In the Interest of F.B.; Appeal of F.B.; 726 A.2d 361 (Pa. 1999)

Facts of the Case

On October 14,1993, the juvenile student from University High School in Philadelphia was charged with bringing a weapon onto school property. During a school-wide "point of entry" search, the student was found to possess a Swiss army type knife. Searches of all students were "conducted by officers of the Philadelphia Police Department on detail to and under the direction of the Philadelphia Public Schools".(363) The searches consisted of looking into backpacks, coats, etc., having students empty their pockets, and scanning students with a hand-held metal detector. The juvenile argued that the search was performed without reasonable, individualized suspicion. In the Court of Common Pleas, a motion to suppress evidence seized in the search was denied. This motion claimed the search was unconstitutional based on both the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and Article I, Section 8 of the Pennsylvania Constitution. Following appeal, the Pa. Superior Court upheld the lower court's decision. The case was appealed again to the Pa. Supreme Court.

Decision of the Court

On March 2, 1999 the Pa. Supreme Court held that the search was constitutional and affirmed the decision of the Superior Court. The court found that adequate notice of school policy was given to both students and parents by sending letters home and posting signs within the school. Because the search was conducted as a search of all students, no individual finding of reasonable suspicion was necessary to determine the constitutionality of the search.

Based on the Pa. Supreme Court decision in Commonwealth v. Cass, 551 Pa. 25, 709 A.2d 350 (1998) and the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Vernonia School District v. Acton, 515 U.S. 646, 652, 115 S.Ct. 2386, 2390, 132 L.Ed.2d 564, 573 (1995), the court applied the following the following four-part test to determine the reasonableness of the general search:

1. Was there consideration given to the students' privacy interest?
2. What was the nature of the intrusion created by the search?
3. Was notice given?
4. What was the overall purpose to be achieved by the search and what were the immediate reasons prompting the decision to conduct the actual search?

Basis for the Decision

The Pa. Supreme Court determined the search was constitutional under the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and Article I, Section 8 of the Pennsylvania Constitution. The decision was based primarily on a similar challenge to a search aimed at the entire student body. In Commonwealth v. Cass, 551 Pa. 25, 709 A.2d 350 (1998), the court recognized that general searches within the school environment do not offend the Fourth Amendment where the search meets the reasonableness test as set forth in Vernonia School District v. Acton, 515 U.S. 646, 652, 115 S.Ct. 2386, 2390, 132 L.Ed.2d 564, 573 (1995).

Abstract prepared by Bryan James and Thomas Leeser, June 30, 1999.