Search+and+seizure

2. Factors such as the need for the serach, the student's age, history, and record of behavior, the gravity of the problem, and the need for and immediate search should be considered by initiating a search. 3. A school search should be based on reasonable grounds--that is, believing that something contrary to school rules or significantly detrimental to the school be independent of law enforcement officials. 4. The information leading to school searches should be indepenedent of law enforcement officials. Searches involving law enforcement officials must be accompanied by probable cause and a search warrant. 5. Althought the primary purpose for the search should be to secure evidence of student misconduct for school disciplinary purposes, it may be contemplated under certain circumstances that criminal evidence may be made available to law enforcement officials. 6. Strip searches should be avoided exceptwhere imminent danger exists. Such seraches can be justified only in cases of extreme emergency where there is an immediate threat to the health and safety of students and school personnel. In such cases, school authorities should be certain that their actions are fully justified and that they have convincin information to support this more intrusive search. 7. School personnel should conduct the serach in a private setting. At best, a serach is a demoralizing experience; care should be taken to minimize embarrassment to the student as much as possible. 8. the magnitude of the offense, the extent of the intrusiveness, the nature of the evidence, and the background of the student involved should be considered before a serach is initiated. 9. A pat-down serch of a student, if justified, should be conducted by a school official of the same sex and with an adult witness of the same sex present, if possible. Personal seraches conducted by persons of the opposite sex can be very risky. 10. Arbitrary seraches of mass shakedowns cannot be justified as reasonable and are illegal. 11. The use of canines should be avoided unless sufficient evidence justifies the need to employ these methods. Serious incidents that pose an imminent threat to students' safety should form the basis for such action.
 * 7330 SEARCHES AND INTERROGATIONS OF STUDENTS.**
 * Administrative Guide to Search and Interrogations of Students**
 * 1.** A student's freedom from unreasonable serach should be carefully balanced against the need for school officials to maintain order, maintain discipline, and protect the health, safety, and welfare of all students.

Yes. The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits government officials from conducting unreasonable searches and seizures (U.S. Const. Amend. IV). The United States Supreme Court has determined that the prohibition extends to searches by public school officials, including teachers and administrators ( New Jersey v. T.L.O., 469 U.S. 325 (1985)).
 * 22:24. Does the Fourth Amendment impose limitations on the ability of public school officials to search students and their belongings?**

However, the Fourth Amendment rights of students in a public school setting and related school-sponsored activities are not as extensive as elsewhere ( New Jersey v. T.L.O.; see also Vernonia Sch. Dist. 47J v. Acton, 515 U.S. 646 (1995); Rhodes v. Guarricino , 54 F.Supp.2d 186 (S.D.N.Y. (1999)). Generally, a search will violate the Fourth Amendment unless it is based on probable cause to believe that a violation of law has occurred, and conducted pursuant to a warrant. But the legality of a search by school officials is determined by balancing a school's need to search against a student's legitimate expectation of privacy, and whether the search is reasonable under all circumstances ( Id .; see 22:25 ). School officials may conduct searches in the presence of witnesses. Such a practice provides corroboration of the findings, and prevents or counteracts false claims of illegal items having been planted ( People v. Scott D. , 34 N.Y.2d 483 (1974)).

In most cases, a search by public school officials will be valid if it passes two questions, commonly referred to as the reasonable suspicion standard. First, was the search justified at its inception. Second, was the scope of the search, as actually conducted, reasonably related to the circumstances which justified it ( New Jersey v. T.L.O., 469 U.S. 325 (1985)).
 * 22:25. What makes valid a search by public school officials of students** **and their belongings?**

A school search will be justified at its inception if the school officials had reasonable grounds to suspect it would turn up evidence that a student had violated or was violating law or school rules ( Id .) Under New York cases, the suspicion must be unequivocal, and the information that supports the suspicion must be reliable and precise ( People v. Scott D., 34 N.Y.2d 483 (1974); People v. Singletary , 37 N.Y.2d 310 (1975)).

The scope of a school search will be permissible if the measures used were related to the objectives of the search, and not excessively intrusive in light of the age and sex of the student, and the nature of the infraction ( New Jersey v. T.L.O. ). Thus, its reasonableness may depend, for example, on the area searched in relation to the area where one could reasonably expect to find evidence of a violation of law or school rule; the time and place of the search in relation to when and where the alleged violation occurred; the duration of the search; and the intrusiveness of the search.

