Watkins v. Millennium School
2003 WL 22705745, 290 F. Supp. 2d 890 (2003)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
For a school search to be constitutional, its intrusiveness must be reasonably related to the nature of the suspected infraction; for minor infractions, a highly intrusive search of a student requires individualized suspicion to be justified at its inception.
Facts:
- Shaneequa Watkins Tartt was a third-grade student at The Millennium School.
- Kelly Apley, a teacher, discovered that ten dollars, belonging to another student and stored in her desk for safekeeping, was missing.
- Watkins and two other students were the only individuals present in Apley's classroom when the money was discovered missing.
- Apley first questioned the three students and had them search their book bags and empty their pockets, but the money was not found.
- Apley then had all three girls pull the waistbands of their pants out so she could check their waistlines.
- After the initial searches yielded nothing, Apley took Watkins alone into a supply closet.
- In the closet, Apley again requested that Watkins pull her pants out so Apley could look down into them for the missing money.
- At the time of the search, the school had a policy that required searches of a student's person to be conducted by the Chief Executive Officer in the presence of another staff member of the same gender, a policy Apley did not follow.
Procedural Posture:
- Rodney and Tracy Tartt, on behalf of their daughter Shaneequa Watkins Tartt, filed a lawsuit against The Millennium School and teacher Kelly Apley in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio (a federal trial court).
- The complaint alleged claims for assault, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and a violation of Watkins' Fourth Amendment rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
- The defendants, The Millennium School and Kelly Apley, filed a Motion for Summary Judgment seeking dismissal of all claims before trial.
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 teacher's search of a third-grade student for ten missing dollars, conducted by taking the student alone into a supply closet and having her pull her pants open for inspection, violate the student's Fourth Amendment rights when the teacher lacked individualized suspicion that this specific student had the money?
Opinions:
Majority - Marbley, J.
Yes, this search may violate the student's Fourth Amendment rights, creating a genuine issue of material fact that precludes summary judgment. While school officials are subject to a lower standard of 'reasonableness' rather than probable cause under New Jersey v. T.L.O., the constitutionality of a search involves a two-part test: it must be (1) justified at its inception and (2) reasonably related in scope to the circumstances. For a highly intrusive search to be justified, particularly for a minor infraction like the theft of ten dollars, individualized suspicion is required. Here, the initial search of the three students was less intrusive and based on a reasonable suspicion that one of them had the money. However, the second search of Watkins—taking her alone into a closet to look down her pants—was significantly more intrusive, implicated heightened privacy interests, and was not supported by any individualized suspicion pointing specifically to her. Because the school's interest in recovering ten dollars did not outweigh Watkins' significant privacy interest, and because no safeguards were used, this second search lacked the required justification and a reasonable jury could find it unconstitutional.
Analysis:
This decision refines the application of the New Jersey v. T.L.O. reasonableness standard by tying the level of required suspicion directly to the intrusiveness of the search and the severity of the suspected offense. It establishes that as a search becomes more personally invasive, the justification for it must become stronger, escalating from general reasonable suspicion to individualized suspicion. The court's distinction between the initial group search and the subsequent private search of one student sets a precedent that a single investigation can contain multiple searches, each requiring separate constitutional analysis. This case serves as a guidepost for lower courts and school administrators, clarifying that petty theft does not warrant the same level of intrusive searching as threats of violence or drugs, thereby protecting student privacy against disproportionate official action.
