Reversed

The Supreme Judicial Court (as of March 11, 2010) now has reversed the foregoing Appeals Court decision.

On March 11, 2010, the SJC effectively declared that the shelter was the juvenile's "home". And therefore, there was an expectation of privacy. James Otis would be proud.

Now, to determine whether there is a "subjective expectation" of privacy, it must be, inter alia, one that society recognizes as reasonable.

Firearms, Miranda and The Shelter Resident

Two recent cases out of Massachusetts have come to my attention that I believe merit discussion.

The Massachusetts Court of Appeals in Commnwealth v. Porter, 73 Mass.App.Ct. 85 (2008), examined whether a juvenile defendant has a reasonable expectation of privacy in a shelter that he and his mother inhabited in the Roxbury neighborhood of Boston.

While residing in the shelter, word spread that the juvenile was harboring a firearm and ammunition. After the shelter director became worried of harm or the threat of imminent bodily injury, she contacted the Boston Police Department, who arrived on scene and discussed the shelter’s policies regarding firearm possession. It turned out that the shelter had a zero tolerance policy for a firearm possession in the shelter. The police obtained a master key from the shelter director, entered the room, and seized the firearm and ammunition. The court refused to suppress the evidence, on the grounds that “Here, the defendant and his mother lived in a room in a twenty-four room shelter. The department paid their rent. They could not choose their room, and could be transferred to another room if deemed necessary by the shelter. They voluntarily agreed to live in a highly regulated environment, where shelter staff were charged with maintaining order, discipline, and a safe environment.” Porter, at 92. In short, the Court stated that the defendant had no reasonable expectation of privacy in a public shelter.

What I found particularly fascinating about this case was the court’s decision regarding the statements made by the defendant as the police entered the room. When the police entered the room, the defendant stated that “the gun had no bodies on it, it’s clean”. The court opined that the statement was “…not the product of custodial interrogation, and thus, does not implicate Miranda. Although the defendant may very well have been in custody at the time of the statements, the judge found that the defendant made the statements spontaneously and not in response to any specific questioning. The defendant concedes this point. Accordingly, we reverse the judge's suppression of the statements.” Porter, at 96.

At any rate, the case is worth noting because to the dual application of the 4th amendment of the U.S. Constitution and Article 14 of the Massachusetts Constitution, as well as facts that warrant Miranda.

The Police Power of Texas and the 4th Amendment

The Court of Appeals of Texas on March 5 came down with a unique turn on the issue of 4th Amendment rights in public schools. The case In The Matter of D.H., Appellant, a minor was attending a public school in Texas in October of 2006. Officers from the Austin Police Department arrived at her High School, to perform a K-9 search of the school, as directed by the school principal.

The officers went from classroom to classroom, informing teachers to evacuate the classrooms, ordering students to leave their belongings behind. After the rooms were evacuated, the police and dogs would enter and sniff all of the belongings. The appellant, D.H. had a “small bag of marihuana” in her backpack.

On appeal, D.H argued that the seizure occurred when she was required to leave it behind, and because neither the school nor the police had reason to believe she was engaged in criminal activity, the lacked “reasonable suspicion to seize her bag”

In their Opinion, the Court reasoned that:

“The students themselves were not sniffed and they were not in the room while the dog sniffed their belongings. Only Perez, the dog, and the two officers were present when the dog alerted on D.H.'s backpack. Thus, D.H. was not exposed to embarrassment or scrutiny by her classmates while the inspection was taking place. She was not required to open her bag in front of anyone until after the dog alerted, and then the contents of the bag were only seen by Perez and the police officers. Given the method employed in conducting the canine inspection and the minimally intrusive nature of the inspection, we hold that the invasion of D.H.'s privacy was not significant.” In re D.H. 2010 WL 744117, 3 (Tex.App.-Austin) (Tex.App.-Austin,2010)

In fairness, the Assistant Principal testified that the school knew of a drug problem, including, but not limited to, the trafficking of marihuana. At the end of the day, the Court held that “D.H. brought her backpack into a public school, where she was required to temporarily surrender its possession and leave it in the classroom to be sniffed by a dog. Given D.H.'s reduced expectation of privacy, the low level of intrusion involved in the dog's inspection of the airspace surrounding her backpack, the limited information gathered, Reagan High's interest in combating drug abuse, and its tutelary and custodial responsibilities for its students, we hold that the detention of her backpack was reasonable and thus constitutionally permissible.” Id., at 4

What I find most unique about this case is the disregard for the Tinker principle, i.e. “students in public schools do not ‘shed their constitutional rights…at the school house gate.” Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, 393 U.S. 503, 506 (1969) Notwithstanding that this case is a product of the Lone Star state, it demonstrates the vast police power which states are now afforded under a strict reading of the 4th Amendment.

Renewal

I have long wanted to write a simple, but accurate blog on legal issues which interest me.

Accordingly, I have redacted this blog site, to include my own analysis and commentary on recent and ancient principles of law which I find interesting.

Kindly note that this is an informal blog at best, so proper citation and the like are not consistently observed.

Cheers.