In cases involving a high degree of intrusiveness, such as the strip search of students, the United States Supreme Court has stated school officials must have a reasonable suspicion of danger or a reasonable suspicion that the student has hidden evidence beneath his or her underwear. There is a quantum difference between circumstances that justify the search of a student's backpack or outer clothing and those that warrant exposure of a student's private parts ( Safford Unified Sch. Dist. v. Redding, 129 S.Ct. 2633 (2009)). Prior to the Supreme Court's ruling in Safford Unified Sch. Dist., the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, with jurisdiction over New York, had determined that the reasonable suspicion standard requires a high level of suspicion to justify such a search at its inception ( Phaneuf v. Fraikin , 448 F.3d 591 (2d Cir. 2006)). According to one New York federal district court searching a student's shoes, socks and sweatshirt, and the exposure of his ankles and waistband did not constitute a strip search where the student was not asked to remove his shirt or pants ( Vasallo v. Lando, 591 F.Supp. 2d 172 (E.D.N.Y. 2008)).

There is no clear standard for assessing the validity of searches conducted by school officials in conjunction with or at the request of police authorities (see New Jersey v. T.L.O., 469 U.S. 325 (1985); Doyle v. Roundout Valley CSD , 3 A.D.3d 669 (3d Dept 2004)). Courts throughout the country have reached different conclusions.
 * 22:26. Do different rules apply when police are involved in a school search?**

One New York State appellate court declined to decide the issue when it dismissed a complaint on other grounds ( Doyle v. Roundout Valley CSD ). Since then, however, one federal district court in New York ruled that the reasonable suspicion standard (see 22:25 ) applied to a search conducted by school officials with police assistance in a case where:
 * School officials made the initial decision to conduct the search and call the police;
 * The police did not use the actions by school officials as a pretext for circumventing probable cause and warrant requirement (see 22:24 ); and
 * The police merely assisted school officials in conducting the search together with and at the direction of the school officials ( Vassallo v. Lando, 591 F.Supp. 2d 172 (E.D.N.Y. 2008)).

Other federal courts outside New York also have applied the reasonable suspicion standard (see 22:25 ) to combined police and school officials searches (see Gray ex rel. Alexander v. Bostic, 458 F.3d 1295 (11th Cir. 2006); Cason v. Cook, 810 F.2d 188 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 482 U.S. 930 (1987); Johnson v. City of Lincoln Park , 434 F.Supp.2d 467 (E.D. Mich. 2006)).

However, at least one court has determined that the probable cause instead of reasonable suspension standard would apply if the search is conducted solely at the behest of police, or police involvement is more than minimal ( M.S. v. Smith, 504 F.Supp.2d 1238 (M.D. Ala. 2007)).

There is no clear standard for assessing the validity of a school search conducted by police authorities with minimal involvement by public school officials. One New York appellate court applied the reasonable suspicion standard in a case where the search was conducted by a school safety officer assigned exclusively to school security ( Matter of Stephen A., 308 A.D.2d 359 (1st Dept 2003); see also Shade v. City of Farmington , 309 F.3d 1054 (8th Cir. 2002)). But other courts outside New York have determined that police officers involved in school searches with minimal school involvement require probable cause ( State v. Tywayne H., 933 P.2d 251 (N.M. 1997); Picha v. Wielgos , 410 F.Supp 1214 (N.D. Ill. 1976); see also M.S. v. Smith ).

Generally, the reasonable suspicion standard applied to school searches under the Fourth Amendment (see 22:25 ) is also appropriate under the New York State Constitution ( In the Matter of Gregory M., 82 N.Y.2d 588 (1993)).
 * 22:27. Does New York provide students more protection than the Fourth Amendment?**

However, New York's Education Law provides greater protection with respect to, for example, drug testing of students. Although the United States Supreme Court has upheld school policies requiring mandatory drug testing of student athletes ( Vernonia Sch. Dist. 47J v. Acton, 515 U.S. 646 (1995)) and middle and high school students participating in extracurricular activities ( Bd. of Educ. of Indep. Sch. Dist. No. 92 of Pottawatomie Cnty. v. Earls , 536 U.S. 822 (2002)), New York's Education Law prohibits such testing without parental consent ( 912-a(2); Appeal of Studley , 38 Ed Dept Rep 258 (1998); see 20:31 ).

A federal district court in New York upheld under the Fourth Amendment the administration of a saliva test by school officials who had reasonable suspicion to believe that a student was under the influence of illegal drugs ( Mac Ineirghe v. Bd. of Educ. of East Islip UFSD, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 61841 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 22, 2007)). However, regarding the student's claim of an illegal violation of New York's Education law requirements, the court determined that the state�s legislative scheme conferred upon the commissioner of education the duty to enforce these provisions ( Id. ).

No. However, the level of suspicion and the scope of the search, as well as the specific school interest furthered by the search, can be relevant to assessing the overall reasonableness of a search ( Vernonia Sch. Dist. v. Acton, 515 U.S. 646 (1995); see also Rhodes v. Guarricino , 54 F.Supp.2d 186 (S.D.N.Y 1999); Matter of Gregory M. , 82 N.Y. 2d 588 (1993)).
 * 22:28. Must public school officials have individualized suspicion of wrongdoing by a particular student before searching the student's person and/or belongings?**

Although individualized suspicion is not required, public school officials cannot conduct random causeless searches ( People v. Scott D., 34 N.Y.2d 483 (1974); see also Doe v. Little Rock Sch. Dist., 380 F.3d 349 (8th Cir. 2004)). Neither can they search students to merely remove materials that may cause distractions in order to " foster a calm focused learning environment" ( Hough v. Shakopee Pub. Schs., 608 F.Supp.2d 1087 (D. Minn. 2009)).

It depends. In New Jersey v. T.L.O., 469 U.S. 325 (1985), where the United States Supreme Court established the reasonable suspicion standard generally applicable to school searches (see 22:25 ), a vice-principal searched a student's purse for cigarettes and found drug evidence based on a teacher's report that she found the student had smoked in a lavatory. Although the student contested the legality of the search, she never challenged the teacher's credibility or the validity of her information.
 * 22:29. May public school officials search students and/or their belongings based on an informant's tip?**

However, in a case pre-dating the T.L.O. decision, New York's Court of Appeals ruled unconstitutional a search based on a teacher's observation of "unusual behavior" by a student who entered a school bathroom twice during the same morning within one hour with another student, both exiting within seconds. There also was evidence that the student had been under observation for possible drug involvement based on information from confidential sources, and had been seen having lunch with another student also under suspicion. But both the bathroom visits and the student's lunch with another student were also susceptible of innocent explanation. In addition, there was no evidence of the informant's conclusion or reliability, who only indicated possible drug dealing ( People v. Scott D., 34 N.Y.2d 483 (1974)).

By comparison, the New York Court of Appeals upheld the validity of a search conducted based on a tip from a student-informant, where the student-informant had furnished information on the sale of narcotics on school premises on five prior occasions, each time leading school officials to the discovery of narcotics. School officials had acted based on concrete, articulable facts, provided by an informant with a proven reliable record ( People v. Singletary, 37 N.Y.2d 310 (1975)).

Both New York cases establish that the reasonableness of a school search based on a informant's tip is predicated upon the proven reliability of the informant and unequivocal informant conclusions. Corroboration factors may help establish an informant's reliability and the validity of the tip provided.

School officials are not required to disclose the identity of an informant to a student subjected to a search ( People v. Singletary ).


 * 22:30. Can public school officials "pat down" students and their belongings?** Yes, if the pat down is the least intrusive, most practical means of furthering a specific school objective and represents a reasonable balance between student privacy rights and school interests in maintaining order. That was the case where school officials patted the outer clothing of students as they arrived at school on Halloween to search for eggs and prevent a repeat of prior egg-throwing incidents. A student challenged the pat down after a gun was found in his waistband during the process ( Matter of Haseen N., 251 A.D.2d 505 (2d Dept 1998))

In a separate case, a court ruled that a less strict justification than reasonable suspicion supported the actions of a school security officer who ran his fingers over the outer surface of a student's book bag, and felt the outline of a gun. The bag made a metallic thud after the student tossed it on a metal shelf on his way to the Dean's office. A subsequent search of the bag revealed a gun. But in applying the graduated reasonableness standard, the court was careful to note the minimal nature of the search, and that it was conducted for school security needs rather than criminal investigative purposes ( In the Matter of Gregory M., 82 N.Y.2d 588 (1993)).

School officials must be careful not to consider the permissibility of the pat downs discussed above as authority to dispense with the reasonable suspicion standard applicable to the search of students actually suspected of violating a law or school rule and their belongings (see 22:25 ).


 * 22:31. Is it permissible to require that students submit to mandatory drug testing?** Not in New York State, unless the student's parent or legal guardian freely consent to such drug testing of his or her child (� 912-a(2); Appeal of Studley, 38 Ed Dept Rep 258 (1998); see also 20:31 ).

Drug testing involves a search under the Fourth Amendment. But the United States Supreme Court has upheld school policies requiring mandatory drug testing in two cases. One involved the testing of student athletes ( Vernonia Sch. Dist. 47J v. Acton, 515 U.S. 646 (1995)). The other, middle and high school students participating in extracurricular activities ( Bd. of Educ. of Indep. Sch. Dist. No. 92 of Potawatomie Cnty. v. Earls, 536 U.S. 822 (2002)). In each case, the court weighed the severity of district concerns over illegal drug use, the limited privacy interest of students in a public school environment, and the relative unobtrusiveness of the process followed to conduct the tests.

However, according to the commissioner of education, New York school districts lack statutory authority to mandate that students submit to suspicionless drug testing, without parental consent. Moreover, since New York law only permits schools to drug test students upon the consent or request of a parent, the refusal of parents to give such consent cannot result in a student being prohibited from participating in sports ( Appeal of Studley ).

