M.M., a Minor by Her Mother & Next Friend, C.M., & M.F., a Minor by Her Mother & 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 & John & Jane Doe Each Individually & in Their Off. Capacity, Stephen Heitner & Lucille Amicone, Cross-Appellants, 607 F.2d 588 (2d Cir. 1979). · Go Syfert
Search
M.M., a Minor by Her Mother & Next Friend, C.M., & M.F., a Minor by Her Mother & 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 & John & Jane Doe Each Individually & in Their Off. Capacity, Stephen Heitner & Lucille Amicone, Cross-Appellants, 607 F.2d 588 (2d Cir. 1979). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
“s the intrusiveness of the search intensifies, the standard of fourth amendment 'reasonableness' approaches probable cause.”
43 citation events (14 in the last 25 years) across 16 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Shanta Orlando Hubbard, a/k/a Shawn Hubbard v. Commonwealth of Virginia (vactapp, 2024-03-12)
Treatment trajectory · 1979 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1979 2002 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 13 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (quoted) Shanta Orlando Hubbard, a/k/a Shawn Hubbard v. Commonwealth of Virginia
Va. Ct. App. · 2024 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence low
s the intrusiveness of the search intensifies, the standard of fourth amendment 'reasonableness' approaches probable cause.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Kastritis v. City of Daytona Beach Shores
M.D. Fla. · 2011 · confidence medium
A strip search is by its very nature a “highly intrusive invasion.” M.M. v. Anker, 607 F.2d 588, 589 (2d Cir.1979); see Walsh v. Franco, 849 F.2d 66, 69-70 (2d Cir.1988); Burns v. Loranger, 907 F.2d at 235 n. 6 (“there can be no question that a strip search, by its very nature, constitutes an extreme intrusion upon personal privacy, as well as an offense to the dignity of the individual”).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Kelly Phaneuf v. Dorene M. Fraikin, Kathleen Binkowski, Plainville Bd. Of Ed., Town of Plainville and Rosemarie Cipriano, Docket No. 04-4783-Cv
2d Cir. · 2006 · confidence medium
In M.M. v. Anker, 607 F.2d 588 (2d Cir.1979) (per curiam), a case decided before T.L.O., we concluded that "when a teacher conducts a highly intrusive invasion such as [a] strip search ... it is reasonable to require that probable cause be present.” Id. at 589.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) N.G. And S.G., as Parents and Next Friends of S.C., a Minor Child v. State of Connecticut (2×)
2d Cir. · 2004 · confidence medium
Our decision foreshadowed the advent of the special needs doctrine by recognizing, in the context of searches performed at schools, that school administrators are entitled to "greater flexibility" with regard to Fourth Amendment concerns because of the "unique relationship [teachers have] 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." Anker, 607 F.2d at 589.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Timberlake by Timberlake v. Benton
M.D. Tenn. · 1992 · confidence medium
Bilbrey by Bilbrey v. Brown, 738 F.2d 1462, 1467 (9th Cir.1984); Security and Law Enforcement Employees, District Council 82 v. Carey, 737 F.2d 187, 208 (2d Cir.1984); United States v. Quintero-Castro, 705 F.2d 1099, 1100 (9th Cir.1983); M.M by C.M. v. Anker, 607 F.2d 588, 589 (2d Cir.1979); United States v. Afanador, 567 F.2d 1325, 1328 (5th Cir.1978).
cited Cited "see" Amended September 13, 2016 State of Iowa v. Mar'yo D. Lindsey Jr.
Iowa · 2016 · signal: see · confidence high
See M.M. v. Anker, 477 F. Supp. 837 , 841–42 (E.D.N.Y.), aff’d, 607 F.2d 588 , 589 (2d Cir. 1979).
discussed Cited "see" State of Iowa v. Mar'yo D. Lindsey Jr. (2×)
Iowa · 2016 · signal: see · confidence high
See M.M. v. Anker, 477 F. Supp. 837 , 841–42 (E.D.N.Y.), aff’d, 607 F.2d 588 , 589 (2d Cir. 1979).
discussed Cited "see" Allen v. Passaic Cty. (2×)
N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. · 1986 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Winne, 12 N.J. 152 (1953). [11] In M.M. v. Anker, 607 F. 2d 588 , 589 (2d Cir.1979), the court observed that "as the intrusiveness of the search intensifies, the standard of Fourth Amendment `reasonableness' approaches probable cause." [ Id. ].
discussed Cited "see" Ruth Blackburn v. Linwood Snow (2×)
1st Cir. · 1985 · signal: see · confidence high
Transport Co. v. Fontaine, 727 F.2d 7, 10 (1st Cir.1984) (rejecting qualified immunity claim under Harlow); see M.M. v. Anker, 477 F.Supp. 837, 840 (E.D.N.Y.), aff'd 607 F.2d 588 , 589 (2d Cir.1979) (in immunity context, evidence that there was no precedent for a strip search policy is relevant to its reasonableness).
discussed Cited "see" United States v. James Thomas (2×)
2d Cir. · 1984 · signal: see · confidence high
See M.M. v. Anker, 607 F.2d 588 (2d Cir.1979) (per curiam) (teachers’ unique relationship to students including discipline, education and protection justifies limited search on less than probable cause on school premises).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." State v. Joseph T. (2×)
W. Va. · 1985 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also M.M. v. Anker, 607 F.2d 588 (2d Cir.1979); Bellnier v. Lund, supra ; In re W., 29 Cal.App.3d 777 , 105 Cal.Rptr. 775 (1973).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Horton ex rel. Horton v. Goose Creek Independent School District
5th Cir. · 1982 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., M.M. v. Anker, 2 Cir. 1979, 607 F.2d 588 (per curiam); Bilbrey v. Brown, D.Or.1979, 481 F.Supp. 26 ; M. v. Bd. of Educ., S.D.IIl.1977, 429 F.Supp. 288 ; Bellnier v. Lund, N.D.N.Y.1977, 438 F.Supp. 47 .
cited Cited "see, e.g." Bahr v. Jenkins
E.D. Ky. · 1982 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also M.M. v. Anker, 607 F.2d 588 (2d Cir. 1979). 10 .
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
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
171.
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
Oct 19, 1979.
607 F.2d 588
Cited by 2 opinions  |  Published
1 passage pin-cited by 1 case
Pinpoint authority: bottom 80%
Citer courts: Court of Appeals of Virginia (1)

607 F.2d 588

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.,
Plaintiffs-Appellants 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, Defendants,
Stephen Heitner and Lucille Amicone, Defendants-Appellees
Cross-Appellants.

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

United States Court of Appeals,
Second Circuit.

Argued Oct. 15, 1979.
Decided Oct. 19, 1979.

Richard Emery, New York City, New York Civil Liberties Union, for plaintiffs-appellants cross-appellee.

Eugene B. Nathanson, New York City (Allen G. Schwartz, Corp. Counsel, L. Kevin Sheridan, New York City, of counsel), for defendants-appellees cross-appellants.

Before KAUFMAN, Chief Judge, and FEINBERG and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

1

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

2

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).

3

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.