Lexplug logoLexplug

State v. Meneese

Washington Supreme Court
174 Wash. 2d 937 (2012)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

The school search exception to the warrant requirement, which permits searches based on reasonable suspicion, does not apply to a search conducted by a commissioned law enforcement officer acting as a School Resource Officer (SRO) after the student has been formally arrested. Under these circumstances, the SRO is acting as a law enforcement officer, not a school official, and the search requires a warrant supported by probable cause.


Facts:

  • Officer Michael Fry was a fully commissioned, uniformed law enforcement officer with the Bellevue Police Department who also served as the School Resource Officer (SRO) at Robinswood High School.
  • As an SRO, Fry's duties involved maintaining a safe learning environment, but he had no authority to administer school discipline.
  • In a school restroom, Fry discovered student Jamar Meneese holding a bag of marijuana.
  • Fry confiscated the drugs and escorted Meneese and his backpack to the dean of students' office.
  • In the dean's office, Fry placed Meneese under arrest and called for a patrol unit to transport him for booking.
  • While waiting, Fry grew suspicious of Meneese's padlocked backpack and asked for the key, which Meneese claimed was at home.
  • Fry then handcuffed Meneese, searched his person, and found the key to the padlock.
  • Using the key, Fry unlocked and searched the backpack, discovering an air pistol.

Procedural Posture:

  • Jamar Meneese was charged in a trial court and filed a motion to suppress the air pistol found in his backpack.
  • A court commissioner denied the motion to suppress and found Meneese guilty.
  • Meneese filed a motion to revise the commissioner's ruling, which was denied by the superior court.
  • Meneese appealed to the Washington Court of Appeals, which is the intermediate appellate court.
  • The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, finding that the school search exception applied to the SRO's search.
  • Meneese then petitioned for review by the Supreme Court of Washington, the state's highest court, which was granted.

Locked

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 the school search exception apply to a School Resource Officer's search of a student's locked backpack after the officer has already arrested and handcuffed the student?


Opinions:

Majority - Owens, J.

No. The school search exception does not apply to Fry's search of Meneese's locked backpack because he was acting as a law enforcement officer, not a school official. The rationale for the school search exception is to allow school officials to take swift action to maintain discipline and order, a purpose that does not apply when an SRO has already arrested a student. Fry is a commissioned police officer with no authority to impose school discipline, and his actions—placing Meneese under arrest and handcuffing him before the search—were clear indicia of police action. At that point, the investigation's focus shifted from informal school discipline to formal criminal prosecution, requiring the heightened constitutional protection of a warrant supported by probable cause. Because the exception does not apply and Fry lacked a warrant, the search was unlawful.


Dissenting - Stephens, J.

Yes. The school search exception should apply to a search conducted by an SRO on school grounds when it is related to school policy. The majority's analysis creates a false dichotomy between police officers and school officials, ignoring that an SRO's primary function is to help the school maintain a safe and orderly learning environment. Fry was acting at the school's request to fulfill its mission, making him a school official for the purposes of the search. The search was justified by reasonable suspicion the moment Fry found Meneese with marijuana, and the subsequent arrest does not negate that initial justification. This decision dangerously departs from the overwhelming majority of jurisdictions and will hinder the ability of trained SROs to keep schools safe.



Analysis:

This decision significantly clarifies the role of School Resource Officers (SROs) in student searches within Washington, creating a clear distinction between SROs and school administrators for Fourth Amendment purposes. By focusing on the 'indicia of police action' such as making a formal arrest, the court established that once an SRO's conduct shifts from maintaining school order to pursuing criminal prosecution, the lower 'reasonable suspicion' standard is no longer applicable. This holding, grounded in the greater privacy protections of the Washington Constitution, creates a split with many other jurisdictions, making Washington law more protective of student rights and forcing SROs to operate under the same warrant requirements as any other police officer once an arrest is made.

G

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: State v. Meneese (2012)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"