In the Interest of C.C-S.

• Court: Colorado Court of Appeals
• Decided: October 21, 2021
• Docket: 19CA0913
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

SUMMARY

October 21, 2021

2021COA127

No. 19CA0913, In the Interest of C.C-S. — Juvenile Court —

Delinquency; Constitutional Law — Fourth Amendment —

Searches and Seizures — Exclusionary Rule; Department of Law

— Safe2tell Act

A division of the court of appeals concludes that under the

reasonableness standard adopted by the supreme court in People in

Interest of P.E.A., 754 P.2d 382, 387 (Colo. 1988), a search and

seizure of a student by school officials based on an anonymous tip

received through Colorado’s Safe2Tell hotline did not satisfy the

Fourth Amendment. The division determines that the school

officials improperly relied on information that was anonymous,

stale, and uncorroborated, and did not provide reasonable

suspicion that the juvenile had violated the law.

The division also holds that the exclusionary rule applies to

searches of students by school officials. Accordingly, applying the

The summaries of the Colorado Court of Appeals published opinions

constitute no part of the opinion of the division but have been prepared by

the division for the convenience of the reader. The summaries may not be

cited or relied upon as they are not the official language of the division.

Any discrepancy between the language in the summary and in the opinion

should be resolved in favor of the language in the opinion.

exclusionary rule under the circumstances presented here, the

division reverses the trial court’s adjudication of delinquency and

remands the case for a new trial.

COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS 2021COA127

Court of Appeals No. 19CA0913

City and County of Denver Juvenile Court No. 18JD736

Honorable Donna J. Schmalberger, Judge

The People of the State of Colorado,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

In the Interest of C.C-S.,

Juvenile-Appellant.

JUDGMENT REVERSED AND CASE

REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS

Division I

Opinion by JUDGE TAUBMAN*

Dailey and Johnson, JJ., concur

Announced October 21, 2021

Philip J. Weiser, Attorney General, Grant R. Fevurly, Assistant Attorney

General, Denver, Colorado, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Matthew A. Hardy, Alternate Defense Counsel, Denver, Colorado, for Juvenile-

Appellant

*Sitting by assignment of the Chief Justice under provisions of Colo. Const. art.

VI, § 5(3), and § 24-51-1105, C.R.S. 2020.

1

¶ 1

Defendant C.C-S., a juvenile, appeals the trial court’s

judgment adjudicating him delinquent based on findings that he

possessed marijuana illegally as an underage person, see § 18-13-

122(3)(b), C.R.S. 2020, and illegally possessed marijuana with

intent to distribute, see § 18-18-406(2)(b), C.R.S. 2020. C.C-S.

contends that the trial court erred by denying his motion to

suppress the marijuana and paraphernalia, the only evidence

supporting the court’s adjudication, because they were discovered

in the course of an unreasonable search and seizure of his

backpack at school, conducted after an initial, illegal seizure of his

person.

¶ 2

This case requires us to address for the first time the standard

to be applied when school officials conduct a seizure or detention of

a student. We are confronted with whether, under the

reasonableness standard adopted by our supreme court in People in

Interest of P.E.A., 754 P.2d 382, 387 (Colo. 1988), the Fourth

Amendment is satisfied in the context of this case where a search of

a student by school officials was based on anonymous information

received through Colorado’s Safe2Tell hotline. Finally, we must

address for the first time whether the exclusionary rule applies to

2

searches of students by a school official. Because we conclude that

the trial court erred by relying on a tip received through the state’s

Safe2Tell program, we agree with C.C-S. that his search and

detention were illegal. We also conclude that the exclusionary rule

applies in the context of school searches, and therefore, because the

evidence of the search should have been suppressed, we reverse the

adjudication.

I. Background

¶ 3

A school security officer employed by Denver Public Schools

(DPS) received a report that C.C-S., a student at a DPS high school,

had been seen in a Snapchat video shooting a firearm out of a car

window.

¶ 4

The tip was reported through the statewide Safe2Tell program,

see §§ 24-31-601 to -611, C.R.S. 2020, which allows students,

parents, and staff members within a school district to submit

anonymous tips about potential school safety concerns. Tips are

then emailed to the DPS security team.

¶ 5

By the time the Snapchat video showing C.C-S. was reported

to Safe2Tell on February 25, 2018, it was about one month old. At

that point, no one was able to review the footage because videos

3

posted on Snapchat automatically disappear from the platform after

twenty-four hours, unless they are saved.1 Although unable to

review the Snapchat video, the dean of C.C-S.’s school told the

school security officer that C.C-S. had a history of “bringing things

to school that he shouldn’t, such as drugs and things like that.”

¶ 6

At that point, the school security officer decided to search

C.C-S., based on the Safe2Tell firearm tip, the dean’s comment, and

the security officer’s policy of searching every student and their

backpack when he received a Safe2Tell report that the student had

either drugs or weapons. Once C.C-S. arrived at school, he was

taken to an office for questioning by the school security officer, as

well as a campus security officer, who was also employed by DPS

but was stationed at C.C-S.’s school. With the door closed, the DPS

1 “Snapchat is a social media application that allows users to send

or post still images or videos. . . . A user may post images or videos

to their ‘story,’ which allows all those individuals with whom the

user is ‘friends’ to view them in the user’s Snapchat page, but they

remain available for viewing only for twenty-four hours.”

