Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
10 Washington opinions name it 2 courts 1990–2018 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Washington courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
State v. Slatterygreen2 sentences2018That exception still demands that, consistent with both the federal and state constitutions, searches be reasonable, and "what is reasonable depends on the context within which a search takes place." T.L.O. , 469 U.S. at 337 , 105 S.Ct. 733 . ¶ 14 To this end, the underlying rationale for the school search exception is that " 'teachers and administrators have a substantial interest in maintaining discipline in the classroom and on school grounds' which often requires swift action." Meneese , 174 Wash.2d at 944 , 282 P.3d 83 (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting *707 State v. Slattery , 5 2018That exception still demands that, consistent with both the federal and state constitutions, searches be reasonable, and "what is reasonable depends on the context within which a search takes place." T.L.O. , 469 U.S. at 337 , 105 S.Ct. 733 . ¶ 14 To this end, the underlying rationale for the school search exception is that " 'teachers and administrators have a substantial interest in maintaining discipline in the classroom and on school grounds' which often requires swift action." Meneese , 174 Wash.2d at 944 , 282 P.3d 83 (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting *707 State v. Slattery , 5 | 5 | 8 |
York v. Wahkiakum School Dist. No. 200green2 sentences2018See York , 163 Wash.2d at 308 , 178 P.3d 995 . 2018See York , 163 Wash.2d at 308 , 178 P.3d 995 . | 2 | 2 |
S.A. v. Statered2 sentences2011The court held that the reasonable suspicion standard applied where the case was "best characterized as involving a liaison police officer conducting a search on his own initiative and authority, in furtherance of the school's attempt to maintain a proper educational environment." Id. at 208 , 214 Ill.Dec. 456 , 661 N.E.2d 310 . ¶ 12 Similarly, the Indiana Court of Appeals, in S.A. v. State, 654 N.E.2d 791, 795 (Ind.Ct.App.1995) ( overruled on other grounds, Alvey v. State, 911 N.E.2d 1248 (Ind.2009)), rejected the argument that the school search standard did not apply to the search of a high 2011The court held that the reasonable suspicion standard applied where the case was “best characterized as involving a liaison police officer conducting a search on his own initiative and authority, in furtherance of the school’s attempt to maintain a proper educational environment.” Id. at 208 . ¶12 Similarly, the Indiana Court of Appeals, in S.A. v. State, 654 N.E.2d 791, 795 (Ind. Ct. App. 1995), overruled on other grounds by Alvey v. State, 911 N.E.2d 1248 (Ind. 2009), rejected the argument that the school search standard did not apply to the search of a high school student’s book bag because | 2 | 2 |
New Jersey v. T. L. O.green2 sentences2018That exception still demands that, consistent with both the federal and state constitutions, searches be reasonable, and "what is reasonable depends on the context within which a search takes place." T.L.O. , 469 U.S. at 337 , 105 S.Ct. 733 . ¶ 14 To this end, the underlying rationale for the school search exception is that " 'teachers and administrators have a substantial interest in maintaining discipline in the classroom and on school grounds' which often requires swift action." Meneese , 174 Wash.2d at 944 , 282 P.3d 83 (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting *707 State v. Slattery , 5 2018That exception still demands that, consistent with both the federal and state constitutions, searches be reasonable, and "what is reasonable depends on the context within which a search takes place." T.L.O. , 469 U.S. at 337 , 105 S.Ct. 733 . ¶ 14 To this end, the underlying rationale for the school search exception is that " 'teachers and administrators have a substantial interest in maintaining discipline in the classroom and on school grounds' which often requires swift action." Meneese , 174 Wash.2d at 944 , 282 P.3d 83 (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting *707 State v. Slattery , 5 | 1 | 5 |
State v. Meneesegreen2 sentences2018That exception still demands that, consistent with both the federal and state constitutions, searches be reasonable, and "what is reasonable depends on the context within which a search takes place." T.L.O. , 469 U.S. at 337 , 105 S.Ct. 733 . ¶ 14 To this end, the underlying rationale for the school search exception is that " 'teachers and administrators have a substantial interest in maintaining discipline in the classroom and on school grounds' which often requires swift action." Meneese , 174 Wash.2d at 944 , 282 P.3d 83 (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting *707 State v. Slattery , 5 2018That exception still demands that, consistent with both the federal and state constitutions, searches be reasonable, and "what is reasonable depends on the context within which a search takes place." T.L.O. , 469 U.S. at 337 , 105 S.Ct. 733 . ¶ 14 To this end, the underlying rationale for the school search exception is that " 'teachers and administrators have a substantial interest in maintaining discipline in the classroom and on school grounds' which often requires swift action." Meneese , 174 Wash.2d at 944 , 282 P.3d 83 (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting *707 State v. Slattery , 5 | 1 | 2 |
Pacheco v. Hopmeiergreen1 sentence2012Cf. Pacheco v. Hopmeier, 770 F. Supp. 2d 1174, 1183 (D.N.M. 2011) (refusing to apply the school search exception when the initial reason for the search is other than maintaining school security). | 1 | 1 |
People v. William V.green1 sentence2012As such, even if the Fourth Amendment would allow the school search exception in this case, article I, section 7 would not. 3 ¶21 Second, these cases are factually distinguishable because they all involved a search prearrest. 4 See, e.g., Dilworth, 169 Ill. 2d at 207-08 ; William V., 111 Cal. App. 4th at 1467-68; R.D.S., 245 S.W.3d at 364 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Washington. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. McKinnon
green
2 sentences1990To limit the school search exception to a search of a student's body or his locker would be anomalous in light of the rationales of T.L.O., State v. McKinnon, 88 Wn.2d 75, 79 , 558 P.2d 781 (1977), and Brooks . 1990To limit the school search exception to a search of a student's body or his locker would be anomalous in light of the rationales of T.L.O., State v. McKinnon, 88 Wn.2d 75, 79 , 558 P.2d 781 (1977), and Brooks . | 5 | 1990–2011 |
State v. Brooks
green
2 sentences2018For example, in Brooks , where the vice principal had received information from a student that Steve Brooks was selling marijuana out of a school locker, we upheld the warrantless search of student Brooks' locker. 43 Wash. App. at 561 -62 , 718 P.2d 837 . 2018For example, in Brooks , where the vice principal had received information from a student that Steve Brooks was selling marijuana out of a school locker, we upheld the warrantless search of student Brooks' locker. 43 Wash. App. at 561 -62 , 718 P.2d 837 . | 3 | 2010–2018 |
People v. Dilworth
green
2 sentences2012As such, even if the Fourth Amendment would allow the school search exception in this case, article I, section 7 would not. 3 ¶21 Second, these cases are factually distinguishable because they all involved a search prearrest. 4 See, e.g., Dilworth, 169 Ill. 2d at 207-08 ; William V., 111 Cal. App. 4th at 1467-68; R.D.S., 245 S.W.3d at 364 . 2011The court held that the reasonable suspicion standard applied where the case was "best characterized as involving a liaison police officer conducting a search on his own initiative and authority, in furtherance of the school's attempt to maintain a proper educational environment." Id. at 208 , 214 Ill.Dec. 456 , 661 N.E.2d 310 . ¶ 12 Similarly, the Indiana Court of Appeals, in S.A. v. State, 654 N.E.2d 791, 795 (Ind.Ct.App.1995) ( overruled on other grounds, Alvey v. State, 911 N.E.2d 1248 (Ind.2009)), rejected the argument that the school search standard did not apply to the search of a high | 3 | 2011–2012 |
United States v. Aguilera
green
2 sentences2018Id. 13 No. 76823-9-1/14 Aguilera argued to the trial court that the shotgun discovered in his waistband should be suppressed, contending, among other things, that Aguilera's status as a nonstudent took him outside the parameters of the school search exception. 2018Id. ¶ 26 Aguilera argued to the trial court that the shotgun discovered in his waistband should be suppressed, contending, among other things, that Aguilera's status as a nonstudent took him outside the parameters of the school search exception. | 2 | 2018–2018 |
State v. Stroud
red
2 sentences2011Any distinction focuses on the insignificant factor of who pays the officer's salary, rather than on the officer's function at the school and the special nature of a public school. [4] J.M. argues that if the school search standard does not apply, the search was per se unreasonable because post-arrest searches of locked containers must be authorized by a valid search warrant, citing State v. Stroud, 106 Wash.2d 144, 152 , 720 P.2d 436 (1986), overruled on other grounds, State v. Valdez, 167 Wash.2d 761 , 224 P.3d 751 (2009). 2011Any distinction focuses on the insignificant factor of who pays the officer's salary, rather than on the officer's function at the school and the special nature of a public school. [4] J.M. argues that if the school search standard does not apply, the search was per se unreasonable because post-arrest searches of locked containers must be authorized by a valid search warrant, citing State v. Stroud, 106 Wash.2d 144, 152 , 720 P.2d 436 (1986), overruled on other grounds, State v. Valdez, 167 Wash.2d 761 , 224 P.3d 751 (2009). | 2 | 2011–2011 |
Alvey v. State
green
2 sentences2011The court held that the reasonable suspicion standard applied where the case was "best characterized as involving a liaison police officer conducting a search on his own initiative and authority, in furtherance of the school's attempt to maintain a proper educational environment." Id. at 208 , 214 Ill.Dec. 456 , 661 N.E.2d 310 . ¶ 12 Similarly, the Indiana Court of Appeals, in S.A. v. State, 654 N.E.2d 791, 795 (Ind.Ct.App.1995) ( overruled on other grounds, Alvey v. State, 911 N.E.2d 1248 (Ind.2009)), rejected the argument that the school search standard did not apply to the search of a high 2011The court held that the reasonable suspicion standard applied where the case was “best characterized as involving a liaison police officer conducting a search on his own initiative and authority, in furtherance of the school’s attempt to maintain a proper educational environment.” Id. at 208 . ¶12 Similarly, the Indiana Court of Appeals, in S.A. v. State, 654 N.E.2d 791, 795 (Ind. Ct. App. 1995), overruled on other grounds by Alvey v. State, 911 N.E.2d 1248 (Ind. 2009), rejected the argument that the school search standard did not apply to the search of a high school student’s book bag because | 2 | 2011–2011 |
State v. Valdez
green
2 sentences2011Any distinction focuses on the insignificant factor of who pays the officer's salary, rather than on the officer's function at the school and the special nature of a public school. [4] J.M. argues that if the school search standard does not apply, the search was per se unreasonable because post-arrest searches of locked containers must be authorized by a valid search warrant, citing State v. Stroud, 106 Wash.2d 144, 152 , 720 P.2d 436 (1986), overruled on other grounds, State v. Valdez, 167 Wash.2d 761 , 224 P.3d 751 (2009). 2011Any distinction focuses on the insignificant factor of who pays the officer's salary, rather than on the officer's function at the school and the special nature of a public school. [4] J.M. argues that if the school search standard does not apply, the search was per se unreasonable because post-arrest searches of locked containers must be authorized by a valid search warrant, citing State v. Stroud, 106 Wash.2d 144, 152 , 720 P.2d 436 (1986), overruled on other grounds, State v. Valdez, 167 Wash.2d 761 , 224 P.3d 751 (2009). | 2 | 2011–2011 |
State v. Cole
green
2 sentences2010State v. Cole, 122 Wash.App. 319, 322-23 , 93 P.3d 209 (2004). 2010State v. Cole, 122 Wn. | 2 | 2010–2010 |
State v. B.A.S.
green
2 sentences2008App. 820, 823 , 787 P.2d 932 (1990) (“Under the school search exception, school officials may search students if, under all the circumstances, the search is reasonable.”); State v. B.A.S., 103 Wn. 2008App. 820, 823 , 787 P.2d 932 (1990) (“Under the school search exception, school officials may search students if, under all the circumstances, the search is reasonable.”); State v. B.A.S., 103 Wn. | 2 | 2008–2008 |
In Re Josue T.
green
2 sentences2012Those courts essentially held that the school search exception should apply to SROs when they “search! ] a student during school hours on school grounds, in furtherance of the school’s education-related goals.” In re Josue T., 1999-NMCA-115 , 128 N.M. 56, 61 , 989 P.2d 431 . 2012Those courts essentially held that the school search exception should apply to SROs when they “search! ] a student during school hours on school grounds, in furtherance of the school’s education-related goals.” In re Josue T., 1999-NMCA-115 , 128 N.M. 56, 61 , 989 P.2d 431 . | 1 | 2012–2012 |
RDS v. State
green
1 sentence2012As such, even if the Fourth Amendment would allow the school search exception in this case, article I, section 7 would not. 3 ¶21 Second, these cases are factually distinguishable because they all involved a search prearrest. 4 See, e.g., Dilworth, 169 Ill. 2d at 207-08 ; William V., 111 Cal. App. 4th at 1467-68; R.D.S., 245 S.W.3d at 364 . | 1 | 2012–2012 |
State v. JM
green
1 sentence2012State v. J.M., 162 Wn. | 1 | 2012–2012 |
State v. Bas
green
2 sentences2008App. 549 , 554 n.8, 13 P.3d 244 (2000) (specifically adopting a reasonableness search standard). f 85 Thus, our decisions allow a reasonable search or test using the T.L.O. individualized reasonable suspicion standard. 2008App. 549 , 554 n.8, 13 P.3d 244 (2000). 10 ¶23 We decided these cases before the United States Supreme Court decided T.L. | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Kuehn v. Renton School District No. 403
green
2 sentences2008No. 403, 103 Wash.2d 594 , 694 P.2d 1078 (1985); State v. Slattery, 56 Wash.App. 820, 823 , 787 P.2d 932 (1990) ("Under the school search exception, school officials may search students if, under all the circumstances, the search is reasonable."); State v. B.A.S., 103 Wash.App. 549 , 554 n. 8, 13 P.3d 244 (2000). [10] ¶ 23 We decided these cases before the United States Supreme Court decided T.L.O., which cited McKinnon when it also held reasonable suspicion was necessary to search a student. 2008No. 403, 103 Wash.2d 594 , 694 P.2d 1078 (1985); State v. Slattery, 56 Wash.App. 820, 823 , 787 P.2d 932 (1990) ("Under the school search exception, school officials may search students if, under all the circumstances, the search is reasonable."); State v. B.A.S., 103 Wash.App. 549 , 554 n. 8, 13 P.3d 244 (2000). [10] ¶ 23 We decided these cases before the United States Supreme Court decided T.L.O., which cited McKinnon when it also held reasonable suspicion was necessary to search a student. | 1 | 2008–2008 |
State v. Sweeney
green
2 sentences1990App. 42 , 782 P.2d 562 (1989). 1990Review denied at 114 Wn.2d 1015 (1990). 1 The fourth amendment to the United States Constitution states that [t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." Article 1, section 7 of the Washington Constitution states that ”[n]o person shall be disturbed in his private affairs, or his home invaded, without author | 1 | 1990–1990 |