☢ test - Í

drugs, the school administrator “did not ask [the other student] Marissa any followup questions to determine whether there was any likelihood that [plaintiff] Savana presently had pills: neither asking when Marissa received the pills from Savana nor where Savana might be hiding them.” This information “was enough to justify a search of Savana's backpack and outer clothing,” but not requiring her to “pull out her underwear,” which the majority characterizes as a “strip search.” “Here, the content of the suspicion failed to match the degree of intrusion.” “Content of the suspicion” includes the nature of the drugs in question, lack of suspicion that this type of drug might be hidden in the underwear, lack of time specificity of the information, and lack of any corroboration of the information. Thomas dissents, would find the search justified and argues for a return to in loco parentis . State v. K.L.M., 278 Ga.App. 219, 628 S.E.2d 651 (March 14, 2006). Search of student at school might have been authorized if conducted by school personnel, based on another student’s tip that defendant was making plans to sell drugs; but trial court was authorized to find that the search, conducted by a police officer, was not supported by probable cause. “See State v. Young, 234 Ga. 488, 496(2) (216 S.E.2d 586) (1975). In its written order, the trial court found that the principal had reasonable grounds to search K.L.M. ‘pursuant to the standards for searches by school officials outlined in State v. Young,’ but that probable cause for a search did not exist. It then concluded that ‘ since the actual search of the juvenile was done by a police officer and not a school official, the police officer was required ... to have “probable cause” prior to his search of the juvenile. ’ Because probable cause was lacking, the trial court granted K.L. M.’s motion to suppress. We agree with the trial court’s assessment. In Young, the Supreme Court noted that with regard to the Fourth Amendment, ‘there are really three groups: private persons; governmental agents whose conduct is state action invoking the Fourth Amendment; and governmental law enforcement agents for whose violations of the Fourth Amendment the exclusionary rule will be applied.’ (Emphasis in original.) Id. at 493(2). The Supreme Court found that the intermediate group includes school officials, whose conduct is ‘subject only to the most minimal restraints necessary to insure that students are not whimsically stripped of personal privacy and subjected to petty tyranny.’ Id. at 496(2). Furthermore, the exclusionary rule does not apply when these officials violate these standards. Id at 493-494(2). But the Supreme Court took care to ‘emphasize that the standards announced here for action by school officials will pass constitutional muster only if those officials are acting in their proper capacity and the search is free of involvement by law enforcement personnel.’ (Emphasis supplied.) Id. at 498. In another portion of its opinion, the Supreme Court characterized the issue before it as ‘concerning the allowable scope under the Fourth Amendment of a schoolhouse search of a student conducted by a public primary or secondary school official, entirely without the participation of law enforcement officers.’ (Emphasis supplied.) Id. at 494. Thus the search in this case is not subject to the minimal restraint analysis applied to school officials, even though there is no dispute that Johnson was present for the safety of school personnel and performed the search only after being directed to do so by the school principal. Because Johnson was a law enforcement officer who participated in the search, probable cause to search was required.” Accord, State v. Scott , 279 Ga.App. 52, 630 S.E.2d 563 (April 20, 2006) (joint search of student’s vehicle by principal and officer required probable cause); In re: T.A.G., 292 Ga.App. 48, 663 S.E.2d 392 (June 18, 2008) (police officer’s involvement –more than mere presence, including advising on possible criminal charges in front of juvenile – in taking statement from student resulted in suppression, though all questioning done by school administrator). Board of Education v. Earls, 536 U.S. 822, 122 S.Ct. 2559, 153 L.Ed.2d 735 (June 27, 2002). Suspicionless drug testing of high school students as a requirement for participating in all extra-curricular activities approved by 5-4 majority. Expands on holding of Vernonia School District v. Acton , 515 U.S. 646, 115 S.Ct. 2386, 132 L.Ed.2d 564 (1995), which approved drug testing as a requirement for participating in athletics. Fourth Amendment requires reasonableness; reasonableness in this context – search not for purposes of law enforcement, but to combat drug use among students – allows testing without probable cause, or even “individualized suspicion,” because “‘special needs’ inhere in the public school context.” Balancing the students’ privacy interest against the schools’ interest in combating drug usage, the most important considerations are “‘that the subjects of the Policy are (1) children, who (2) have been committed to the temporary custody of the State as schoolmaster,’” quoting Vernonia . Safety considerations associated with athletes were not central to Vernonia , majority says here. This doesn’t mean that all drug testing of students will be approved, but this one is, as it is (a) conditioned on participation in extra-curricular activities, not imposed on all students, (b) is not overly intrusive (monitor stands “outside the closed restroom stall,”) and (c) results are kept confidential and neither “turned over to any law enforcement authority [n]or … lead to the imposition of discipline…. Rather, the only consequence of a failed drug test is to limit the student’s privilege of participation in extracurricular activities.” Court places a high priority on schools’ need to combat drug use among students, even without any showing (as existed in Vernonia ) of any particular level of drug use in the district or among the students being tested. “[T]his Court has not required a particularized or pervasive drug problem before allowing the government to conduct suspicionless drug testing. … Given the nationwide epidemic of drug use, and the evidence of increased drug use in Tecumseh schools, it was