t.l.o standard in North Carolina

2011See In re Murray, 136 N.C.App. 648, 650 , 525 S.E.2d 496, 498 (2000) (holding search was conducted by school official where school resource officer "did not search the bag himself" or "conduct any investigation on his own," and therefore applying the T.L.O. reasonableness standard); see also In re J.F.M. & T.J.B., 168 N.C.App. 143, 148 , 607 S.E.2d 304, 307 (2005) (holding the T.L.O. standard governs school searches when school resource officers— who although employed by the local police department "are primarily responsible to the school district"—are acting "in conjunction with school offici

2011See In re Murray, 136 N.C.App. 648, 650 , 525 S.E.2d 496, 498 (2000) (holding search was conducted by school official where school resource officer "did not search the bag himself" or "conduct any investigation on his own," and therefore applying the T.L.O. reasonableness standard); see also In re J.F.M. & T.J.B., 168 N.C.App. 143, 148 , 607 S.E.2d 304, 307 (2005) (holding the T.L.O. standard governs school searches when school resource officers— who although employed by the local police department "are primarily responsible to the school district"—are acting "in conjunction with school offici

2011App. 143, 148 , 607 S.E.2d 304, 307 (2005) (holding the T.L.O. standard governs school searches when school resource officers — who although employed by the local police department “are primarily responsible to the school district” — are acting “in conjunction with school officials”). .

2011See In re Murray, 136 N.C.App. 648, 650 , 525 S.E.2d 496, 498 (2000) (holding search was conducted by school official where school resource officer "did not search the bag himself" or "conduct any investigation on his own," and therefore applying the T.L.O. reasonableness standard); see also In re J.F.M. & T.J.B., 168 N.C.App. 143, 148 , 607 S.E.2d 304, 307 (2005) (holding the T.L.O. standard governs school searches when school resource officers— who although employed by the local police department "are primarily responsible to the school district"—are acting "in conjunction with school offici

2005In re D.D., 146 N.C.App. 309, 320 , 554 S.E.2d 346, 353-54 , appeal dismissed and disc. review denied, 354 N.C. 572 , 558 S.E.2d 867 (2001); see also, In re Murray, 136 N.C.App. 648, 651 , 525 S.E.2d 496, 499 (2000) (applying the T.L.O. standard to a search conducted by a law enforcement officer at the behest of a school administrator).

2005App. 309, 318 , 554 S.E.2d 346, 352 , appeal dismissed and disc. review denied, 354 N.C. 572 , 558 S.E.2d 867 (2001).

2011See In re Murray, 136 N.C.App. 648, 650 , 525 S.E.2d 496, 498 (2000) (holding search was conducted by school official where school resource officer "did not search the bag himself" or "conduct any investigation on his own," and therefore applying the T.L.O. reasonableness standard); see also In re J.F.M. & T.J.B., 168 N.C.App. 143, 148 , 607 S.E.2d 304, 307 (2005) (holding the T.L.O. standard governs school searches when school resource officers— who although employed by the local police department "are primarily responsible to the school district"—are acting "in conjunction with school offici

2005See In re J.F.M., 168 N.C.App. at 148 , 607 S.E.2d at 307 (holding the T.L.O. standard applies to law enforcement officers which are resource officers acting in conjunction with school officials).

2005In doing so, we apply the twofold consideration as set out in T.L.O., and as applied in Murray, In re D.D., and Wofford: Determining the reasonableness of any search involves a twofold inquiry: first, one must consider “whether the . . . action was justified at its inception,” Terry v. Ohio, [ 392 U.S. 1, 20 , 20 L.

2005In doing so, we apply the twofold consideration as set out in T.L.O., and as applied in Murray, In re D.D., and Wofford: Determining the reasonableness of any search involves a twofold inquiry: first, one must consider “whether the . . . action was justified at its inception,” Terry v. Ohio, [ 392 U.S. 1, 20 , 20 L.

2001In determining whether to apply the T.L.O. standard, courts consider "the role of law enforcement agent, as well as the nature and extent of the officer's participation in the investigation and search[.]" In Re Josue T., 128 N.M. 56 , 989 P.2d 431, 436 (Ct.App.1999), cert. denied, 128 N.M. 149 , 990 P.2d 823 (1999).