Commonwealth v. Watkins, 156 N.E.3d 235, 237 (Mass. App. Ct.

2020). Also, a sender of a Snapchat video may save it to the

sender’s local phone gallery, and the recipient may save it by taking

a screenshot. Clinton T. Magill, Note, Discovering Snapchat: How

Will Snapchat and Similar Self-Destructing Social Media Applications

Affect Relevance and Spoliation Under the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure?, 9 Charleston L. Rev. 365, 373 (2015).

4

officers told C.C-S. about the information they had received from

the Safe2Tell tip and told him they were going to search his

backpack.

¶ 7

C.C-S. refused to consent to a search and, after further

discussion, attempted to leave the office. The DPS officers would

not allow him to leave, instead reiterating that they were going to

search his backpack. After the campus security officer asked

C.C-S. whether he was refusing to allow the search because he had

drugs in his backpack, C.C-S. confessed that he had drugs in his

backpack and handed it over to the officers to be searched.

¶ 8

Although no weapons were found in C.C-S.’s backpack, the

DPS officers found a plastic bag of marijuana, as well as marijuana

paraphernalia: a scale, more plastic bags, and cigar wraps. Based

on this evidence, the People charged C.C-S. in a delinquency

petition with underage possession of marijuana and possession

with intent to distribute marijuana.

¶ 9

C.C-S. moved to suppress the marijuana and the

paraphernalia found in his backpack on grounds that they were

discovered during an unconstitutional detention of his person and

search and seizure of his backpack. The juvenile court denied the

5

motion, ruling that the Safe2Tell firearm tip, plus the dean’s

comment about C.C-S.’s history of bringing drugs to school, were

sufficient justification for the search of his backpack.

¶ 10

Following a bench trial, C.C-S. was found guilty of both

marijuana charges and was adjudicated delinquent.

II. Standard of Review

¶ 11

In reviewing a trial court’s ruling on a motion to suppress

evidence, we defer to the court’s findings of fact but evaluate its

conclusions of law de novo. See People v. Hammas, 141 P.3d 966,

969 (Colo. App. 2006).

III. Evidence Obtained in Unlawful Search and Seizure

¶ 12

C.C-S. contends that the information contained in the

anonymous Safe2Tell tip was stale and that the dean’s comment

about C.C-S.’s history of bringing drugs to school did not furnish

sufficient grounds to search his backpack. C.C-S. acknowledges

that he admitted to having drugs in his backpack while in the

closed-door office and that he handed it to the officers to be

searched. He asserts, though, that his admission does not justify

the otherwise illegal search because, when it was made, C.C-S. was

unreasonably detained. We agree with both contentions.

6

A. Standard of Review and Applicable Law

¶ 13

The Fourth Amendment prohibits unreasonable searches and

seizures. People v. Bailey, 2018 CO 84, ¶ 18, 427 P.3d 821, 826.

This prohibition safeguards individuals’ privacy and security

against arbitrary intrusion by government officials, People v. Coke,

2020 CO 28, ¶ 33, 461 P.3d 508, 515-16, and it extends to

searches of students by public school officials, New Jersey v. T.L.O.,

469 U.S. 325, 333 (1985). Ordinarily, a warrantless search “must

be based upon ‘probable cause’ to believe that a violation of the law

has occurred.” Id. at 340 (citations omitted). However, this

standard is relaxed in the school setting to accommodate “the

substantial need of teachers and administrators for freedom to

maintain order in the schools.” Id. at 341; P.E.A., 754 P.2d at 387.

We therefore evaluate the legality of school searches according to

the less stringent reasonableness standard set forth by the

Supreme Court in T.L.O.

¶ 14

When assessing the reasonableness of a school search or

seizure, we look to traditional Fourth Amendment principles to

evaluate, “on the one hand, the degree to which it intrudes upon an

individual’s privacy and, on the other hand, the degree to which it is

7

needed for the promotion of legitimate governmental interests.” Doe

v. Heck, 327 F.3d 492, 510 (7th Cir. 2003) (quoting Wyoming v.

Houghton, 526 U.S. 295, 300 (1999)). And the reasonableness of a

search or seizure will depend on the context in which the search or

seizure takes place. T.L.O., 469 U.S. at 337.

¶ 15

Under T.L.O., determining the reasonableness of a school

search involves a twofold inquiry. A school search is reasonable if it

is (1) justified at its inception and (2) conducted in a manner

“reasonably related in scope to the circumstances which justified

the interference in the first place.” Id. at 341 (quoting Terry v. Ohio,

392 U.S. 1, 20 (1968)). Our supreme court in P.E.A. adopted

T.L.O.’s reasonableness standard and test in the context of school

searches. P.E.A., 754 P.2d at 386.

¶ 16

The T.L.O. Court, however, left open the question of how or

whether the reasonableness standard should also apply to seizures

or detentions of students by school officials. Shuman ex rel.

Shertzer v. Penn Manor Sch. Dist., 422 F.3d 141, 148 (3d Cir. 2005).

