G.M. v. State (In re State)
Decision Date | 13 September 2013 |
Docket Number | 1120593. |
Citation | 142 So.3d 823 |
Parties | Ex parte State of Alabama. (In re G.M. v. STATE of Alabama). |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Luther Strange, atty. gen., and Andrew L. Brasher, deputy atty. gen., and Ferris W. Stephens, asst. atty. gen., for petitioner.
Tobie J. Smith of Legal Aid Society of Birmingham, for respondent.
The State sought certiorari review of a decision of the Court of Criminal Appeals reversing the Jefferson Juvenile Court's decision to deny G.M.'s motion to suppress evidence that G.M. argues was obtained pursuant to an illegal search. We granted certiorari review to consider as a question of first impression whether evidence of a public-school student's association with an individual known to be involved in criminal activity and suspected of being affiliated with a gang, without more, constitutes reasonable grounds for a search of the student by a school official under the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. We conclude that it does not. Therefore, we affirm the judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals.
On the morning of December 13, 2010, E.M. met with Eddie Cunningham, an assistant principal at Homewood High School, with regard to an alleged violation of the school's cellular-telephone policy. Cunningham searched E.M., using a metal detector, to determine whether E.M. had a cellular telephone on his person. The metal detector went off as it passed over E.M.'s back pocket, and Cunningham asked E.M. to remove the contents of that pocket. E.M. pulled out his wallet, among other things. In looking through the wallet, Cunningham discovered several small bags of what appeared to be, and subsequently turned out to be, cocaine.
After discovering the cocaine, Cunningham asked E.M. who he had been with earlier that morning and E.M. responded that he had been with his cousin, G.M. E.M.'s English Language Learners (“ELL”) teacher, who had been called in to interpret for E.M. during the search,1 told Cunningham that E.M. and G.M. had been together earlier that day and that G.M. and E.M. were
Cunningham then informed Dr. Kevin Maddox, the principal of Homewood High School, that E.M. had been found with what appeared to be cocaine in his wallet. Cunningham also gave Maddox G.M.'s name as someone with whom E.M. had associated earlier in the day and told him that the ELL teacher had stated that the two students were often together and that she had “concerns” about them.
Maddox summoned G.M. to his office. Maddox asked G.M. whether he had anything with him at school that day that he was not supposed to have. G.M. answered that he did not. Maddox then informed G.M. that he was going to conduct a search of his person, and he asked G.M. to empty his pockets. G.M. complied and removed his wallet, among other things, and put it on a table. Maddox found a small bag of what appeared to be cocaine inside a pocket of G.M.'s wallet.
A delinquency complaint was filed against G.M. in the juvenile court alleging unlawful possession of a controlled substance. G.M.'s parents were made parties to the case. On March 4, 2011, G.M. moved the juvenile court to suppress evidence of the cocaine found in his wallet, arguing that Maddox's search had been conducted in violation of his rights under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States and Article I, § 5, of the Alabama Constitution of 1901. After a hearing, the juvenile court denied G.M.'s motion to suppress. G.M. pleaded true to the delinquency allegation, but he reserved the right to appeal the denial of his motion to suppress evidence of the cocaine. The juvenile court sentenced G.M. to probation.
G.M. moved the juvenile court to alter, amend, or vacate its order. The motion was denied, and G.M. appealed to the Court of Criminal Appeals. On December 14, 2012, the Court of Criminal Appeals unanimously reversed the juvenile court's judgment and remanded the cause for further proceedings in the juvenile court. G.M. v. State, 142 So.3d 819 (Ala.Crim.App.2012). The State applied for a rehearing, which the Court of Criminal Appeals overruled on February 8, 2013. The State then petitioned for certiorari review, which we granted to consider as a question of first impression whether Maddox's cited grounds for searching G.M.—G.M.'s association with E.M. on the morning that E.M. was found with cocaine on his person at school as well as the cousins' suspected gang affiliation—were sufficient to justify the search.
The Supreme Court of the United States has stated:
New Jersey v. T.L.O., 469 U.S. 325, 341–42, 105 S.Ct. 733, 83 L.Ed.2d 720 (1985) (emphasis added; footnotes omitted).
More recently, the Supreme Court has stated regarding school searches:
Safford Unified Sch. Dist. No. 1 v. Redding, 557 U.S. 364, 370–71, 129 S.Ct. 2633, 174 L.Ed.2d 354 (2009) (emphasis added; citations omitted).
Under the standard articulated by the Supreme Court in T.L.O. and Safford, this Court must determine whether the search of G.M. was justified at its inception, or, in other words, whether the facts before Principal Maddox at the time of the search raised a reasonable suspicion of a “moderate chance of finding evidence of wrongdoing” on the part of G.M. Safford, 557 U.S. at 371. The State argues that “Maddox had strong reasons to search G.M. both as a matter of ‘reasonable suspicion’ and because of the legitimate government interest in the safety of G.M. and other students.” The State's brief, at 19. Specifically, the State argues:
The State's brief, at 20. The State also argues:
Although the State cites institutional knowledge that Maddox may have had as an administrator, Cunningham's and Maddox's testimony at the suppression hearing support the Court of Criminal Appeals' characterization of the search of G.M. as being based on “a defendant's mere association with a gang or with a known criminal.” G.M., 142 So.3d at 822. Maddox testified that he called G.M. into his office on the day of the incident based on “all the information that we had at that particular moment,” which, he...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Polk
...and mere affiliation with a criminal group does not constitute a crime or a justification for a search, even in a school. G.M. v. State, 142 So.3d 823 (Ala.2013) (mere association with a gang does not justify a search in a school); see also Elfbrandt v. Russell, 384 U.S. 11, 14–16, 86 S.Ct.......
-
People ex rel. C.C-S.
...in other jurisdictions, by a clear majority, have applied the exclusionary rule to actions of school officials. See G.M. v. State , 142 So. 3d 823, 829 (Ala. 2013) (applying exclusionary rule to search conducted by principal); Gordon J. v. Santa Ana Unified Sch. Dist. , 162 Cal.App.3d 530, ......
-
People ex rel. C.C.-S.
... 2021 COA 127 The People of the State of Colorado, Plaintiff-Appellee, In the Interest of C.C-S., Juvenile-Appellant. No. 19CA0913 ......