In Interest of Dumas

515 A.2d 984, 357 Pa. Super. 294, 1986 Pa. Super. LEXIS 12540

• Court: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
• Decided: October 3, 1986
• Docket: 01224
• Status: Published

Opinions

MONTGOMERY, Judge:

This is an appeal by the Commonwealth from an order suppressing evidence seized from the school locker used by Guy Dumas. We affirm.

The facts, as found by the court below, reveal that Guy Dumas, a student at Academy High School, was observed getting a pack of cigarettes from his school locker and giving one of the cigarettes to another student. The teacher who observed this immediately notified the assistant principal, Mr. Grode. Mr. Grode approached the students, took the cigarette from the other student and took a pack of cigarettes from the person of Guy Dumas. Mr. Grode then searched the locker. Inside a jacket he found another pack of cigarettes which contained some marijuana. Although Mr. Grode testified that he suspected Guy of being involved with drugs, he was unable to state any basis for this suspicion. Mr. Grode further stated that it was because of this suspicion that he decided to search the locker.

A delinquency petition charging Guy with possession of a controlled substance was filed in juvenile court. The Master recommended that Guy’s motion to suppress the marijuana be denied. Exceptions were filed and the Honorable Fred P. Anthony granted the motion. The Commonwealth appealed.

The issue is whether evidence seized from a school locker during a search by a school official is admissible in a delinquency proceeding. This precise issue has not been decided by a Pennsylvania appellate court.

The United States Supreme Court has determined that the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures does apply to searches conducted by public school officials. New Jersey v. T.L.O., 469 U.S. 325, 105 S.Ct. 733, 83 L.Ed.2d 720 (1985).¹ T.L.O. involved the search of a student’s purse, which uncovered marijuana, a pipe, and a variety of other materials which implicated the juvenile in marijuana dealing. To determine whether the search was reasonable, the Supreme Court balanced the student’s legitimate expectations of privacy against the school’s need to maintain order. The Court specifically declined to express any opinion on whether a student has a legitimate expectation of privacy in a school locker. Id. at 337, n. 5, 105 S.Ct. at 741, n. 5, 83 L.Ed.2d at 732, n. 5.

Much of the Court’s discussion of the privacy factor, however, would apply equally to one’s expectation of privacy in a locker.

... Students at a minimum must bring to school not only supplies needed for their studies, but also keys, money, and the necessaries of personal hygiene and grooming. In addition, students may carry on their persons or in purses or wallets such nondisruptive yet highly personal items as photographs, letters, and diaries. Finally, students may have perfectly legitimate reasons to carry with them articles of property needed in connection with extracurricular or recreational activities.

Id. at 339, 105 S.Ct. at 742, 83 L.Ed.2d at 733.

These are the types of items which students store in lockers and for which lockers are provided. We are unable to conclude that a student would have an expectation of privacy in a purse or jacket which the student takes to school but would lose that expectation of privacy merely by placing the purse or jacket in school locker provided to the student for storage of personal items. In an analogous situation, this court found a legitimate expectation of privacy in a locker used by an employee at his work place. Commonwealth v. Gabrielle, 269 Pa.Super. 338, 409 A.2d 1173 (1979). We hold therefore, that a student does have a legitimate expectation of privacy in his/her school locker.

This is not to say that the student’s expectation of privacy is absolute. It must be balanced against the school’s need to maintain order and discipline. New Jersey v. T.L.O., supra. Under the facts of this case, we see no need to deviate from the “reasonableness” standard set forth in T.L.O. That standard asks, first, whether the search was justified at its inception and, second, whether the search as actually conducted was reasonably related in scope to the circumstances which justified the interference in the first place. The court below found that Mr. Grode did have reasonable grounds for believing that the initial search of Guy would provide evidence that Guy had violated school rules by possessing cigarettes. However, once he had seized the pack of cigarettes from Guy’s hands, the court found that it was not reasonable to suspect that there would be more cigarettes in his locker. We agree. Further, although Mr. Grode suspected Guy of being involved with marijuana he was unable to articulate any reasons for this suspicion. The mere fact that Guy possessed cigarettes does not lead to the conclusion that he would also possess marijuana. As noted by Judge Anthony, “it seems that catching the juvenile with cigarettes formed a pretext for a search for drugs.” (Slip Op. at 9). We therefore affirm the order suppressing the marijuana.

Order affirmed.

TAMILIA and KELLY, JJ., join in Opinion. KELLY, J., files a Concurring Opinion in which TAMILIA, J., joins.

1 . Two of the Commonwealth’s arguments for reversal—that the search was conducted by a private person and that school officials act in loco parentis rather than as state officers—were specifically reiected by the Court in T.L.O.