In P.E.A., while addressing and adopting the T.L.O. standard for

searches, the supreme court did not need to confront the standard

for seizures and detention of students by school officials.

8

¶ 17

In the context of school seizures, some state courts have

applied a more lenient standard, sanctioning detentions of students

as long as the detentions were not arbitrary, capricious, or for the

purposes of harassment. See, e.g., In re K.J., 227 Cal. Rptr. 3d 380,

385 (Ct. App. 2018). The consensus among federal circuit courts,

though, is that the T.L.O. reasonableness standard should also

apply to school seizures. Shuman, 422 F.3d at 148 (collecting

cases).

¶ 18

We recognize that students do not “shed their constitutional

rights . . . at the schoolhouse gate,” Tinker v. Des Moines Indep.

Cmty. Sch. Dist., 393 U.S. 503, 506 (1969), and the “nature of those

rights is what is appropriate for children in school,” Vernonia Sch.

Dist. 47J v. Acton, 515 U.S. 646, 656 (1995). Accordingly, we join

the federal courts in adopting the T.L.O. reasonableness standard to

evaluate whether a student was detained in violation of the

student’s Fourth Amendment rights. See Doe ex rel. Doe v. Haw.

Dep’t of Educ., 334 F.3d 906, 909 (9th Cir. 2003); Hassan v.

Lubbock Indep. Sch. Dist., 55 F.3d 1075, 1079 (5th Cir. 1995);

Edwards ex rel. Edwards v. Rees, 883 F.2d 882, 884 (10th Cir.

1989).

9

B. Anonymous, Uncorroborated, Stale Safe2Tell Tip

¶ 19

The search of a student’s property is justified at its inception if

there are “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.” T.L.O., 469 U.S. at 341-42; see

also Edwards, 883 F.2d at 884. That means a school officer must

have a particularized and objective basis for suspecting legal

wrongdoing. See United States v. Arvizu, 534 U.S. 266, 273 (2002).

1. Anonymous, Unsubstantiated Tips

¶ 20

Reasonable suspicion for a search must be based on specific

and articulable facts known to the officer and the rational

inferences drawn from those facts. People v. George, 914 P.2d

367-69 (Colo. 1996). In other contexts, our courts have recognized

that “[s]tanding alone, an anonymous tip lacks the ‘indicia of

reliability sufficient to establish reasonable suspicion.’” People v.

D.F., 933 P.2d 9, 12 (Colo. 1997) (quoting People v. Garcia, 789 P.2d

190, 192 (Colo. 1990)); see also Alabama v. White, 496 U.S. 325,

329 (1990) (“[A]n anonymous tip alone seldom demonstrates the

informant’s basis of knowledge or veracity,” and therefore seldom

10

supplies a basis for reasonable suspicion.); People v. Martinez, 200

P.3d 1053, 1057-58 (Colo. 2009).

¶ 21

Nevertheless, the General Assembly created the Safe2Tell

program predicated on the reporting of anonymous tips by students

and others. See § 24-31-606(2)(a), C.R.S. 2020. The Safe2Tell

program safeguards the anonymity of its tipsters by design; the

legislative declaration explains that anonymous reporting before

potentially harmful or criminal activity has occurred is “critical in

reducing, responding to, and recovering from these types of events

in schools.” § 24-31-602(1)(b), C.R.S. 2020. According to the most

recent Safe2Tell Annual Report, “[t]he program promotes early

intervention by serving as a conduit of information between tipsters

and local multidisciplinary teams, which are comprised of caring

adults in community organizations such as schools and law

enforcement agencies.” Office of the Attorney General, Safe2Tell

Annual Report 3 (Aug. 1, 2019-July 31, 2020),

https://perma.cc/4NRG-G7C6. In the 2019-2020 school year, the

Safe2Tell program received 20,822 tips of different types, including

suicide threats, self-harm, child abuse, and cyberbullying. Id. at 5.

11

Only 1.5% of the tips (313 out of 20,822) concerned guns. Id. at

11-12.

¶ 22

Testifying at the suppression hearing, the school safety officer

explained that when he receives a Safe2Tell tip, there is no way to

determine who made the tip, or even whether it was made by a

student, parent, or staff member.

¶ 23

In its ruling denying C.C-S.’s motion to suppress, the trial

court expressed concern about the anonymity of the Safe2Tell

program, particularly that the program “is so open and anonymous”

as to create the possibility of “one student harassing another by

posting false anonymous tips.” See id. at 5-6 (discussing the

number of false tips and how Safe2Tell handles them). Because the

tip regarding C.C-S. was based on an automatically disappearing

Snapchat video and because the person receiving the tip apparently

did not or could not inquire as to whether the video had been saved,

no one involved in the investigation was able to view it. The court

indicated that it would have been more skeptical as to whether the

search was supported by reasonable suspicion if it was based on

the anonymous Safe2Tell tip alone. However, the court concluded

that the reasonableness of the search was supported by the

12

combination of the Safe2Tell tip and the dean’s comment that

C.C-S. “has a history of bringing things to school that he shouldn’t.”

