Do Constitutional Rights End at the Schoolhouse Door?

This week, the NJ State Supreme Court issued a unanimous opinion upholding the ability of a school administrator to search a student’s car parked on school property using a reasonableness standard of proof, rather than the more stringent, probable cause standard that would apply to a police officer’s search. The decision matches numerous decisions issued by plenty of state courts throughout the country, and supported by the U.S Supreme Court’s decision in the seminal search and seizure case at schools, which coincidentally arose from a New Jersey case back in the early 1980s.

It’s understandable that the courts should protect the school environment from drugs. However, when the state law enforcement enterprise is able to substitute a school administrator for a police officer and permit him to undertake a search without probable cause, it calls into question just how many rights a student gives up at the schoolhouse door.

The ACLU argued strenuously that the Court should consider this case not under the available precedent, or under their interpretation of the federal Constitution’s Fourth Amendment rights, but under a novel interpretation of the state constitution’s Article I, paragraph 7. Considering that the Court has contorted the actual words of the constitution to conduct social justice experiments in the area of housing and education, it is somewhat refreshing to see that the Court restrained itself in the area of protection against government intrusion.

The opinion also makes no note of what appears to be a significant difference between the precedent relied upon and the case at bar. In the 1980s case, the student was a minor and adjudicated delinquent. In the case at bar, Thomas Best was eighteen when he was found in possession of controlled dangerous substances and paraphernalia. Luckily for him, he entered into an Intensive Supervision Program, and likely won’t serve any prison time. However, a more aggressive prosecutor could have sought jail time under drug free school zone statutes, or applied mandatory minimums.

Another nugget of fact appears from a close reading of the opinion. The Egg Harbor Township High School, where the events leading up to this case occurred, utilizes a school resource officer, employed by the Egg Harbor Township Police Department. After the school administrator searched the student’s vehicle, the officer took possession of the evidence and transported the student to the police station. So the officer was available to take the student into custody, but couldn’t be available to perform the search. Is that because the officer would be held to a higher standard of proof before he could perform the search?

Share