So. Md. Police Beat / KID SHARED POT-LACED FOOD WITH PALS AT SPRING RIDGE MIDDLE SCHOOL
WILL KIDS WHOSE PARENTS ARE JUNKIES BE BRINGING HEROIN LACED WITH FENTANYL TO SCHOOL NEXT?
SPRING RIDGE, MD. — Does your child have a friend who shares brownies, cookies or cake at school? St. Mary’s Sheriff Tim Cameron reports that a student at Spring Ridge Middle School was sharing pot-laced food with his friends – and one can bet it wasn’t carrots or celery.
… student at Spring Ridge Middle School was sharing pot-laced food with his friends
Police say that on January 2, 2017, school staff at the Spring Ridge Middle School located at 19856 Three Notch Rd., in Spring Ridge, south of the Patuxent River Naval Air Warfare Center at Lexington Park, were alerted to a child not feeling well after ingesting food they brought from home.
It was later determined the child had shared the food with four friends during the morning and several children were also not feeling well.
School authorities immediately notified the School Resource Officer (SRO) from the St. Mary’s County Sheriff’s Office and EMS personnel were called to treat the children.
The children were transported to MedStar St. Mary’s Hospital for treatment and evaluation. An investigation by the SRO and St. Mary’s County Vice/Narcotics Detectives revealed the edible food items may have contained THC/CBG which is derived from marijuana plants.
St. Mary’s County Sheriff’s Office Vice/Narcotics Detectives, Child Protective Services and school officials are continuing the investigation. All children have been treated and released to their guardians.
RIGHT OF SCHOOLS TO SEARCH BACKPACKS FOR DRUGS AND WEAPONS UPHELD BY COURTS
From Justia US Law
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Public Schools.—In New Jersey v. T. L. O.,349 the Court set forth the principles governing searches by public school authorities. The Fourth Amendment applies to searches conducted by public school officials because “school officials act as representatives of the State, not merely as surrogates for the parents.”350 However, “the school setting requires some easing of the restrictions to which searches by public authorities are ordinarily subject.”351 Neither the warrant requirement nor the probable cause standard is appropriate, the Court ruled. Instead, a simple reasonableness standard governs all searches of students’ persons and effects by school authorities.352 A search must be reasonable at its inception, i. e., there must be “reasonable grounds for suspecting that the search will turn up evidence that the student has violated or is violating either the law or the rules of the school.”353 School searches must also be reasonably related in scope to the circumstances justifying the interference, and “not excessively intrusive in light of the age and sex of the student and the nature of the infraction.”354 In applying these rules, the Court upheld as reasonable the search of a student’s purse to determine whether the student, accused of violating a school rule by smoking in the lavatory, possessed cigarettes. The search for cigarettes uncovered evidence of drug activity held admissible in a prosecution under the juvenile laws.
In Safford Unified School District #1 v. Redding,355 a student found in possession of prescription ibuprofen pills at school stated that the pills had come from another student, 13-year-old Savana Redding. The Court found that the first student’s statement was sufficiently plausible to warrant suspicion that Savana was involved in pill distribution, and that this suspicion was enough to justify a search of Savana’s backpack and outer clothing.356 School officials, however, had also “directed Savana to remove her clothes down to her underwear, and then ‘pull out’ her bra and the elastic band on her underpants”357 —an action that the Court thought could fairly be labeled a strip search. Taking into account that “adolescent vulnerability intensifies the patent intrusiveness of the exposure” and that, according to a study, a strip search can “result in serious emotional damage,” the Court found that the search violated the Fourth Amendment.358 “Because there were no reasons to suspect the drugs presented a danger or were concealed in her underwear,” the Court wrote, “the content of the suspicion failed to match the degree of intrusion.”359 But, even though the Court found that the search had violated the Fourth Amendment, it found that the school officials who conducted the search were protected from liability through qualified immunity, because the law prior to Redding was not clearly established.360
349 469 U.S. 325 (1985).
350 469 U.S. at 336.
351 469 U.S. at 340.
352 This single rule, the Court explained, will permit school authorities “to regulate their conduct according to the dictates of reason and common sense.” 469 U.S. at 343. Rejecting the suggestion of dissenting Justice Stevens, the Court was “unwilling to adopt a standard under which the legality of a search is dependent upon a judge’s evaluation of the relative importance of various school rules.” Id. at n.9.
353 469 U.S. at 342. The Court has further elaborated that this “reasonable suspicion” standard is met if there is a “moderate chance” of finding evidence of wrongdoing. Safford Unified School District #1 v. Redding, 557 U.S. ___, No. 08–479, slip op. at 5 (2009).
354 469 U.S. at 342.
355 557 U.S. ___, No. 08–479 (2009).
356 557 U.S. ___, No. 08–479, slip op. at 7.
357 557 U.S. ___, No. 08–479, slip op. at 8.
358 557 U.S. ___, No. 08–479, slip op. at 8.
359 557 U.S. ___, No. 08–479, slip op. at 1, 9. Justice Thomas dissented from the finding of a Fourth Amendment violation.
360 See “Alternatives to the Exclusionary Rule,” infra. Justices Stevens and Ginsburg dissented from the grant of qualified immunity.