¶ 24

Reasonable suspicion exists when facts known to a police

officer, together with rational inferences from those facts, create a

reasonable and articulable suspicion of criminal activity, which

justifies an intrusion into the defendant’s personal privacy at the

time of the stop. People v. Martin, 2014 COA 112, ¶ 21, 338 P.3d

1106, 1114. Factors the police may consider include the lateness of

the hour, the character of the area, a person’s reactions to the

presence of police, whether a companion is being arrested, and a

person’s nervous or unduly cautious behavior. Id. at ¶ 22, 338

P.3d at 1114.

¶ 25

An anonymous and otherwise unreliable tip may furnish

reasonable suspicion sufficient to justify a search if verified by

enough independent corroborating evidence of a violation of the law

or school rules. See People v. Salazar, 964 P.2d 502, 505 (Colo.

1998) (“[I]nformation supplied by an anonymous source ‘may

warrant an investigatory stop only if it is verified by sufficient

independent corroborating evidence of criminal activity.’” (quoting

George, 914 P.2d at 370)).

13

¶ 26

We are not persuaded by the People’s contention that because

anonymity is the “linchpin” of the Safe2Tell program, an

anonymous tip generally suffices to support the search of a student.

Although anonymous tips may deter crime or reduce incidents of

school violence, the anonymity of tips received by the Safe2Tell

program does not ensure, without more, that such tips will provide

reasonable suspicion as required by the Fourth Amendment. In

each case, a court must balance the anonymity of a tip, its

specificity, whether it is stale, and other evidence to determine

whether the reasonable suspicion test has been satisfied.

¶ 27

Under the circumstances of this case, therefore, we conclude

that the Safe2Tell tip was insufficient to provide reasonable

suspicion. We reach this conclusion for four reasons. First, as

noted above, the tip was anonymous. Second, the information

provided in the tip was stale. Third, because it was anonymous and

stale, the limited information in the Safe2Tell tip did not provide

reasonable suspicion that C.C-S. had committed or was about to

14

commit a crime.2 And, fourth, the information about C.C-S.’s past

behavior at school did not corroborate the Safe2Tell weapons tip.

2. Stale Tips

¶ 28

As noted above, the information provided by the tipster here

was deficient, in large part, because it was stale. See United States

v. Payne, 181 F.3d 781, 789 (6th Cir. 1999) (An anonymous, stale

tip “was clearly insufficient to create a reasonable suspicion” to

support a search.). While staleness is a concept typically associated

with a probable cause inquiry, the “staleness doctrine also applies

to reasonable suspicion.” United States v. Touset, 890 F.3d 1227,

1238 (11th Cir. 2018).

¶ 29

Accordingly, the Safe2Tell tip was problematic because it was

based on a month-old Snapchat video that was not reviewed by

anyone involved in the investigation due to it being automatically

deleted.

¶ 30

A tip is less supportive of reasonable suspicion after it has

gone stale. See id.; United States v. Gonzalez, 190 F.3d 668, 673

(5th Cir. 1999). There is no time limit that determines when

2 For example, the anonymous tip did not indicate whether C.C-S.

had the weapon near or on school property.

15

information becomes stale. Whether information is stale depends

on the factual circumstances and the type of crime. People v. Miller,

75 P.3d 1108, 1113 (Colo. 2003); see also United States v. Bervaldi,

226 F.3d 1256, 1265 (11th Cir. 2000). Factors to be considered

include whether the criminal activity was a discrete incident or

whether it is likely to be ongoing, see United States v. Laughrin, 438

F.3d 1245, 1247-48 (10th Cir. 2006), and whether the evidence of

the crime is likely to be kept or whether it is disposable or often

transferred, see Payne, 181 F.3d at 790.

¶ 31

For example, the Miller court concluded that information

contained in a police affidavit to support a search warrant was stale

because it was nearly a month old when the police applied for a

warrant. 75 P.3d at 1111. However, courts assume that evidence

of child pornography is rarely disposed of, and thus ongoing. See

Touset, 890 F.3d at 1238 (collecting cases). As a result, a tip

relating to such electronic images will remain fresh for longer than,

for example, evidence of drug trafficking, which by its nature is a

crime where the evidence is frequently transferred or consumed.

See Payne, 181 F.3d at 790 (“Drugs are not the types of objects that

are likely to be kept.”).

16

¶ 32

In contrast, in Commonwealth v. Watkins, 156 N.E.3d 235,

239 (Mass. App. Ct. 2020), the court rejected the defendant’s

argument that images on Snapchat were stale because they were

undated and could have been taken well before they were uploaded

to Snapchat. The court concluded that an informant’s statement in

a Snapchat video provided evidence that the Snapchat image was

taken contemporaneously with its posting.

¶ 33

Gonzalez is instructive as to when older information may not

be stale when it rejected the argument that a tip received almost

two months earlier was stale. 190 F.3d at 673. The court reasoned

that evidence of an ongoing pattern of criminal activity may justify

reliance on older information from an informant than when an

informant provides information about criminal conduct expected to

recur. Id. Therefore, the court held, officers were justified in

conducting a Terry stop of the defendant’s vehicle, see 392 U.S.1,

to look for evidence of the activity. Gonzalez, 190 F.3d at 673.

¶ 34

Here, the Safe2Tell tip provided no information about the

Snapchat video’s source and indicated that it had been taken a

month earlier. Further, the Safe2Tell tip about the Snapchat video

gave no indication that C.C-S. would continue to carry a gun on his

17

person, or that he could be expected to have one in his backpack

(or worse, use it) at school at some future date.

¶ 35

Although the People rely on M.D. v. State, 65 So. 3d 563, 564

(Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2011), we conclude that case is distinguishable.

That court concluded that there was reasonable suspicion to detain

and question a student based on an anonymous tip that the

student had carried a gun onto campus three months earlier. Here,

in contrast and as mentioned above, the anonymous tip did not

indicate that C.C-S. had carried a gun onto campus or that he

intended to do so.

¶ 36

Nevertheless, we recognize the concerns of the M.D. court that

“[a]llegations of gun possession on school campuses are different

from traditional Fourth Amendment cases. Many courts have

recognized these cases are unique because of the seriousness of the

threat, the location of the threat, the vulnerability and number of

potential victims, and the lessened expectation of privacy of

students.” Id. at 565. Consequently, in circumstances different

from those presented here, an anonymous tip involving a student’s

possession of a gun — even if uncorroborated — may be found to

18

satisfy the reasonableness standard to justify a detention and

search of a student.

¶ 37

However, when, as here, a stale tip does not provide

reasonable suspicion to justify the search of a student, the mere

allegation of gun possession does not justify a search of that

student.

3. C.C-S.’s Past Behavior

¶ 38

The dean’s description of C.C-S.’s past behavior revealed only

that C.C-S. had a history of “bringing things to school that he

shouldn’t, such as drugs and things like that.” Under T.L.O., the

relevant inquiry is whether the officer had reasonable suspicion

that searching the student would turn up evidence of criminal or

prohibited behavior. 469 U.S. at 341-42. That C.C-S. brought

drugs to school in the past is not an objective, particularized basis

for suspecting that a search of C.C-S.’s backpack would reveal

evidence of a weapon. See Arvizu, 534 U.S. at 273. A defendant’s

past criminal conduct does not by itself give rise to reasonable

suspicion of present criminal activity. United States v. Sandoval, 29

F.3d 537, 542 (10th Cir. 1994) (report about defendant’s prior

involvement in hit-and-run incident and prior arrest for narcotics

19

violation insufficient to give rise to reasonable suspicion for

continued detention in patrol car); United States v. Santillanes, 848

F.2d 1103, 1108 (10th Cir. 1988) (detective lacked reasonable

suspicion to detain defendant based on prior arrest and observation

that defendant veered away from detective at an increased pace

upon seeing him); see also People v. Padgett, 932 P.2d 810, 814

(Colo. 1997) (reasonable suspicion may not be based solely on the

reputation of past criminal activity in a locality); People v. McKnight,

2017 COA 93, ¶ 23, 452 P.3d 82, 87 (reasonable suspicion may not

be based on evidence that defendant’s passenger had used

methamphetamine “at some point in the past”), aff’d, 2019 CO 36,

446 P.3d 397.

¶ 39

In some instances, however, the nature of a defendant’s past

criminal conduct makes it a reliable predictor that the defendant

will behave in the same way again. In United States v. Daoust, 916

F.2d 757 (1st Cir. 1990), for example, the court found that the

officers had reasonable suspicion to suspect that their safety was at

risk when they arrived at the defendant’s house at 7 a.m., a time

when he would likely be home sleeping, and they knew that he had

a prior criminal history of violent behavior and kept a handgun in

20

an “unusual” place in the kitchen. Id. at 759. Similarly, the Fifth

Circuit held in United States v. Gordon, 722 F.2d 112, 114 (5th Cir.

1983), that the officers had reasonable suspicion that the

occupants of a motor home were engaged in criminal activity

because the motor home was registered to the same address as

another motor home that had been seized in a prior marijuana

arrest and one of the occupants they had identified was a member

of a marijuana smuggling group known to use motor homes for its

smuggling activities.

¶ 40

Here, in contrast, the dean’s description of C.C-S.’s past

behavior was unrelated to the Safe2Tell tip. The dean told the

school security officer that C.C-S. had previously brought drugs to

school, not firearms. C.C-S.’s history of bringing drugs to school

was not a reliable predictor that he would have brought a weapon to

school on the day he was searched. The dean’s description of

C.C-S.’s history therefore did not corroborate the anonymous

Safe2Tell tip but at best served as an alternate justification for the

search.

¶ 41

Thus, when the school security officer decided to search

C.C-S.’s backpack, his suspicion of criminal activity was based at

21

most on a stale Safe2Tell tip founded on a Snapchat video that was

no longer accessible and C.C-S.’s alleged prior behavior. Taken

together, these factors were insufficient to provide reasonable

suspicion to search C.C-S.’s backpack. See Sandoval, 29 F.3d at

542 (prior criminal history); D.F., 933 P.2d at 12 (anonymous tip).

¶ 42

In its ruling upholding the search, the trial court suggested

that its hands were tied by the supreme court’s holding in P.E.A.

