M.M. ex rel. C.M. v. Anker

Second Circuit

M.M. ex rel. C.M. v. Anker

607 F.2d 588

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedOctober 19, 1979

DocketNos. 170, 171, Dockets 79-7368, 79-7391

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 607 F.2d 588 (M.M. ex rel. C.M. v. Anker) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

M.M. ex rel. C.M. v. Anker, 607 F.2d 588 (2d Cir. 1979).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

We affirm on Judge Dooling’s opinion, reported at 477 F.Supp. 837, No. 78 C 492 (E.D.N.Y. Feb. 6, 1979).

For purposes of clarifying our holding, we note our agreement with Judge Dooling that there are searches in the school enclave that satisfy Fourth Amendment requirements when based on less than probable cause. Judge Dooling was also correct in finding that the initial decision to search M.M. was predicated on no more than mere suspicion that M.M. “might” have stolen some unidentified object. We recognize, however, that teachers have a unique relationship to their students, both in administering discipline as part of their educational function, and in protecting the well-being of all children in their care and custody. Accordingly, these interests justify greater flexibility when applying the Fourth Amendment in a school setting. See, e. g., Bellnier v. Lund, 438 F.Supp. 47, 53 (N.D.N.Y.1977); People v. Scott D., 34 N.Y.2d 483, 358 N.Y.S.2d 403, 315 N.E.2d 466 (1974) (Breitel, C. J.); cf. Ingraham v. Wright, 430 U.S. 651, 97 S.Ct. 1401, 51 L.Ed.2d 711 (1977).

We are also of the view that as the intrusiveness of the search intensifies, the standard of Fourth Amendment “reasonableness” approaches probable cause, even in the school context. Cf. Dunaway v. New York, - U.S. -, -, 99 S.Ct. 2248, 60 L.Ed.2d 824 (1979). Thus, when a teacher conducts a highly intrusive invasion such as the strip search in this case, it is reasonable to require that probable cause be present. We conclude Judge Dooling correctly held that defendants Heitner and Amicone failed to make this showing.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM:

We affirm on Judge Dooling’s opinion, reported at 477 F.Supp. 837, No. 78 C 492 (E.D.N.Y. Feb. 6, 1979).

For purposes of clarifying our holding, we note our agreement with Judge Dooling that there are searches in the school enclave that satisfy Fourth Amendment requirements when based on less than probable cause. Judge Dooling was also correct in finding that the initial decision to search M.M. was predicated on no more than mere suspicion that M.M. “might” have stolen some unidentified object. We recognize, however, that teachers have a unique relationship to their students, both in administering discipline as part of their educational function, and in protecting the well-being of all children in their care and custody. Accordingly, these interests justify greater flexibility when applying the Fourth Amendment in a school setting. See, e. g., Bellnier v. Lund, 438 F.Supp. 47, 53 (N.D.N.Y.1977); People v. Scott D., 34 N.Y.2d 483, 358 N.Y.S.2d 403, 315 N.E.2d 466 (1974) (Breitel, C. J.); cf. Ingraham v. Wright, 430 U.S. 651, 97 S.Ct. 1401, 51 L.Ed.2d 711 (1977).

We are also of the view that as the intrusiveness of the search intensifies, the standard of Fourth Amendment “reasonableness” approaches probable cause, even in the school context. Cf. Dunaway v. New York, - U.S. -, -, 99 S.Ct. 2248, 60 L.Ed.2d 824 (1979). Thus, when a teacher conducts a highly intrusive invasion such as the strip search in this case, it is reasonable to require that probable cause be present. We conclude Judge Dooling correctly held that defendants Heitner and Amicone failed to make this showing.

M.M., a Minor by Her Mother and Next Friend, C.M., and M.F., a Minor by Her Mother and Next Friend, A.F., Cross-Appellee v. Irving Anker, Stephen R. Aiello, Joseph Barkan, Amelia Ash, Robert Christen, Luis Rivera, James Regan, Isaiah Robinson, Jr., Carlton Irish, Lester Speiser, Lucille Amicone, Stephen Heitner, Ira Ewen, Jerome Katz, Alan Solo and John and Jane Doe Each Individually and in Their Official Capacity, Stephen Heitner and Lucille Amicone, Cross-Appellants

607 F.2d 588 (Second Circuit, 1979)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

607 F.2d 588, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mm-ex-rel-cm-v-anker-ca2-1979.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack