 574, n.11 (Pa.Super. 1999) “the legality of a search conducted by school officials is measured by a lower standard than a search conducted by law enforcement officers.” In this case, and in accordance with the precedent established in D.E.M., the Superior Court determined the police did not initiate or guide the Assistant Principal’s search, and that the primary purpose of the search was to recover the students’ missing property and return order to a disrupted class.

Additionally, the Superior Court asserted that the Assistant Principal’s search did not violate A.D.’s constitutionally-protected privacy rights in accordance with precedents established under Commonwealth v. Cass, 551 Pa. 25, 34-35, 709 A.2nd 350, 354 (1988), cert. Denied, 525 U.S. 833, 119 S.Ct. 89, 142 L.Ed.2nd 70 (1988) and New Jersey v. T.L.O., 469 U.S. 325, 105 S.Ct. 733, 83 L.Ed.2nd 720 (1985). Specifically, the Superior Court noted that school officials have a substantial interest in maintaining a safe and educational environment on school grounds, and that students have a lowered expectation of privacy on school grounds. In doing so the Superior Court cited D.E.M. supra and In the Interest of R.H., 568 Pa. 1,5, 791 A.2nd 331, 333 (2002), which permitted school officials to detain and question students without reasonable suspicion, and without providing Miranda warnings. Additionally, the Superior Court cited Cass, which allows for generalized, school-wide searches “so long as they are carried out based upon neutral, clearly articulated guidelines …[and] there must be a state interest at issue.”

The Superior Court also determined the Assistant Principal’s search was a “particularized search” rather than a “generalized school-wide search,” so the Court used the reasonableness standard established by T.L.O supra, and applied in D.E.M. supra and Commonwealth v. J.B., 719 A.2nd 1058, 1060 (Pa.Super. 1998). In the latter case, the Court applied the reasonableness standard to determine that a school official’s individualized search of a student suspected of drug use was proper. In the present case, the Superior Court asserted that the Assistant Principal conducted a “particularized search” of only seven students, that his “individualized suspicion” of these students was legitimate because they were seated next to the opened purses, that a female hall monitor was asked to assist in the search in order to limit the invasion of the girls’ privacy, and that the searches were conducted in a “private area.” Furthermore the Court asserted the Assistant Principal’s intent was to “restore immediate order to a class disrupted by theft.” Thus, the Superior Court concluded the Assistant Principal’s search was reasonable and in accordance with the standards established by T.L.O. supra.

Prepared by Bruce Buckle
ED 670
June 23, 2004