Alabama Court: Principal's Search of a Wrong-Doer's Friend Violates the Fourth Amendment

RCEd Commentary

Background: One December morning in Alabama, the assistant principal used a metal detector to search E.M., a high school student who was suspected of violating the school’s cell phone policy. The metal detector’s alarm went off when it passed over E.M.’s wallet in his pocket. In looking through the wallet, Assistant Principal Eddie Cunningham discovered several small bags of cocaine. He also learned that E.M. had been with his close cousin G.M. earlier that day and that one of E.M.’s teachers said the cousins were like “peas in a pod” and that she had concerns about both of them. The boys were suspected of being in a gang.

After Assistant Principal Cunningham explained all of this to his principal, Dr. Kevin Maddox, Cunningham called G.M., the cousin, to his office and asked the teenager to empty his pockets. The Homewood High School officials discovered a small bag of cocaine in his wallet. This led to G.M. being criminally charged with possession of a controlled substance. G.M. moved to suppress the evidence of the cocaine, arguing that it was seized in violation of the U.S. Constitution’s  Fourth Amendment prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures.

Issue: Does evidence of G.M.’s mere association (good friends and cousin) with a student involved in criminal activity constitute reasonable suspicion under the Fourth Amendment to justify administrators searching G.M.?

Legal Principles: The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures. Several K-12 public school cases have established rules for determining what “reasonable” means. To justify a search, it must be grounded in reasonable suspicion (more than a hunch and less than iron-clad proof). Second, the suspicion must be strong enough to justify the search at its inception — meaning at the start.  And the search must be the least intrusive possible to find suspected wrongdoing — known in court cases as justified in its scope.

Outcome: The Alabama Supreme Court ruled that the principals violated G.M.’s Fourth Amendment rights. The court wrote that it meant “to cast no ill reflection on Principal Maddox” whose motive was to eliminate drugs from his school. However the court held that the search, ‘’however well intentioned,’’ was clearly unconstitutional. This is because it was based solely on G.M.’s association with E.M. and on Maddox’s speculation about their possible gang affiliation. 

According to the court, if judges allowed public school students to be searched based solely on their association with wrongdoers, it would effectively negate students’ Fourth Amendment rights. The court concluded that the search “was not based on reasonable suspicion or justified at its inception” and therefore, G.M. was entitled to suppress evidence obtained during that illegal search.

Lessons for Principals and Teachers:

• School officials should be aware that the Constitution’s Fourth Amendment applies to students in the public schools. Although educators do not need a warrant or “probable cause” to search a student, the fact that a student is a buddy with a wrongdoer or might be in a gang is likely not legally sufficient to initiate a search.  

• To pass constitutional muster, the search must be reasonable at its inception; that means that officials need objective evidence of reasonable suspicion that students have violated the law or rules of the school. The search also must be reasonable in its scope and should not be excessively intrusive.

Alabama Supreme Court
G.M. v. State of Alabama, 142 So.3d 823 (Ala. 2013).

_{Note: This information is not intended as legal advice. Federal and other court decisions can differ depending on what region of the country you live in. State laws also weigh in on certain issues. All cases are for educational purposes only, and meant to demonstrate how courts or administrative agencies have acted in specific instances as well as to provide information that can bolster the overall legal literacy of teachers and administrators. Local school attorneys can provide more detail about local law.}