Kuehn v. Renton School Dist. No. 403

Decision Date11 January 1985
Docket NumberNo. 49873-3,49873-3
Parties, 53 USLW 2399, 22 Ed. Law Rep. 1297 Daniel R. KUEHN and Kathryn M. Kuehn, his wife, parents of Adam Kuehn, and Adam Kuehn, Appellants, v. RENTON SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 403; Renton Public School Board; Norman Hash, Gary Kohwles, Greg Tiemann, John Edgar, Jim Bourasa, Georgene Torgramsen, Hazen Band Booster Club and John or Jane Doe I through XX, Respondents.
CourtWashington Supreme Court

Michael W. Gendler, Harvey Grad, American Civil Liberties Union, Seattle, for appellants.

Montgomery, Purdue, Blankinship & Austin, George W. Akers, Peggy C. Hughes, Seattle, for respondents.

WILLIAM H. WILLIAMS, Chief Justice.

The validity of searches of school children by school officials is judged by the reasonable belief standard. The reasonable belief standard requires that there be a reasonable belief on the part of the searching school official that the individual student searched possesses a prohibited item. When school officials search large groups of students solely for the purpose of deterring disruptive conduct and without any suspicion of each individual searched, the search does not meet the reasonable belief standard. Because the search at issue here was conducted without individualized suspicion the student's rights under the Fourth Amendment were violated. We therefore reverse the trial court's determination of this issue.

Hazen High School, operated by Renton School District 403 (District), offered, as an accredited, graded course, the Hazen Adam Kuehn was a member of the Ensemble. In 1982, his senior year at Hazen High School, the Ensemble planned a concert trip to Vancouver, B.C. As a condition of participation, each student going on the trip was to be subjected to a predeparture luggage search by parent chaperons. The decision to search was inspired by an incident 2 years earlier on the Ensemble's trip to Astoria, Oregon, when two students were caught with liquor in their hotel rooms. The search requirement was implemented for the 1981 Ensemble trip, and again for the 1982 trip. The school's music director, the student band council, the parent booster club, and the school administration were united in support of the policy.

                High School Wind Ensemble (Ensemble).   In addition to required class participation, the Ensemble each year visited different locations to perform concerts.   The concert trips were not mandatory, and if students could not afford to participate their grades were unaffected.   Participation required signed parent permission slips
                

Adam Kuehn objected to the 1982 luggage search as did his parents. Despite negotiations, the school refused to abandon the policy or to exempt Adam. The school principal issued a letter stating that the luggage check was a condition of participation, and that students had the option of not participating. The Kuehns sought a temporary restraining order just prior to departure, but the order was denied. Adam arrived at the luggage check with his suitcase locked and a note from his mother stating that she had inspected his luggage, that it contained nothing illegal, and that Adam wanted no one but customs officials to search his luggage. Adam was prohibited from going on the trip.

The plaintiffs then filed an amended complaint alleging a violation of rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Specifically, they contend that the search violated the fourth amendment to the United States Constitution and article 1, section 7 of the Washington State Constitution. They further allege

                emotional damages.   The trial court found that the plaintiffs' case was moot and not of public interest or constitutional significance.   Nonetheless, the court held that the search was reasonable, and that Adam had only a minimal expectation of privacy because the luggage might have been searched at the border and there was advance notice.   Direct review was granted by this court pursuant to RAP 4.2.   We reverse
                
I.

The District argues and the trial court held the 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action moot since Adam never submitted to the search, declaratory relief was impossible to grant, and there was no showing at trial that the search would be repeated. We disagree.

"A case is moot if a court can no longer provide effective relief", In re Cross, 99 Wash.2d 373, 376-77, 662 P.2d 828 (1983), and the issues it presents are "purely academic". State v. Turner, 98 Wash.2d 731, 733, 658 P.2d 658 (1983). Although declaratory relief may be impossible to grant due to an intervening occurrence, the existence of a monetary dispute arising out of a declaratory action will prevent the action from becoming moot. McGary v. Westlake Investors, 99 Wash.2d 280, 284, 661 P.2d 971 (1983).

While plaintiffs cannot be granted the declaratory relief they sought 2 years ago to enjoin the allegedly unconstitutional search requirement, nevertheless, since 42 U.S.C. § 1983 provides nominal damages and attorney fees for civil rights violations, this issue remains to be resolved between these parties. The District is incorrect in arguing plaintiffs must demonstrate actual injuries. In a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action they need only establish a violation of their constitutional rights. Carey v. Piphus, 435 U.S. 247, 266-67, 98 S.Ct. 1042, 1053-54, 55 L.Ed.2d 252 (1978). Furthermore, we find the unusual constitutional issues presented by this case to be of continuing and substantial public interest. Alderwood Assocs. v. Washington Envtl. Coun., 96 Wash.2d 230, 233, 635 P.2d 108 (1981).

II.

This action arises under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which provides:

Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State ... subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States ... to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity ...

Plaintiffs must show both a deprivation of a federal right and that the offending action was "under color of law." Adickes v. S.H. Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 144, 150, 90 S.Ct. 1598, 1604, 26 L.Ed.2d 142 (1970).

A.

The Fourth Amendment prohibits unreasonable searches. When law enforcement officials search, probable cause "is the standard by which a particular decision to search is tested against the constitutional mandate of reasonableness." Camara v. Municipal Court, 387 U.S. 523, 534, 87 S.Ct. 1727, 1733, 18 L.Ed.2d 930 (1967).

