Wash. Supreme Court rules backpack search illegal

SEATTLE (AP) - The Washington Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that a student backpack search in 2009 at a Bellevue high school was illegal because the officer who conducted the search and found a weapon was acting as a police officer at the time.
The court said the search did not qualify for a school search exemption and the weapon should not have been allowed as evidence in the young man's trial. On a 6-3 vote, the decision overturns an appeals court ruling.
The majority opinion, written by Justice Susan Owens, said the Bellevue Police officer who conducted the search was paid by the school district to be a school resource officer.
But Owens writes that the officer, Michael Fry, was acting as a police officer at the time of the search at Robinswood High School, an alternative school that has since closed. He had arrested the student, Jamar Meneese, for possessing a bag of marijuana, which Meneese was holding in his hand in a school bathroom.
Fry requested a patrol car to pick up Meneese and while waiting for the car to arrive, became suspicious that his backpack may contain "additional contraband because it had a padlock on the handles."
Fry attempted to search the backpack without removing the padlock, without success. Meneese told the officer he didn't have a key with him, so Fry handcuffed him, searched the student, found the key, opened the backpack and discovered an air pistol, also known as a BB gun.
The majority ruled that because this search was done by a police officer without a warrant, the air pistol should not have been allowed as evidence in Meneese's trial.
The attorney who filed the appeal applauded the court for its efforts to keep exemptions to the warrant requirement narrowly tailored.
"It needed to be reeled in," said Seattle attorney Christopher Gibson. "There just isn't this blanket option to just go and search."
He gave credit for the success of the appeal to Meneese's trail attorney, George Eppler, who argued the BB gun should not have been allowed as evidence and established the record that helped the majority reach this decision.
The dissenting opinion, written by Justice Debra Stephens, expresses serious concerns about the ruling's impact on school safety.
Stephens writes that Thursday's decision will place school personnel at greater risk of harm. The decision will encourage teachers and school officials, who generally are untrained in proper pat-down procedures or in neutralizing dangerous weapons, to conduct a search of a student suspected of carrying a dangerous weapon on school grounds without the assistance of a school liaison officer, she wrote.
She argues that just because Fry was wearing a police uniform and driving a Bellevue Police vehicle did not mean he was acting as a police officer during his regular duties at the school.
King County Prosecutor Dan Satterberg, whose office represented the state in this case, also expressed concerns about the potential impact on school safety and said he would look into whether he should pursue a legislative option.
"The distinction between a school resource officer and a school staff member is not significant in the context of school safety," Satterberg said in a statement. "Search warrants are not a practical option when a student is suspected of carrying a gun to school. Action has to be taken immediately for the safety of all."
Kevin Quinn, president of the National Association of School Resource Officers, called the Washington ruling interesting and said he didn't know if it would influence policies or court decisions in other states.
Only Washington and Georgia put restrictions on a school resource officer's ability to search students within a school setting, said Quinn, a resource officer at a Chandler, Ariz., high school.
"I guess only time will tell" if the idea will spread, Quinn said.
The court said the search did not qualify for a school search exemption and the weapon should not have been allowed as evidence in the young man's trial. On a 6-3 vote, the decision overturns an appeals court ruling.
The majority opinion, written by Justice Susan Owens, said the Bellevue Police officer who conducted the search was paid by the school district to be a school resource officer.
But Owens writes that the officer, Michael Fry, was acting as a police officer at the time of the search at Robinswood High School, an alternative school that has since closed. He had arrested the student, Jamar Meneese, for possessing a bag of marijuana, which Meneese was holding in his hand in a school bathroom.
Fry requested a patrol car to pick up Meneese and while waiting for the car to arrive, became suspicious that his backpack may contain "additional contraband because it had a padlock on the handles."
Fry attempted to search the backpack without removing the padlock, without success. Meneese told the officer he didn't have a key with him, so Fry handcuffed him, searched the student, found the key, opened the backpack and discovered an air pistol, also known as a BB gun.
The majority ruled that because this search was done by a police officer without a warrant, the air pistol should not have been allowed as evidence in Meneese's trial.
The attorney who filed the appeal applauded the court for its efforts to keep exemptions to the warrant requirement narrowly tailored.
"It needed to be reeled in," said Seattle attorney Christopher Gibson. "There just isn't this blanket option to just go and search."
He gave credit for the success of the appeal to Meneese's trail attorney, George Eppler, who argued the BB gun should not have been allowed as evidence and established the record that helped the majority reach this decision.
The dissenting opinion, written by Justice Debra Stephens, expresses serious concerns about the ruling's impact on school safety.
Stephens writes that Thursday's decision will place school personnel at greater risk of harm. The decision will encourage teachers and school officials, who generally are untrained in proper pat-down procedures or in neutralizing dangerous weapons, to conduct a search of a student suspected of carrying a dangerous weapon on school grounds without the assistance of a school liaison officer, she wrote.
She argues that just because Fry was wearing a police uniform and driving a Bellevue Police vehicle did not mean he was acting as a police officer during his regular duties at the school.
King County Prosecutor Dan Satterberg, whose office represented the state in this case, also expressed concerns about the potential impact on school safety and said he would look into whether he should pursue a legislative option.