Yes, unless they have relinquished control over the lockers assigned to students ( People v. Overton, 20 N.Y.2d 360 (1967), aff�d on reh�g , 24 N.Y.2d 522 (1969); see also Appeal of Chipman , 10 Ed Dept Rep 224 (1971)). Otherwise, students have exclusive possession of their school locker over other students, but not against school authorities ( Id .). School officials have not only a right to inspect student lockers, but also a duty to do so upon suspicion that illegal items are stored there ( People v. Overton ).
 * 22:32. Can public school officials search student lockers?**

Accordingly, it is important that school authorities include in their policies and student handbooks a provision that states that lockers, desks, and other such storage spaces remain the exclusive property of the school, and that students have no expectation of privacy with respect to these areas.

School control of student lockers can be reinforced further by requiring that students give their lock combinations to school officials, and by school retention of a master key for accessing all lockers ( Id .).

School district use of trained narcotics dogs to detect the scent of drugs in public schools is still an open question in New York. But some federal appellate courts outside New York have upheld such use to sniff students' lockers and cars by ruling this type of action does not constitute a search under the Fourth Amendment ( B.C. v. Plumas Unified Sch. Dist., 192 F.3d 1260 (9th Cir. 1999); Horton v. Goose Creek Indep. Sch. Dist., 690 F.2d 470 (5th Cir. 1982), cert. denied, 463 U.S. 1207 (1983); Zamora v. Pomeroy , 639 F.2d 662 (10th Cir. 1981); see also Doran v. Contoocook Valley Sch. Dist., 616 F.Supp.2d 184 (D.N.H. 2009); Hill v. Sharber, 544 F.Supp.2d 670 (M.D.T.N. 2008)).
 * 22:33. Can school districts use trained narcotics dogs to search for drugs in public school buildings?**

However, courts differ on the use of scent dogs to sniff a student's person. At least one court has determined dog sniffing of a student's person does not constitute a "search" under the Fourth Amendment that would otherwise require a suspicion the student possessed drugs ( Doe v. Renfrow, 475 F.Supp. 1012 (D.C. Ind. 1979), affd, 631 F.2d 91 (7th Cir. 1980), cert. denied, 451 U.S. 1022 (1981)). But others have ruled otherwise, and subjected a district's use of scent dogs to sniff a student to the reasonable suspicion requirements applicable to other student searches ( B.C. v. Plumas Unified Sch. Dist. ; Horton v. Goose Creek Indep. Sch. Dist. ).


 * 22:34. Is the use of metal detectors and scanners to detect the presence of weapons in school permissible?** Yes, if students are given notice that scanning devices will be used and procedures are established to control the process. That was the case where a school using metal detectors posted signs outside the school building and informed students at the beginning of the school year such devices would be used. In addition, guidelines established that all students entering the building had to go through the metal detector, but that if the lines became too long, it could be decided to require only every second or third student to go through. In addition, particular students could not be searched unless there was reasonable suspicion the student was in possession of a weapon ( People v. Dukes, 151 Misc.2d 295 (Crim. Ct. N.Y. Cnty. 1992); see also Appeal of Coleman , 35 Ed Dept Rep 529 (1996)).


 * 22:35. Are public school officials prohibited from conducting searches during off-campus school activities?** No. School officials may conduct searches related to a possible violation of law and/or school rules (see 22:24-25 ) both on-campus and during off-campus school activities that are organized at school, and administered completely by school employees, including excursions or trips. The setting of the search is just a factor to consider in assessing the overall reasonableness of the search ( Rhodes v. Guarricino, 54 F.Supp.2d 186 (S.D.N.Y. 1999)).

Thus, it was permissible for a school official who chaperoned a school-sponsored trip to Disney World to search student hotel rooms. Although the students might have had some expectation of privacy in their hotel rooms, the reasonableness of a search by school officials depends on the context within which the search takes place. Prior to the search, the school official had smelled a strong odor of marijuana outside one of the student's room. In addition, the students and their parents had been made aware prior to the trip that room checks would be conducted and that alcohol and drug use was absolutely forbidden during the trip ( Id .).

School officials have the same responsibility as every other citizen to report violations of law. In addition to notifying police, they should take the item(s) away from the student, if possible, and notify the student's parents as well.
 * 22:36. What should school officials do when they discover illegal weapons and other contraband brought by a student to school or a school-sponsored activity?**

Furthermore, school officials should be aware that 13- and 14-year-olds who possess on school grounds a loaded firearm, as defined in the Penal Law, may be criminally prosecuted as adults (Crim. Proc. Law 1.20(42), 190.71(a) and Penal Law 10(18), 30(2), 70.05(2), all as amended by L. 1998, c. 435; Penal Law 220(14)).


 * 22:37. May child welfare agency workers remove a student from school in cases of suspected child abuse?** Not without a court order, or parental notice or consent ( Tenenbaum v. Williams, 193 F.3d 581 (2d Cir. 1999), cert. denied, 529 U.S. 1089 (2000)). The removal of a child from school in a case of suspected child abuse constitutes a "seizure" that generally is subject to the warrant and probable cause requirements of the Fourth Amendment.