We conclude that P.E.A. is distinguishable.

¶ 43

P.E.A. also involved a school search, which the supreme court

found was justified at its inception. However, the school officials in

that case acted on more substantial and reliable evidence of

wrongdoing than the DPS officers had against C.C-S. There, an

officer was told by a student that two other students had stolen

marijuana from a backyard and had taken it to a local high school

that morning to sell to students. 754 P.2d at 384. After a search of

those students by school officials (a principal and a school security

officer) produced no evidence of drugs or other contraband, the

students were asked how they came to school that day, and one

student revealed that P.E.A. had driven the other student to school.

22

Id. After a search of P.E.A. failed to uncover any drugs, a school

security officer searched his car and found marijuana.

¶ 44

In the trial court’s view, the search upheld in P.E.A. was based

on less reliable information than the search of C.C-S. We disagree.

¶ 45

Unlike the circumstances here, the search in P.E.A. was

initiated after a tip from an identified student made in person to an

officer that two students had taken marijuana to a local high school

that morning, making the information neither anonymous nor stale

as was the case for the Safe2Tell tip. We therefore do not agree

with the trial court that the search of C.C-S. was based on more

reliable information than the search in P.E.A., and thus that

decision does not require that we uphold the search of C.C-S.

4. Nature of Safe2Tell Program

¶ 46

The People argue that we should give special consideration to

the nature of the Safe2Tell program, which is designed to promote

anonymous tips about violent or otherwise harmful behavior at

schools. While we recognize the importance of Safe2Tell’s role in

preventing school violence, investigations based on Safe2Tell tips by

DPS security officers and other school officials must occur within

the bounds of students’ Fourth Amendment rights. Cf. People v.

23

Dandrea, 736 P.2d 1211, 1215 (Colo. 1987) (“[W]e must make every

effort to construe the statute in a manner that does not violate

constitutional limits.”). Therefore, we conclude that the Safe2Tell

statutes do not provide unbridled discretion to school security

officers and other school officials to search students’ backpacks.

¶ 47

Based on the circumstances here, we conclude the

investigation undertaken simply did not produce evidence

amounting to reasonable suspicion to search C.C-S. and, further,

was impermissibly based on stale information.

C. Unlawful Detention

¶ 48

Alternatively, the People ask us to uphold the search on an

additional basis not raised in or considered by the trial court — that

C.C-S. admitted to the officers that he had drugs in his backpack,

an admission that the People argue provided the officers with

reasonable suspicion to perform the search. We consider this

contention because we may affirm a trial court’s decision for any

reason, including one not considered by the trial court. Red Flower,

Inc. v. McKown, 2016 COA 160, ¶ 58, 411 P.3d 1094, 1104; cf.

People v. Morehead, 2019 CO 48, ¶ 15, 442 P.3d 413, 418 (supreme

court has frequently declined to address arguments against

24

suppression raised for the first time on appeal). However, we are

not persuaded by this contention.

¶ 49

Because it is undisputed that C.C-S. was not free to leave the

dean’s office, as noted above, he had been seized for Fourth

Amendment purposes when he admitted he had marijuana in his

backpack. See Shuman, 422 F.3d at 147 (student was seized when

he was told to remain in the school conference room and was not

free to leave).

¶ 50

As we have discussed, a seizure is justified at its inception if

school officials have a reasonable basis to believe that a student has

violated the law or a school rule.3 Wofford v. Evans, 390 F.3d 318,

327 (4th Cir. 2004). For the same reasons we have concluded that

the search of C.C-S.’s backpack violated his Fourth Amendment

rights, we conclude that the seizure of C.C-S. was similarly not

supported by reasonable suspicion. See People v. Kline, 824 N.E.2d

295, 301 (Ill. App. Ct. 2005) (school officials did not have

reasonable suspicion to detain student based on anonymous tip

3 We do not mean to suggest that school officials cannot compel

students to go to the principal’s office. They can if they have a

legitimate school policy reason for doing so.

25

that student possessed marijuana in his pants pocket because the

tip did not provide any details that the officials could have verified

before the seizure, the officials did not observe a bulge in the

student’s pocket, and the student was not acting suspiciously).

¶ 51

Accordingly, we conclude that the uncorroborated Safe2Tell tip

did not justify detaining C.C-S. Because he was unreasonably

detained, we may not rely on his admissions made during that

unlawful detention to uphold the search of his backpack.

IV. Exclusionary Rule

¶ 52

Finally, the People argue that even if the search and seizure

were unlawful, the adjudication of delinquency can still be affirmed

because we should determine that the exclusionary rule should not

apply to searches of a student conducted by a school official. We

disagree.

A. Standard of Review and Applicable Law

¶ 53

Ordinarily, evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth

Amendment is not admissible in a criminal proceeding against the

victim of an illegal search or seizure. People v. Tomaske, 2019 CO

35, ¶ 10, 440 P.3d 444, 447. The rule has been applied to juvenile

delinquency proceedings. People in Interest of K.D.W., 2020 COA

26

110, ¶ 18, 471 P.3d 1276, 1280-81. The exclusionary rule is a

judicially created remedy for deterring illegal searches and seizures.

Pa. Bd. of Prob. & Parole v. Scott, 524 U.S. 357, 363 (1998). It is

intended “to compel respect for the constitutional guaranty in the

only effectively available way — by removing the incentive to

disregard it.” Elkins v. United States, 364 U.S. 206, 217 (1960).

¶ 54

Nevertheless, the Colorado Supreme Court has cautioned that

the exclusionary rule “should not automatically apply every time a

Fourth Amendment violation is found . . . .” Casillas v. People,

2018 CO 78M, ¶ 21, 427 P.3d 804, 810 (quoting People v. Gutierrez,

222 P.3d 925, 941 (Colo. 2009)). The court explained that

[b]ecause the exclusionary rule “serves to deter

deliberate, reckless, or grossly negligent

conduct, or in some circumstances recurring

or systemic negligence,” to warrant its

application, law enforcement conduct must be

“sufficiently deliberate that exclusion can

meaningfully deter it, and sufficiently culpable

that such deterrence is worth the price paid by

the justice system.”

Id. at ¶ 22, 427 P.3d at 810 (quoting Herring v. United States, 555

U.S. 135, 144 (2009)).

¶ 55

The T.L.O. Court left open the question of whether the

exclusionary rule applies in school searches. 469 U.S. at 332 n.3;

27

Shuman, 422 F.3d at 148. No published Colorado decision has

addressed whether the exclusionary rule applies to unlawful

searches by school officials. See P.E.A., 754 P.2d at 384 n.1

(because the search was reasonable, the court did not need to

determine whether the exclusionary rule applies to unlawful

searches by school officials). More specifically, the issue is whether

the rule applies only to searches and seizures by law enforcement

officers or whether it extends to the actions of school officials.

¶ 56

Decisions of state courts in other jurisdictions, by a clear

majority, have applied the exclusionary rule to actions of school

officials. See G.M. v. State, 142 So.3d 823, 829 (Ala. 2013)

(applying exclusionary rule to search conducted by principal);

Gordon J. v. Santa Ana Unified Sch. Dist., 208 Cal. Rptr. 657, 665

(Ct. App. 1984) (“[T]he exclusionary rule is fully available in

criminal prosecutions and juvenile proceedings with respect to

evidence illegally obtained by high school officials . . . .”); T.S. v.

State, 863 N.E.2d 362, 367 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (“[T]he decisions of

Indiana courts subsequent to T.L.O. indicate that the exclusionary

rule is the remedy for Fourth Amendment violations occurring in

schools.”); State v. Mora, 307 So. 2d 317, 320 (La.) (applying

28

exclusionary rule to search conducted by teacher and principal),

cert. granted, judgment vacated, and case remanded, 423 U.S. 809

(1975); People v. Scott D., 315 N.E.2d 466, 471 (N.Y. 1974) (applying

exclusionary rule to search conducted by teacher who was also

school coordinator of security); In Interest of L.L., 280 N.W.2d 343,

346-47 (Wis. Ct. App. 1979) (exclusionary rule applies to all school

searches and seizures). But see State v. Young, 216 S.E.2d 586,

591 (Ga. 1975) (holding that there was no Fourth Amendment

violation, but if there were, exclusionary rule would not apply to

searches by school officials).

B. Analysis

¶ 57

We conclude that applying the exclusionary rule in school

searches conducted by DPS security officers would deter Fourth

Amendment violations. Those security officers perform quasi-law

enforcement functions, inasmuch as the evidence they collect is

often used in juvenile delinquency adjudications such as this one.

As T.L.O. noted, the Supreme Court has never limited the

prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures to

operations conducted by the police. Rather, the Court has applied

the Fourth Amendment to governmental action. See T.L.O., 469

29

U.S. at 335. To apply the Fourth Amendment’s exclusionary rule to

school searches is therefore a logical extension of Supreme Court

precedent. Its application here is especially appropriate since

school security officers, whether acting in concert with the police or

not, are governmental actors.

¶ 58

In reaching this conclusion, we necessarily reject the People’s

contention that even if the search of C.C-S. was invalid, reversal is

not warranted. Relying on Herring, 555 U.S. at 140, the People

assert that the primary purpose of the exclusionary rule is to deter

police misconduct. Because the conduct at issue here was that of a

school security officer, rather than the police, the People argue that

there would be no deterrent effect here from applying the

exclusionary rule. We disagree for four reasons.

¶ 59

First, in Herring, the Supreme Court declined to apply the

exclusionary rule because the police conduct was akin to a

“recordkeeping error” which indicated negligence rather than

deliberate action. Id. at 144-46. Here, the DPS officer testified that

he searches every student who is the subject of an anonymous tip

(and sometimes the tipsters, too). In this case, he physically

prevented C.C-S. from leaving the office based on a mere hunch

30

that he might be carrying contraband in his backpack. That

conduct is sufficiently deliberate to warrant application of the

exclusionary rule. See id.

