Best V. New Jersey Case

Madelyn Spalvins
Nemecheck Block 6
September 18th, 2013
School administrators and law enforcement officers have different regulations when a search or seizure is being conducted, especially concerning that of a minor. School administrators only need reasonable suspicion to search a student while law enforcement officers must have probable cause. In the cases of Best V. New Jersey and Safford V. Redding, the issues of search and seizure of a student in school are laid out in different scenarios that clearly portray the difference between a constitutional search and an unconstitutional search. The concept of reasonable suspicion is sufficient for the extended search in the Best V. New Jersey case because the student was in clear violation of school policy and the search was necessary to maintain safety and order in the school;
however, the search and seizure in the Safford V. Redding case was vowed unconstitutional because a strip search was preformed that was excessively intrusive to the student’s age and sex. School administrators have different rules and regulations than law enforcement officers regarding search and seizure because they have a duty to maintain safety, order, and a drug free school.
In order to have reasonable suspicion, school administrators must have sufficient knowledge to believe that a crime has been or is about to be committed. This differs from the grounds of probable cause because the officers must have sufficient and accurate facts to believe that a crime has been or is about to be committed. Reasonable suspicion for school administrators could be as simple as a rumor. Once that rumor is brought to attention, administration is expected to perform an investigation and if a search and seizure is required of them, it must be a search relative to the scope of the issue at hand. For example, a search of a student’s locker or car on school property with the belief that there may be drugs would be a sufficient search where as a strip search of the student’s body would be considered intrusive. The facts of the two cases, Best V. New Jersey and Safford V. Redding, clearly portray the difference between the two
searches. The reasonable suspicion collected in the case Best V. New Jersey surfaced when administrators of Egg Harbor Township High School received a report of a student suspected to be under the influence of drugs. Following that report, assistant principle Peter Brandt interviewed the suspected student and revealed that the student had received a small green pill from fellow student Thomas Best in 5th period auto shop class. Brandt followed up with an interview and search of Best which unveiled three white capsules in Best’s pants pocket and a confession to selling the former student a nutritional supplement. The rumor of Best giving the other student a green pill would be considered enough reasonable suspicion for the principle to search him, and when the search revealed other substances, it is the administrators duty to check for any other drugs brought in by the student around the school. When a search of Best’s locker revealed nothing, Brandt remembered he had allowed Best to park his car in the auto shop. When students park in the auto shop, they are expected to hand over their keys to the auto shop teacher and the car is allowed to be searched at any time as stated in the school code of conduct which Best had signed. A search of the car exposed a liquid filled syringe, a plastic cigarette with a hole in it that could be used as a pipe, a wallet, a bottle of diazepam belonging to Rose Foster, a bag of marijuana, an unknown white powdered substance, and a vial. Based on the evidence seized, Best was charged with distribution of diazepam to a minor, two counts of possessing a controlled and dangerous substance (CDS), one count of possessing less than 50 grams of a CDS, and two counts of possessing drug paraphernalia. Best then tried to appeal, stating that the search of his car was not reasonably justified by the school policy permitting student searches. However, the search was completely lawful. The school has a handbook which is given to and signed by every student and parent that clearly states a zero tolerance drug policy and allows for search of all student possessions and attributes on school property. The handbook also states that if administration has reason to believe that student’s health, safety, and welfare are at risk, then a thorough search of the student’s locker or car parked on school property would be conducted. Supreme courts ruled in favor of the school. The search and seizure of items in Best’s car was reasonably related to the scope of administrators reasonable suspicion that Best had other drugs in his possession which posed a real danger to the school community. This case, unlike the Safford V. Redding case, is a prestigious example of when it is applicable for administrators to search and seize student possessions and what the grounds of reasonable suspicion cover. In the case of Safford V. Redding, reasonable suspicion grounds surfaced when a student reported that 13 year old Savana Redding had given her four 400mg prescription strength ibuprofen and one 200mg naproxen, all of which are banned under school policy without advanced permission. Assistant Principle then interviewed Savana stating that students had reported her giving them

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/08-479.ZS.html
http://law.justia.com/cases/new-jersey/supreme-court/2010/a-77-08-opn.html