State v. A.J.C. (In re A.J.C.), 355 Or. 552
Facts:

Youth and V attended the same high school and one evening youth called V and told her
that he was going to bring a gun to school the next day and shoot her and other students.

When V (who was new at the school) arrived at school the next day she told the school
counselor that she had an ongoing relationship with youth and about the threat. The
counselor told the principal, Smith. The principal called for the assistance of the deputy
sheriff who contracted with the school and the youth’s mother. Smith conducted an
independent search of the youth’s locker, where he found nothing before proceeding to
the youth’s classroom with the youth’s mother. Youth was seated at his desk with his
backpack underneath his seat. Smith picked up the backpack and asked the student to
accompany him to the principal’s office.

The officer, youth, Smith and youth’s mother all entered the office together and Smith
explained to the student what was going on. Youth denied making the threat, but did
admit to having a relationship with V. Smith informed youth that he was going to search
his backpack and youth did not object nor give consent.

Smith opened the first major compartment of the backpack and found nothing, then in the
second smaller compartment he found several .45 caliber bullets. Smith then opened the
third compartment and found a .45 caliber handgun. The police officer then handcuffed
youth and read him his Miranda rights.
Procedural History:

Youth argued that the bullets and gun should suppressed because Smith’s warrantless
search of his backpack violated his rights under Article I, section 9 of the Oregon
Constitution. The state’s position was that the search was warranted under the schoolsafety exception to the warrant requirement articulated in M.A.D., 348 Ore. 381. Under
that exception if a school official reasonably expects that an individual on school
property poses an immediate threat to the safety of others at the school, the official may
take reasonable measures in response, including conducting a limited, warrantless search.

Both the juvenile court and the Court of Appeals found that Smith’s search did not
violate youth’s constitutional rights and denied his motion to suppress.
Issue(s):

Did this search violate youth’s constitutional rights?
Holding:

No, this search was a valid exercise of the principal’s powers as a school official under
the school safety exception to the warrant requirement.
Reasoning:

Youth argued on this appeal that under the circumstances at the time that Smith
conducted the search, the search was not justified because youth no longer posed an
immediate safety risk. Specifically, that at the time Smith conducted the search, youth
argues that Smith had possession of the backpack securely in his office and out of the
student’s reach. Further youth was calm, compliant, and was surrounded by Smith, the
deputy sheriff and his mother. Youth contends that the only perceived threat (that youth
might access the weapon) had ceased to exist.

The court says that Smith’s search was reasonable considering the circumstances and
rejects youth’s argument. The information known to Smith went beyond a generalized
safety threat. Youth’s verification that he and V were in some sort of a relationship
strengthened the credibility of the other information that Smith had received from V.

Furthermore, Smith was not aware at that point where the gun was, or what type of gun it
was. At the time, all he had established was that it was not in youth’s locker. Youth had
been on campus for a period of time before he was brought into Smith’s office, the gun
could have been anywhere. Thus even if it wasn’t on youth’s person, or in his backpack,
it still presented a danger to the safety of others, if someone else found it. Thus, “the
threat of harm to others remained imminent at the time of the search.” Therefore, it was
reasonable for Smith to make efforts to find the gun and eliminate threat of harm.
Verifying the gun was in the backpack and negating the possibility that it was in another
part of the school negated the risk to the other students.

Finally, Smith undertook a systematic and not overly intrusive search of youth’s
backpack, searching only the compartments that could have conceivably held a firearm.
Once he located the firearm, he ceased searching the backpack.

The court makes a point to emphasize that the range of options available to Smith were
not unlimited and that the permissible scope of a school official’s precautionary actions
based on imminent safety concerns remain confined by the specific facts and
circumstances of each case. School officials are “not licensed to engage in unlimited
search of students and their belongings on campus based on generalized threats to
safety.”