¶ 60

We conclude that applying the exclusionary rule here can

meaningfully deter conduct by school officials in violation of the

Fourth Amendment. We have already noted that a more relaxed

standard of reasonable suspicion may apply when school officials

investigate allegations involving guns. Thus, in many such cases,

school officials whose conduct is challenged will be found to have

acted based on reasonable suspicion. In other cases, like the

circumstances presented here, school officials will be deterred from

referring cases to the police when stale evidence is based on an

anonymous tip. Accordingly, even if school officials feel compelled

to investigate every tip involving alleged use or possession of guns,

they will be deterred in referring such cases to the police unless

they have reasonable suspicion to do so.

¶ 61

Second, our supreme court has never limited the application

of the exclusionary rule to violations committed by police officers. A

division of this court recently applied the rule to exclude evidence

unlawfully obtained by caseworkers employed by the Department of

31

Human Services. See People v. Dyer, 2019 COA 161, ¶¶ 28-30, 457

P.3d 783, 790. Additionally, as with the juvenile probation officers

in Casillas, school security officers in this case are similar to

“adjuncts to the law enforcement team” when they refer cases to law

enforcement officials. Casillas, ¶ 27, 427 P.3d at 811.

¶ 62

Third, the Safe2Tell program functions analogously to other

law enforcement programs. The program’s authorizing statute

indicates that both law enforcement officers and school officials are

responsible for implementing the program. See § 24-31-606(2)(c),

(e), (f), (n). The tip in this case was apparently forwarded from a law

enforcement dispatch center to the DPS officer and the school

officials.

¶ 63

Finally, the unlawfully obtained evidence was used in a

delinquency proceeding, where there is persuasive reason to apply

the exclusionary rule. There are some contexts in which the

deterrent value of the exclusionary rule is too slight to require that

evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment be

suppressed. See, e.g., People in Interest of A.E.L., 181 P.3d 1186,

1192 (Colo. App. 2008) (declining to apply exclusionary rule in

context of a dependency and neglect case). “Criminal proceedings

32

are, of course, the realm in which the exclusionary rule is

strongest.” Payne, 181 F.3d at 788.

¶ 64

We therefore conclude that applying the rule to searches and

seizures conducted by DPS security officers who later refer

information of suspected criminal activity to the police would serve

to deter Fourth Amendment violations. The DPS officers’ search

and seizure led to C.C-S.’s arrest and adjudication.

¶ 65

Even if the People correctly assert that the school security

officer and the dean were primarily concerned about school safety,

they were also concerned about any appropriate punishment for

C.C-S. Thus, any discovery of a weapon on C.C-S. or in his

backpack would likely have led to the filing of delinquency

proceedings. (Indeed, as we have already noted, the discovery of

marijuana and marijuana paraphernalia led to the filing of this

action.)

¶ 66

Under these circumstances, we conclude that the exclusionary

rule should apply in the context of searches and seizures of

students by school officials.

¶ 67

We reject the People’s argument that because school officials

were acting on a tip from the Safe2Tell program and were required

33

to investigate, their actions were insulated from the application of

the exclusionary rule. As noted above, although we understand the

value of the Safe2Tell program, school officials must still comply

with the Fourth Amendment. No provision of the Safe2Tell program

required school officials to search C.C-S. based on the month-old

information in their possession or to report C.C-S. to law

enforcement officials.

¶ 68

Finally, even if the detention of C.C-S. was unlawful, the

People contend that the search of C.C-S.’s backpack was lawful

under the attenuation exception to the fruit of the poisonous tree

doctrine. We disagree.

¶ 69

“Evidence of a crime that is derived from evidence discovered

through illegal police activity may be suppressed under the fruit-of-

the-poisonous-tree doctrine.” Perez v. People, 231 P.3d 957, 962

(Colo. 2010). This includes confessions that are fruit of an illegal

detention. Id.

¶ 70

Although statements made during an unlawful detention may

nevertheless be admissible “if the connection between the illegal

action and the derivative evidence is attenuated such that the

derivative evidence is ‘sufficiently distinguishable to be purged of

34

the primary taint,’” id. (quoting Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S.

471, 488 (1963)), the People argue only that C.C-S. was not

unlawfully detained under T.L.O. We disagree.

¶ 71

The question is whether the contested evidence “has been

come at by exploitation of that illegality or instead by means

sufficiently distinguishable to be purged of the primary taint.”

Wong Sun, 371 U.S. at 488 (citation omitted).

¶ 72

Because we conclude that C.C-S.’s admission was the fruit of

an unlawful detention and the discovery of the marijuana was not

sufficiently attenuated so as to dissipate the taint of the

constitutional violation, we may not rely on his admission as

justification for the DPS security officer’s otherwise illegal search.

¶ 73

Breaking the causal chain would require a showing that

C.C-S.’s admission was an act of free will and not a product of his

detention. People v. Lewis, 975 P.2d 160, 173 (Colo. 1999). Such a

showing is not supported by the record. The DPS officer’s

testimony established that C.C-S. repeatedly refused to consent to a

search of his backpack, attempted to leave the office several times,

and did not admit to possessing marijuana until after the DPS

35

officer had made clear that C.C-S. would not be free to leave until

he and the campus security officer has searched the backpack.

V. Conclusion

¶ 74

The judgement is reversed and case remanded for a new trial.

JUDGE DAILEY and JUDGE JOHNSON concur.