David Tarter v. William Raybuck
742 F.2d 977, 1984 U.S. App. LEXIS 19004, 19 Educ. L. Rep. 952 (1984)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A school official's search of a student's person does not violate the Fourth Amendment if the official has reasonable cause to believe the search is necessary to maintain school discipline or a safe educational environment, and the search itself is reasonable in scope.
Facts:
- School administrators David Rump, William Raybuck, and William Spargur were conducting surveillance of a designated student smoking area due to prior reports of drug use.
- The administrators observed what they believed to be students using marijuana and exchanging money for plastic bags, including an exchange between student David Tarter and another student.
- The administrators took Tarter and other students to an office for questioning.
- Raybuck and Spargur took Tarter to a separate room to conduct a search, based on their observations and a claim from another student that Tarter sold him marijuana.
- At their request, Tarter emptied his pockets and removed his jacket, boots, and shirt, but no incriminating evidence was found.
- The administrators then asked Tarter to remove his pants, which he refused to do, at which point the search was terminated.
- Based on the administrators' initial observations, Tarter was suspended and subsequently expelled for the remainder of the semester for possession and/or use of marijuana.
Procedural Posture:
- David Tarter and his parents (Plaintiffs) sued school administrators and the Board of Education (Defendants) in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging an unconstitutional search.
- Defendants filed a counterclaim seeking costs and attorney's fees.
- At trial, the district court granted a directed verdict in favor of some defendants at the close of the plaintiffs' case.
- After trial, the district court rendered judgment in favor of all remaining defendants, finding the search was constitutional because Tarter had consented.
- The district court also found the plaintiffs' lawsuit was frivolous and awarded attorney's fees to the defendants.
- The Tarters (Appellants) appealed the judgment and the fee award to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit; the school officials (Appellees) defended the district court's decision.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a school official's search of a student violate the Fourth Amendment if the search is based on reasonable cause to believe the student has violated school rules and is conducted in a reasonable manner?
Opinions:
Majority - Phillips, Senior Circuit Judge
No, the search did not violate the Fourth Amendment. A school official may constitutionally search a student if the search is supported by reasonable cause and is reasonable in scope. While students retain their Fourth Amendment rights at school, the standard is lowered from 'probable cause' to 'reasonable cause' to accommodate the school's essential interest in maintaining discipline and a safe learning environment. Here, the administrators had reasonable cause based on their personal observation of what they believed was a drug transaction involving David Tarter. The scope of the search—requesting Tarter to empty his pockets and remove outer clothing—was reasonable under the circumstances, and the officials ceased the search when Tarter refused to remove his pants. The marginal involvement of the police did not heighten the standard to probable cause in the context of this civil rights action for damages.
Analysis:
This decision establishes the 'reasonable cause' standard for student searches in the Sixth Circuit, aligning with a growing consensus among federal courts prior to the Supreme Court's definitive ruling in New Jersey v. T.L.O. It solidifies the principle that while students have Fourth Amendment rights, those rights are diminished within the school environment to accommodate the state's compelling interest in education and safety. The ruling provides school officials with significant discretion, differentiating their authority from that of law enforcement officers by not requiring probable cause or a warrant. This case serves as a key precedent for analyzing the constitutionality of student searches, balancing individual privacy against the administrative needs of public schools.