2001In determining whether to apply the T.L.O. standard, courts consider “the role of law enforcement agent, as well as the nature and extent of the officer’s participation in the investigation and search[.]” In Re Josue T., 989 P.2d 431, 436 (N.M.

2001Cason, 810 F.2d at 192 ; see also Martens v. District No. 220, Bd. of Educ., 620 F.Supp. 29 (N.D.Ill. 1985); Coronado v. State, 806 S.W.2d 302 (Tex.App.1991), rev'd on other grounds, 835 S.W.2d 636 (Tex.Crim.App.1992).

2001Cason, 810 F.2d at 192 ; see also Martens v. District No. 220, Bd. of Educ., 620 F. Supp. 29 (N.D.

2011The Court then announced a new standard, within the T.L.O. framework, for strip searches which, to be reasonable in scope, “require the support of reasonable suspicion of danger or of resort to underwear for hiding evidence of wrongdoing before a search can reasonably make the quantum leap from outer clothes and backpacks to exposure of intimate parts.” Id.

2011The Court then announced a new standard, within the T.L.O. framework, for strip searches which, to be reasonable in scope, "require the support of reasonable suspicion of danger or of resort to underwear for hiding evidence of wrongdoing before a search can reasonably make the quantum leap from outer clothes and backpacks to exposure of intimate parts." Id.

2011And, after Redding, we are further instructed to implement a sliding-scale approach to the T.L.O. requirement that "the search as actually conducted [be] reasonably related in scope to the circumstances which justified the interference in the first place. " T.L.O., 469 U.S. at 341 , 105 S.Ct. at 743 , 83 L.Ed.2d at 720 (emphasis *223 added).

2011And, after Redding, we are further instructed to implement a sliding-scale approach to the T.L.O. requirement that "the search as actually conducted [be] reasonably related in scope to the circumstances which justified the interference in the first place. " T.L.O., 469 U.S. at 341 , 105 S.Ct. at 743 , 83 L.Ed.2d at 720 (emphasis *223 added).

2001Id.; People v. Dilworth, 169 Ill.2d 195 , 214 Ill.Dec. 456 , 661 N.E.2d 310 (1996), cert. denied, 517 U.S. 1197 , 116 S.Ct. 1692 , 134 L.Ed.2d 793 (1996); J.B., 719 A.2d at 1061 (Pa.Super.1998); see Angelia D.B., 564 N.W.2d at 688 .

2001Id.; People v. Dilworth, 169 Ill.2d 195 , 214 Ill.Dec. 456 , 661 N.E.2d 310 (1996), cert. denied, 517 U.S. 1197 , 116 S.Ct. 1692 , 134 L.Ed.2d 793 (1996); J.B., 719 A.2d at 1061 (Pa.Super.1998); see Angelia D.B., 564 N.W.2d at 688 .

2001Id.; People v. Dilworth, 169 Ill.2d 195 , 214 Ill.Dec. 456 , 661 N.E.2d 310 (1996), cert. denied, 517 U.S. 1197 , 116 S.Ct. 1692 , 134 L.Ed.2d 793 (1996); J.B., 719 A.2d at 1061 (Pa.Super.1998); see Angelia D.B., 564 N.W.2d at 688 .

2001LaFave, Search and Seizure § 10.11, at 144 (3d ed. 1996 & Supp.2001) (quoting Dilworth, 214 Ill.Dec. 456 , 661 N.E.2d at 323 (Nickels, J., dissenting)); See State v. D.S., 685 So.2d 41, 43 (Fla.Dist.Ct.

2001Id.; People v. Dilworth, 169 Ill.2d 195 , 214 Ill.Dec. 456 , 661 N.E.2d 310 (1996), cert. denied, 517 U.S. 1197 , 116 S.Ct. 1692 , 134 L.Ed.2d 793 (1996); J.B., 719 A.2d at 1061 (Pa.Super.1998); see Angelia D.B., 564 N.W.2d at 688 .