An exception to the court order or parental consent requirement would exist if the information available warrants belief that a child is subject to the danger of abuse if not removed from school before court authorization can reasonably be obtained ( Id. ).

According to a 1959 Opinion of Counsel for the State Education Department, police officers may enter a school to remove a student only in the following circumstances. First, if they have a warrant for the arrest of the student, or other court order authorizing the student's removal. Second, if a crime has been committed on school premises (Opinion of Counsel, 1 Ed Dept Rep 800 (1959)).
 * 22:38. May police enter a school to remove or interrogate a student?**

Police may not remove students from school for questioning without parental consent. Neither may police interrogate students on school premises without parental permission, unless a crime has been committed on school premises. School officials are not authorized to provide the required consent. In every instance, they should immediately contact the student's parents or guardian and try to arrange for their presence if at all possible, or obtain their consent ( Id ).

More recently, however, a state appellate court upheld the refusal of a lower court to suppress statements made by a student charged with criminal sexual conduct when questioned by State Police on school grounds ( Matter of Christopher QQ, 40 A.D.3d 1183 (3d Dep't 2007)). The student argued in a juvenile delinquent proceeding that the statements needed to be suppressed because his parents were not present at the time of questioning. The court rejected the student's argument based on Family Court Act provisions that allow police to take custody of a child without parental notification if the child is 16 years or older ( Id. ). Other courts addressing the issue may decide differently. See also 22:39.


 * 22:39. Must public school officials give students Miranda warnings before questioning them?** Generally, public school officials have no obligation to give students Miranda -type warnings prior to questioning them while investigating school-related misconduct or a breach of school security ( Pollnow v. Glennon, 594 F.Supp. 220 (S.D.N.Y. 1984), aff'd, 757 F.2d 496 (2d Cir. 1985); In re Daquan M., 64 A.D.3d 713 (2d Dep't 2009); People v. Butler, 188 Misc.2d 48 (Sup. Ct. Kings Cnty. 2001); In the Matter of Brendan H. , 82 Misc.2d 1077 (N.Y. Fam. Ct. 1975)). But court decisions suggest there would be such an obligation if school officials act in concert with or as agents of the police when questioning one of their students ( In the Matter of Brendan H. ; People v. Manley , 26 A.D.3d 755 (4th Dep't 2006); In re Angel S. , 302 A.D.2d 303 (1st Dep't 2003); see also S.E. v. Grant Cnty. Bd. of Educ. , 544 F.3d 633 (6th Cir. 2008), cert. denied, 129 S.Ct. 2075 (2009)). That would be the case if police instigate or direct the interrogation, or give input or instructions to school officials questioning a student ( In re Angel S. ; People v. Butler ).

However, the mere presence of police officers during the questioning does not require Miranda warnings ( In re Angel S. ). That the school discipline matter school officials question a student on would carry criminal sanctions does not require Miranda warnings either ( People v. Butler ). The same would not be true if police instigate the questioning or the school officials' interview of the student was conducted in furtherance of a police objective ( In re Tateana R., 64 A.D.3d 459 (1st Dep't 2009)).

Similarly, when students enjoy Miranda rights pursuant to a school district's code of conduct, school officials would not violate those rights when questioning and searching a student in the presence of a school resource officer as part of a routine school discipline procedure, rather than as part of a formal police investigation or interrogation by police officials entering school property for that purpose ( Appeal of a Student with a Disability, 48 Ed Dept Rep 98 (2008)). That would be the case where there is no evidence that school officials were acting under the direction, or eliciting evidence of criminality on behalf, of the police ( Id. ).

Statements obtained from a student during the course of a school-related misconduct investigation may be used as evidence for disciplinary purposes ( Appeal of M.F. & P.F., 43 Ed Dept Rep 174 (2003)). Communications between students and school personnel, including a student's admission of misconduct, are not protected by privilege ( Appeal of M.S., 44 Ed Dept Rep 478 (2005); Appeal of Bd. of Educ. of the City Sch. Dist. of the City of New York , 31 Ed Dept Rep 378 (1992)).

No. Neither the Education Law nor the federal constitution require school officials to contact the parents of a student before questioning that student concerning an alleged infraction of a school rule ( Appeal of D.H., 47 Ed Dept Rep 77 (2007); Appeal of M.F. & P.F., 43 Ed Dept Rep 174 (2003); Appeal of Lago, 38 Ed Dept Rep 723 (1999); Appeal of Pronti , 31 Ed Dept Rep 259 (1992)).
 * 22:40. Are parents entitled to prior notice before school officials question their children on a disciplinary matter?**

Students are protected by the Constitution from unreasonable searches and seizures. A student may be searched and contraband/prohibited items seized on school grounds or in a school building by an authorized School District official (as designated below) only when the School District official has reasonable suspicion to believe the student has engaged in or is engaging in proscribed activity which is in violation of the law and/or the rules of the school (i.e., the District Code of Conduct).
 * Amherst CSD**
 * STUDENT CONDUCT**

Factors to be considered in determining whether reasonable suspicion exists to search a student include: a) The age of the student; b) The student's school record and past history; c) The predominance and seriousness of the problem in the school where the search is directed; d) The probative value and reliability of the information used as a justification for the search; e) The school official's prior knowledge of and experience with the student; and f) The urgency to conduct the search without delay.

The Superintendent, Building Principals, Assistant Principals, and School Nurse are authorized to conduct searches of students and their belongings if the authorized school official has reasonable suspicion to believe that the search will produce evidence that the student has violated or is violating the law and/or the Code of Conduct.

If reasonable suspicion exists to believe that a student has violated or is violating the law and/or school rules, it is permissible for an authorized school official to search that student's outer clothing, pockets, or property. The search may include, but is not limited to, the student's outer clothing such as a jacket or coat, pockets, backpack, and/or purse. Searches will be conducted by a staff member of the same sex as the student. Whenever possible, another staff member, also of the same sex, will be present as a witness.

A strip search is a search that requires a student to remove any or all of his or her clothing, other than an outer coat or jacket.Strip searches are intrusive in nature and are not permissible. If school authorities believe there is an emergency situation that could threaten the safety of others, the student shall, to the extent practicable, be isolated and secured. Police and parents will be contacted immediately.
 * Strip Searches**

Student desks, lockers, textbooks, computers, and other materials, supplies or storage spaces loaned by the school to students remain the property of the school, and may be opened and inspected by school employees at any time. Students have no reasonable expectation of privacy with respect to school property; and school officials retain complete control over such property. This means that student desks, lockers, textbooks, computers, and other materials, supplies or storage spaces may be subject to search and/or seizure of contraband/prohibited items at any time by school officials, without prior notice to students and without their consent.
 * Searches and Seizure of School Property**

School officials have the right to question students regarding any violations of school rules and/or illegal activity. In general, administration may conduct investigations concerning reports of misconduct which may include, but are not limited to, questioning students, staff, parents/guardians, or other individuals as may be appropriate and, when necessary, determining disciplinary action in accordance with applicable due process rights.
 * Questioning of Students by School Officials**

Should the questioning of students by school officials focus on the actions of one particular student, the student will be questioned, if possible, in private by the appropriate school administrator. The student's parent/guardian may be contacted; the degree, if any, of parental/guardian involvement will vary depending upon the nature and the reason for questioning, and the necessity for further action which may occur as a result.

The questioning of students by school officials does not preclude subsequent questioning/interrogations by police authorities as otherwise permitted by law. Similarly, the questioning of students by school officials does not negate the right/responsibility of school officials to contact appropriate law enforcement agencies, as may be necessary, with regard to such statements given by students to school officials.

School officials acting alone and on their own authority, without the involvement of or on behalf of law enforcement officials (at least until after the questioning of students by school authorities has been conducted) are not required to give the so-called "Miranda warnings" (i.e., advising a person, prior to any custodial interrogations as defined in law, of the right to remain silent; that any statement made by the individual may be used as evidence against him/her; and that the individual has the right to the presence of an attorney, either retained or appointed) prior to the questioning of students.

If deemed appropriate and/or necessary, the Superintendent/designee may also review the circumstances with School District legal counsel so as to address concerns and the course of action, if any, which may pertain to and/or result from the questioning of students by school officials.

It shall be the policy of the School District that a cooperative effort shall be maintained between the school administration and law enforcement agencies. Law enforcement officials may be summoned in order to conduct an investigation of alleged criminal conduct on school premises or during a school-sponsored activity, or to maintain the educational environment. They may also be summoned for the purpose of maintaining or restoring order when the presence of such officers is necessary to prevent injury to persons or property. Administrators have the responsibility and the authority to determine when the assistance of law enforcement officers is necessary within their respective jurisdictions.
 * Law Enforcement Officials**

If police are involved in the questioning of students on school premises, whether or not at the request of school authorities, it will be in accordance with applicable law and due process rights afforded students. Generally, police authorities may only interview students on school premises without the permission of the parent/guardian in situations where a warrant has been issued for the student's arrest (or removal). Police authorities may also question students for general investigations or general questions regarding crimes committed on school property. In all other situations, unless an immediate health or safety risk exists, if the police wish to speak to a student without a warrant they should take the matter up directly with the student's parent/guardian.
 * Interrogation of Students by Law Enforcement Officials**

Whenever police wish to question a student on school premises, administration will attempt to notify the student's parent/guardian. If possible, questioning of a student by police should take place in private and in the presence of the Building Principal/designee.


 * Hornell CSD**
 * XII. STUDENT SEARCHES AND INTERROGATIONS**

The Board of Education is committed to ensuring an atmosphere on school property and at school functions that is safe and orderly. To achieve this kind of environment, any school official authorized to impose a disciplinary penalty on a student may question a student about an alleged violation of law or the district code of conduct. Students are not entitled to any sort of “Miranda” type warning before being questioned by school officials, nor are school officials required to contact a student’s parent before questioning the student. However, school officials will tell all students why they are being questioned.

In addition, the Board authorizes the superintendent, building administration and the school nurse to conduct searches of students and their belongings if the authorized school official has reasonable suspicion to believe that the search will result in evidence that the student violated the law or the district code of conduct.

An authorized school official may conduct a search of a student’s belongings that is minimally intrusive, such as touching the outside of a book bag, without reasonable suspicion, so long as the school official has a legitimate reason for the very limited search. An authorized school official may search a student or the student’s belongings based upon information received from a reliable informant. Individuals, other than the district employees, will be considered reliable informants if they have previously supplied information that was accurate and verified, or they make an admission against their own interest, or they provide the same information that is received independently from other sources, or they appear to be credible and the information they are communicating relates to an immediate threat to safety. District employees will be considered reliable informants unless they are known to have previously supplied information that they knew was not accurate.

Before searching a student or the student’s belongings, the authorized school official should attempt to get the student to admit that he or she possesses physical evidence that they violated the law or the district code, or get the student to voluntarily consent to the search. Searches will be limited to the extent necessary to locate the evidence sought. Whenever practicable, searches will be conducted in the privacy of administrative offices and students will be present when their possessions are being searched.

The rules in this code of conduct regarding searches of students and their belongings do not apply to student lockers, desks and other school storage places. Students have no reasonable expectation of privacy with respect to these places and school officials retain complete control over them. This means that student lockers, desks and other school storage places may be subject to search at any time by school officials, without prior notice to students and without their consent.
 * A. Student lockers, Desks and other School Storage Places**

A strip search is a search that requires a student to remove any or all of his or her clothing, other than an outer coat or jacket. If any authorized school official believes it is necessary to conduct a strip search of a student, the school official may do so only if the search is authorized in advance by the superintendent or the school attorney. The only exception to this rule requiring advanced authorization is when the school official believes there is an emergency situation that could threaten the safety of the student or others.
 * B. Strip Searches**

Strip searches may only be conducted by an authorized school official of the same sex as the student being searched and in the presence of another district professional employee who is also of the same sex as the student.

In every case, the school official conducting a strip search must have probable cause- not simply reasonable cause- to believe the student is concealing evidence of a violation of law or the district code. In addition, before conducting a strip search, the school official must consider the nature of the alleged violation, the student’s age, the student’s record and the need for such a search. School officials will attempt to notify the student’s parent by telephone before conducting a strip search, or in writing after the fact if the parent could not be reached by telephone.

The authorized official conducting the search shall be responsible for promptly recording the following information about each search: 1. Name, age and grade of student searched. 2. Reasons for the search. 3. Name of any informant(s). 4. Purpose of search (that is, what item(s) were being sought). 5. Type and scope of search. 6. Person conducting search and his or her title and position. 7. Witnesses, if any, to the search. 8. Time and location of search. 9. Results of search (that is, what item(s) were found). 10. Disposition of items found. 11. Time, manner and results of parental notification.
 * C. Documentation of Searches**

The building principal or the principal’s designee shall be responsible for the custody, control and disposition of any illegal or dangerous item taken from a student. The principal or designee shall clearly label each item taken from the student and retain control of the item(s), until the item(s) is turned over to the police. The principal or his or her designee shall be responsible for personally delivering dangerous or illegal items to police authorities.

District officials are committed to cooperating with police officials and other law enforcement authorities to maintain a safe school environment. Police officials, however, have limited authority to interview or search students in schools or at school functions, or to use school facilities in connection with police work. Police officials may enter school property or a school function to question or search a student or to conduct a formal investigation involving students only if they have:
 * D. Police Involvement in Searches and Interrogations of Students**

•A search or an arrest warrant: or •Probable cause to believe a crime has been committed on school property or at a school function; or •Been invited by school officials.

Before police officials are permitted to question or search any student, the building principal or his or her designee shall first try to notify the student’s parent to give the parent the opportunity to be present during the police questioning or search. If the student’s parent cannot be contacted prior to the police questioning or search, the questioning or search shall not be conducted. The principal or designee will also be present during any police questioning or search of a student on school property or at a school function.

Students who are questioned by police officials on school property or at a school function will be afforded the same rights they have outside the school. This means: They must be informed of their legal rights. They may remain silent if they so desire. They may request the presence of an attorney.