The reasonable belief standard was adopted to permit searches of students by school officials on a lower quantum of evidence than that required for a search by law enforcement officers. State v. McKinnon, 88 Wash.2d 75, 558 P.2d 781 (1977); 2 W. LaFave, Search and Seizure § 10.11(b), [694 P.2d 1081] at 456 (1978). In McKinnon we recognized that the need for immediate action on the part of the school official may preclude the procurement of a search warrant based upon probable cause. We did not authorize purely disciplinary searches, but rather set forth standards to be used in the determination of reasonableness: "[T]he child's age, history, and school record, the prevalence and seriousness of the problem in the school to which the search was directed, the exigency to make the search without delay, and the probative value and reliability of the information used as a justification for the search." (Citations omitted.) McKinnon, at 81, 558 P.2d 781. Not one of these standards is met here.

To meet the reasonable belief standard, it was necessary for the school officials to have some basis for believing that drugs or alcohol would be found in the luggage of each individual student searched. 1 These school officials did not believe they would find anything.

In any sufficiently large group, there is a statistical probability that someone will have contraband in his possession. The Fourth Amendment demands more than a generalized probability; it requires that the suspicion be particularized with respect to each individual searched. Ybarra v. Illinois, 444 U.S. 85, 91, 100 S.Ct. 338, 342, 62 L.Ed.2d 238 (1979); Horton v. Goose Creek Indep. Sch. Dist., 690 F.2d 470 (5th Cir.1982), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 103 S.Ct. 3536, 77 L.Ed.2d 1387 (1983) (requiring individualized suspicion under reasonable belief standard in searches by school officials); Bellnier v. Lund, 438 F.Supp. 47 (N.D.N.Y.1977) (search invalid where no reasonable suspicion that each student searched possessed contraband). The factors prescribed in McKinnon evidence the requirement of individualized suspicion. In the absence of individualized suspicion of wrongdoing, the search is a general search. "[W]e never authorize general, exploratory searches." State v. Helmka, 86 Wash.2d 91, 93, 542 P.2d 115 (1975).

There was no basis whatsoever to believe that Adam It makes no difference whether the search was conducted by the band director, the principal, or the parents. When a private person is acting under the authority of the state, Fourth Amendment protections apply. United States v. Walther, 652 F.2d 788 (9th Cir.1981); see Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443, 487, 91 S.Ct. 2022, 2048, 29 L.Ed.2d 564 (1971). It is clear that the parents conducted the search with the sanction and enforcement authority of the school officials.

                Kuehn or any of the students had prohibited items in their luggage.   The reasonable belief standard was not met
                

Contrary to the trial court's view, neither the voluntary nature of the activity nor the preannouncement of the search, standing alone, make the search constitutional. We unequivocally disapproved of the general search of rock concert patrons whose attendance was certainly voluntary. Jacobsen v. Seattle, 98 Wash.2d 668, 658 P.2d 653 (1983). Participation in the wind ensemble trip, while voluntary, was not a private outing. Instead, it was an authorized school activity, in which ensemble members were expected to participate unless they could...

To continue reading

Request your trial
40 cases
  • Maxfield, Matter of
    • United States
    • Washington Supreme Court
    • October 16, 1997
    ...I, section 7 applies to city building inspectors' authority to perform nonconsensual inspections.); Kuehn v. Renton Sch. Dist. No. 403, 103 Wash.2d 594, 602, 694 P.2d 1078 (1985) (school officials and parents were state actors for purposes of Fourth Amendment and article I, section 7 when c......
  • Konop v. Northwestern School Dist.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of South Dakota
    • November 10, 1998
    ...Independent School District, 499 F.Supp. at 234; Bellnier v. Lund, 438 F.Supp. 47, 54 (N.D.N.Y. 1977); Kuehn v. Renton School District No. 403, 103 Wash.2d 594, 694 P.2d 1078, 1081 (1985). Id. at 1166. The defendants in Burnham were nonetheless granted qualified immunity because the issue o......
  • City of Pasco v. Shaw
    • United States
    • Washington Supreme Court
    • September 13, 2007
    ...but it does not authorize the city itself to search for housing violations. The petitioners point to Kuehn v. Renton School District No. 403, 103 Wash.2d 594, 600, 694 P.2d 1078 (1985), in which we held that parent chaperones of a high school student trip acted with enforcement authority of......
  • State v. Olsen
    • United States
    • Washington Supreme Court
    • August 3, 2017
    ...have "merely attended school and chosen to play extracurricular sports." Id. ; see also Kuehn v. Renton Sch. Dist. No, 403, 103 Wash.2d 594, 602, 694 P.2d 1078 (1985) (plurality opinion) (school officials violated article I, section 7 when they mandated across the board search of luggage as......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • Searches of the home
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Suppressing Criminal Evidence Fourth amendment searches and seizures
    • April 1, 2022
    ...City of Seattle v. McCready, 123 Wn.2d 260 (1994) (building inspector action is state action), Keuhn v. Renton Sch. Dist. No. 403, 103 Wn.2d 594, 602 (1985) (school officials and parents were state actors while conducting searches of student property). In Maxfield, the Court held that as lo......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT