From: Tom Fleming Sent: Friday, May 13, 2011 4:44 PM To: Joni Hiramoto Cc: District Attorney

Subject: Motion to S !!ress "r its o" nla#" l sc$ool searc$ in t$e "ollo#ing case: In re Isaac O., Doc%et &o' (()(((((, *ontra *osta *o nty J +enile *o rt

Dear Judge Hiramoto: I said that I would provide some authority in the above case. At the suppression motion hearing, both parties submitted the facts on the police report in this case. Here, Pinole alley High !chool "#P H!#$ Principal %ahn in essence told police that the minor Isaac was late for class, and was subse&uently brought to the office. Inside the office, Principal %ahn told Isaac to empty his poc'ets. Isaac then said he had a 'nife. Isaac emptied his poc'et and placed a folding 'nife on the des'. Principal %han told police that because had a good attendance record and had no disciplinary issues, Principal %han did not want prosecution for the found 'nife. (he instant issue is whether Principal %ahn, under these circumstances, had reasonable suspicion to search Isaac. In the seminal school search case, New Jersey v. T.L.O. ")*+,$ -.* /.!. 01,, the /.!. !upreme 2ourt held that the 3ourth Amendment applies to school searches and that the school must have reasonable grounds to believe that the search will yield evidence of a legal or school rule violation. (he 2alifornia !upreme 2ourt in In re Williams ")*+,$ -4 2al.0d ,,4 noted that #it is well established that public school students do not shed their constitutional rights upon reaching the schoolhouse door.# Id. at ,,+, omitting citation. (he court held in part that school officials are government agents for 3ourth Amendment purposes and that the test is #based on reasonable suspicion that the student or students to be searched have engaged, or are engaging, in a proscribed activity "that is, a violation of school rules or regulations, or a criminal statute$. (here must be articulable facts supporting the reasonable suspicion.# Id. at ,.-. (he 2alifornia !upreme 2ourt went further than the standard in T.L.O. in that it re&uired individuali5ed suspicion and in finding the e6clusionary rule applicable. In Williams, the assistant principal saw the minor wal'ing on campus during class hours. (he assistant principal also noticed an odd loo'ing bulge which later turned out to be a calculator bag. 7hen he as'ed the minor why he was late to class, the boy denied that he was late and attempted to hide his calculator case behind his bac'. He also told the assistant principal that he needed a warrant to search. (he assistant principal searched anyway and found mari8uana. (he high court found no reasonable basis for the search. Here, the principal simply saw Isaac running late for class. (here was no reasonable basis to believe that searching tardy9to9class Isaac would yield physical contraband. (he 3ourth Amendment, the /.!. !upreme 2ourt and the 2alifornia !upreme 2ourt re&uired such a reasonable basis before the principal could search Isaac under these circumstances. :espectfully submitted, (om 3leming