"The distinction between a school resource officer and a school staff member is not significant in the context of school safety," Satterberg said in a statement. "Search warrants are not a practical option when a student is suspected of carrying a gun to school. Action has to be taken immediately for the safety of all."
Kevin Quinn, president of the National Association of School Resource Officers, called the Washington ruling interesting and said he didn't know if it would influence policies or court decisions in other states.
Only Washington and Georgia put restrictions on a school resource officer's ability to search students within a school setting, said Quinn, a resource officer at a Chandler, Ariz., high school.
"I guess only time will tell" if the idea will spread, Quinn said.
"She argues that just because Fry was wearing a police uniform and driving a Bellevue Police vehicle did not mean he was acting as a police officer during his regular duties at the school."
Â
Boy she is sure asking for trouble by saying this. Â Take her off the bench, she is dumb!
Need to keep posting these bad decisions by our Supreme court and 9th Curcuit of Appeals. Rest of the Country- Gant ruling ..our little State, extra protection of the criminals. Was not the start nor the end. This one is due to the lock the backpack and been a long standing issue that needs a warrant. However there is the School exception to belongings on school. Fine line for the Officer depending on which role he is playing at the momentÂ
Yes, please get rid of these judges-they have no common sense at all. Its scary that they have so much power.
wow.....someone get rid of these far left judges.....please
Really jcman? Â You have transported the person you had in custody to your police department, taken time to write up the probable cause statement, contact a prosecutor if you can get one to immediately call you back, get him to approve the search warrant, attempt to contact a judge and then after finding one going through the process of recording the conversation and the other paperwork that goes with it. Â At the same time other priority calls are coming in and your short staffed. Â I wish simply getting getting a telephonic warrant was just that easy.
Getting a search warrant isn't that difficult if the officer has probable cause to request one. A simple phone call can get a "Telephone warrant". It takes a few minutes but that's no big deal since he already had the young man in custody.
In the past couple of years our courts have made some pro-criminal decisions regarding searching people and their their vehicles or personal property they have with them. Â I am referring to the Arizona v. Gant decision and the Valdez decision. Â This specific court decision should not be surprising as our courts are still swinging to the left. This isn't going to end well for schools. Â School shootings do occur and are now made more difficult to prevent. Â Please know who you are voting for and use your power to vote out the poor decision makers.
I suppose 'citizen arrests' are now illegal as well?
Â
Remember to vote folks. Y'all have a ballot so there's no excuse not to. It's time to clean house.
Don't blame the police when another Columbine happens. Point the finger where it belongs, the Supreme Court.
I'm a libertarian and even I don't like this court decision. The kid was already under arrest for the pot. The officer has the legal authority to search the kid. Granted the cop wasn't specifically on duty at the time but even a private citizen has the right to do this. I'm all for warrants for searches without any evidence of a crime being committed but here a small crime was committed because of the pot. The airsoft gun is meaningless. The only charge should be a small misdemeanor fine for the cannabis. Some of these cases get blown way out of proportion.
Smart kid. I wonder if it was experience or someone advising him to lock his backpack? I am sure this will be the rage this coming year in our schools. And I am sure the school system will adjust somewhat and the kids will come up with more ways to thwart the system. Isn't this what being a kid means today? They have all the information available to them on how to act from our entertainment society. And why would they not want their 15 minutes of fame though in today's world it is twitter feeds and YouTube videos.
And people wonder why criminals are let loose by police to commit more crimes. I hope people in this state never again complain that the police or the prosecutors are not doing their jobs.Â
This is ludicrous. Â If the kid was under arrest, the search should be allowable as a "search incident to arrest." Â That usually encompasses the suspect's person and things within their immediate control. Â Seems to me like this backpack would qualify, unless the lock is what the court is deciding prevented the items contained therein from being within his "immediate control..." Â
This happens all the time in schools. Â Another illegal seizure that happens by these school resource officers is confiscated cell phones. Â A co-worker received a settlement from a police department when their officer took his son's cell phone when he was being questioned preventing him from calling his parents. Â Like the article states, now the school officials will do it but they shouldn't be allowed to.Â
Boy, more and more it sounds like Seattle area police are ignorant and don't know a thing about proper procedures.
Â
How much money are we going to allow to go out of our, the taxpayers, pockets to go to settlements because of their lack of professionalism?
@TJM They're being too careful, because every time they actually do police work, the bleeding hearts sue them.
 @WSU ARNP  @TJM Negative kiddo.  Negative. Â
The fact that this was ruled unconstitutional is a blaring fact that they ARE NOT doing "actual police work".
I'm actually surprised 3 judges dissented... Or maybe I shouldn't be.
Â
This ruling is correct. The fact that current laws for 'search & seizure' for LEO's are no different whether it's on school grounds, in your home, your car if you're pulled over, or anywhere else short of being on Federal property (i.e., Airports, Federal Courthouses, etc.)
Â
There's a balance here between safety and following the existing laws and our Constitution. The school district and local law-enforcement needs to have a pow-wow in figuring it out.
Searching kids' backpacks- illegal. Torturing Americans and indefinite detention of Americans- legal, nothing to see here.Â
"Wash. Supreme Court rules backpack search illegal"
As it should have... kudos to the court.
We as a society must abide by the Constitution.... Might not be popular with some here but it is the law.
Kids do not have constitutional rights.
Well, they have some, but not all.
 @Patriot Exactly, the 4th Amendment still stands.Â
Set your emotions aside... Please... (I feel the same way)
When a law enforcement official searches something they must have one of two things, permission, or a warrant to do so. In this case, since the kid wouldn't give the officer the key, he should have summoned the principal of the school, who could then search the backpack... because he has a reasonable suspicion that there may be something else in there, that would be in violation of school rules..
The ruling is correct... The problem I have, is the dissenting judge that wasn't using the law in makeing her decision, rather was using her emotions.. That is a real problem..
I do agree that in a school setting, the officers should be able to conduct searches the same as a school official.. There may be some additional implications as a result of this ruling, that other things that the officers do, may not be supported by our laws..
Maybe set up a system to get immediate warrants for the officers who are working at schools.. A 5 minute phone call to an on duty judge..to issue the warrant.. and you are golden...
Â
Considering what that kid could have done, I'm glad he found the gun.
This is stupid. A technicality trumps common sense. HMMM..... I bet it would be different if the judge's kid was in that school.....
 @The WA Mama You should think carefully about allowing deviations from the protections afforded all citizens in the Bill of Rights. The best thing about America is that the Founders provided us with a Constitution that limits the power of the government as a way to guarantee the freedom and security of the people. I wouldn't tamper with those safeguards lightly.Â
@The WA MamaÂ
Wrong.... The law applies to everybody.... including you.
Why would it be different if a judges son was in the school?....
School grounds have no bearing on constitutional rights.
This ruling is in line with the law and constitution. It's the same thing when an adult is arrested and an officer wishes to search a locked box or locked trunk on a vehicle. They are not allowed to open such things without a warrant. It's your right to privacy at stake here.
Â
In this case, the student had been arrested, making the SRO an agent of the law at that point, and thus subject to these provisions. ANY SRO, whether normally a cop or not, who arrests a student would fall under this provision. The student was under custody. There was no reason why the officer could not have obtained a warrant via the proper channels if he suspected contraband.
Â
We cannot abandon our principles in the name of "school safety" or any other "public safety" reason.
@GeorgeG The problem is when our rights are violated (4th and 5th ammendments) we live in a police state. Airports search you and the TSA *IS* a component of a police state.
Â
The 4th ammendment doesnt make an exception for schools, stores, movie theaters or anything else.
 @Nic Stevens  @GeorgeG The government always finds ways to violate other rights, like the 2nd amendment. Why is the supreme court finding that only some amendments deserve protection while others do not.Â
The U.S. Constitution and specifically the support for individualism which is evident in the Bill of Rights, is the enemy of the Liberal.
 @Patriot You were doing well until this comment. It relates to the issue of gay marriage that you and I have fired upon each other about. Liberals support the idea that the Constitution protects individuals to be different than the majority yet Conservatives use some phantom principle to deny the minority the right to live their lives as their individual concept dictates. Your blanket statement that Liberals are the enemy of individualism just doesn't stand up to the facts.Â
How can they make such a ruling after Aurora and Columbine? Do school administrators need to wait until someone is actually shooting up the place before they can search?!!!Â
Â
If airports, courthouses, state government buildings can search you, then why can't schools? This is just an ignorant decision by the court.Â
@GeorgeG. Ignorant? Anyone willing to give up the rights and freedoms of others will eventually create a totalitarian state
 @GeorgeG. The school officials CAN do such a search, it is because the search was done by POLICE without a warrant that the case was overturned.
Â
The majority decision was correct.
 @Furd  @GeorgeG. Actually even school officials cannot do a search wherein they search for a key on an individual, and then unlock a private, locked bag/box/object. That's also a violation of the law.
If you want to hurt people, committ crime, or otherwise screw up big time Washington State welcome you.
 @Citizen#3457899654Â
Â
Yeah because the US constitution only affects Washington State
I'm sorry - but if a cop is hired to be at a school, there's no reason to think that he would NOT be able to act in his official capacity and arrest kids that are found to be doing something illegal. This sets a VERY bad precidence.
Its not that he cannot arrest,. Its that a SRO-School resource Officer has two hats. One that he can somewhat act like a school Official and search things as they do. Second is that of the Officer and we'll follow those rules. In this case they decide that he was acting as a Officer and if its locked Officers can't go inside a locked container without a warrant or a exception to the warrant rule. If he was acting as a School Official he would have been fine and dandy to search the backpack under the allocated search protocals that school Officials have and no I don't have a law degree nor am I a reporter...but i think this is the best explaination.
 @JoeKingÂ
The kid was arrested for doing wrong. His 4th and 5th ammendment rights were violated though. Is it OK for the cops to do something wrong? Wait this is Seattle and the cops do do wrong with no accounting for their actions.
what a crock
This is why Washington sucks. Â
@DTÂ So.... The constitution is meaningless?