Students are protected by the Constitution from unreasonable searches and seizures. A student may be searched and contraband/prohibited items seized on school grounds or in a school building by an authorized School District official (as designated below) only when the School District official has reasonable suspicion to believe the student has engaged in or is engaging in proscribed activity which is in violation of the law and/or the rules of the school (i.e., the District Code of Conduct).
 * Southwestern CSD**
 * SUBJECT: SEARCHES AND INTERROGATIONS OF STUDENTS**

Factors to be considered in determining whether reasonable suspicion exists to search a student include: a) The age of the student; b) The student's school record and past history; c) The predominance and seriousness of the problem in the school where the search is directed; d) The probative value and reliability of the information used as a justification for the search; e) The school official’s prior knowledge of and experience with the student; and f) The urgency to conduct the search without delay.

The Superintendent, Building Principals, Assistant Principals, and School Nurse are authorized to conduct searches of students and their belongings if the authorized school official has reasonable suspicion to believe that the search will produce evidence that the student has violated or is violating the law and/or the Code of Conduct.

If reasonable suspicion exists to believe that a student has violated or is violating the law and/or school rules, it is permissible for an authorized school official to search that student’s outer clothing, pockets, or property. The search may include, but is not limited to, the student’s outer clothing such as a jacket or coat, pockets, backpack, and/or purse. Searches will be conducted by a staff member of the same sex as the student. Whenever possible, another staff member, also of the same sex, will be present as a witness.

A strip search is a search that requires a student to remove any or all of his or her clothing, other than an outer coat or jacket. Strip searches are intrusive in nature and are not permissible. If school authorities believe there is an emergency situation that could threaten the safety of others, the student shall, to the extent practicable, be Isolated and secured. Police and parents will be contacted immediately.
 * Strip Searches**

Student desks, lockers, textbooks, computers, and other materials, supplies or storage spaces loaned by the school to students remain the property of the school, and may be opened and inspected by school employees at any time. Students have no reasonable expectation of privacy with respect to school property; and school officials retain complete control over such property. This means that student desks, lockers, textbooks, computers, and other materials, supplies or storage spaces may be subject to search and/or seizure of contraband/prohibited items at any time by school officials, without prior notice to students and without their consent.
 * Searches and Seizure of School Property**

School officials have the right to question students regarding any violations of school rules and/or illegal activity. In general, administration may conduct investigations concerning reports of misconduct which may include, but are not limited to, questioning students, staff, parents/guardians, or other individuals as may be appropriate and, when necessary, determining disciplinary action in accordance with applicable due process rights.
 * Questioning of Students by School Officials**

Should the questioning of students by school officials focus on the actions of one particular student, the student will be questioned, if possible, in private by the appropriate school administrator. The student's parent/guardian may be contacted; the degree, if any, of parental/guardian involvement will vary depending upon the nature and the reason for questioning, and the necessity for further action which may occur as a result. The questioning of students by school officials does not preclude subsequent questioning/interrogations by police authorities as otherwise permitted by law. Similarly, the questioning of students by school officials does not negate the right/responsibility of school officials to contact appropriate law enforcement agencies, as may be necessary, with regard to such statements given by students to school officials.

School officials acting alone and on their own authority, without the involvement of or on behalf of law enforcement officials (at least until after the questioning of students by school authorities has been conducted) are not required to give the so-called "Miranda warnings" (i.e. advising a person, prior to any custodial interrogations as defined in law, of the right to remain silent; that any statement made by the individual may be used as evidence against him/her; and that the individual has the right to the presence of an attorney, either retained or appointed) prior to the questioning of students.

If deemed appropriate and/or necessary, the Superintendent/designee may also review the circumstances with School District legal counsel so as to address concerns and the course of action, if any, which may pertain to and/or result from the questioning of students by school officials.

It shall be the policy of the School District that a cooperative effort shall be maintained between the school administration and law enforcement agencies. Law enforcement officials may be summoned in order to conduct an investigation of alleged criminal conduct on school premises or during a school-sponsored activity, or to maintain the educational environment. They may also be summoned for the purpose of maintaining or restoring order when the presence of such officers is necessary to prevent injury to persons or property. Administrators have the responsibility and the authority to determine when the assistance of law enforcement officers is necessary within their respective jurisdictions.
 * Law Enforcement Officials**

If police are involved in the questioning of students on school premises, whether or not at the request of school authorities, it will be in accordance with applicable law and due process rights afforded students. Generally, police authorities may only interview students on school premises without the permission of the parent/guardian in situations where a warrant has been issued for the student's arrest (or removal). Police authorities may also question students for general investigations, or general questions regarding crimes committed on school property. In all other situations, unless an immediate health or safety risk exists, if the police wish to speak to a student without a warrant they should take the matter up directly with the student's parent/guardian. Whenever police wish to question a student on school premises, administration will attempt to notify the student's parent/guardian. If possible, questioning of a student by police should take place in private and in the presence of the Building Principal/designee.
 * Interrogation of Students by Law Enforcement Officials**

From time to time, Child Protective Services may desire to conduct interviews of students on school property. Such interviews generally pertain to allegations of suspected child abuse and/or neglect. The Board encourages cooperation with Child Protective Services in accordance with applicable Social Services Law.
 * Child Protective Services' Investigations**