Rhodes v. Guarricino, 98 Civ. 2343(WCC).

• Decision Date: 10 May 1999
• Docket Number: No. 98 Civ. 2343(WCC).,No. 98 Civ. 2164(WCC).,98 Civ. 2343(WCC).,98 Civ. 2164(WCC).
• Citation: 54 F.Supp.2d 186
• Parties: Trevor RHODES, Plaintiff, v. John GUARRICINO, individually, Stephen I. Leitman, individually, and the Highland Falls-Fort Montgomery Central School District, Defendants. Brian M. Ricci, Plaintiff, v. John Guarricino, individually, Stephen I. Leitman, individually, and the Highland Falls-Fort Montgomery Central School District, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York

54 F.Supp.2d 186

Trevor RHODES, Plaintiff, v. John GUARRICINO, individually, Stephen I. Leitman, individually, and the Highland Falls-Fort Montgomery Central School District, Defendants.

Brian M. Ricci, Plaintiff, v. John Guarricino, individually, Stephen I. Leitman, individually, and the Highland Falls-Fort Montgomery Central School District, Defendants.

No. 98 Civ. 2343(WCC).

No. 98 Civ. 2164(WCC).

United States District Court, S.D. New York.

May 10, 1999.

Lovett & Gould, White Plains, New York City, Jane Bilus Gould, of counsel, for plaintiffs.

McCabe & Mack LLP, Poughkeepsie, New York City, David L. Posner, Laura Rapacioli, Laura Rapacioli, of counsel, for defendants.

OPINION AND ORDER

WILLIAM C. CONNER, Senior District Judge.

This case, stating claims for a violation of plaintiffs' Fourth Amendment rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, is before the Court on defendants' motion for summary judgment pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 56. Plaintiffs claim that a check of their hotel room by their principal-chaperone during a class trip, which revealed alcohol and significant quantities of marijuana, violated their Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. For the reasons stated below, defendants' motion is granted.¹

BACKGROUND

All the facts recited herein are undisputed, unless otherwise indicated. Plaintiffs Trevor Rhodes and Brian M. Ricci ("plaintiffs") were, at all times relevant to this action, students at James I. O'Neill High School in Highland Falls, New York, a public high school. In March of 1998, plaintiffs, with a group of other classmates, took a school-sponsored trip to Disney World in Florida, chaperoned by John Guarricino, his wife, and other adults. The students stayed in a hotel while in Florida, and it is Guarricino's search of plaintiffs' hotel rooms that gives rise to this litigation.

Prior to the trip, the students were provided with a brochure that specifically notified the participants that they would be subjected to "room checks." Defendants' Exhibit A. Guarricino also addressed the students at a pre-trip meeting and explained that their rooms would be checked, Guarricino Deposition at 140-45, although some dispute remains between the parties as to whether Guarricino used the term "room checks" or "searches." Plaintiffs' Memorandum of Law at 2. The trip brochure also advised that "Any behavior discrepancies, either direct or by close association, will be dealt with through standard `School Disciplinary Codes and Procedures.'" Defendants' Exhibit A.

Parental permission slips were also obtained from each participant, including both plaintiffs, and were co-signed by a parent and the student. The permission slips stated in part:

We understand that responsible behavior is imperative to a successful and safe trip. We accept the financial responsibility of our son/daughter coming home early through separate travel accommodations if the coordinator and chaperones deem that the student's individual behavior is in violation of school policy, standards, and/or civil law.... WE UNDERSTAND THE ABSOLUTE FORBIDDEN USE OF ANY ALCOHOL OR DRUGS BY OUR SON/DAUGHTER, AND THAT PARTAKING IN SUCH SUBSTANCES WOULD SUBJECT HIM/HER TO EARLY DEPARTURE AND SCHOOL DISCIPLINE POLICIES UPON RETURN.

Defendants' Exhibit B (emphasis in original). In addition, each student and a parent, including plaintiffs, signed a "Drug, Alcohol and Incident Free Pledge." The pledge stated in relevant part:

It is imperative that students understand that this is an earned privilege and a school sanctioned activity that can be enjoyed without improper behavior or incidents of drug and alcohol use. This most unique O'Neill occasion must not be tainted in any way by poor individual judgment and choice. Direct involvement or implication by association can result in school levied consequences for such action....

As a participating O'NEILL student, I pledge and personally guarantee, with the support of my parent/guardian, that:

(1) I will participate in the '98 senior trip without the use of any drugs, alcohol, or any illegal substance;

(2) My behavior will be respectful of people and property.

I understand that violation of this guarantee will result in my disqualification from senior activities and graduation ceremonies.

My signature and that of my parent/guardian will serve as verification of my understanding of the behavioral terms required, and my pledge to abide by them.

Defendants' Exhibit C.

After signing the pledge and being provided with the aforementioned brochure, plaintiffs, and the other participants, left on March 19, 1998 for their four-day holiday. Participation in the trip was purely voluntary. On Friday, March 20, Mr. and Mrs. Guarricino returned to their room in the hotel. In order to get to their room, they were required to walk past plaintiffs' rooms. A large group of students were congregated in the hallway outside of the plaintiffs' rooms. Defendants' Rule 56.1 Statement at ¶ 11. Moreover, Guarricino asserts and plaintiffs do not deny that a strong odor of marijuana permeated the area of the hallway. Id. at ¶¶ 11-12. Mr. Guarricino then contacted hotel security, inquiring whether he could gain access to these rooms because he suspected the presence of marijuana. Id. at ¶ 14. In response, Marilyn Radcliff, a hotel representative,

.... advised Mr. Guarricino that it was [the hotel's] policy to permit adult chaperones in charge of student groups into their assigned rooms. It is Disney's policy that the adult chaperones in charge of student groups can enter the students' room even without the students being present when there is a dangerous or hazardous situation or if they report to us their belief that the students have alcohol or drugs in the room.

Radcliff Affidavit at ¶ 4. While there is some dispute among the parties as to how promptly thereafter Guarricino entered plaintiffs' rooms, and plaintiffs imply that it may have been several hours after Guarricino smelled marijuana in the hallway, it is undisputed that Guarricino entered the rooms on the same night that his suspicion was aroused. Plaintiffs' Rule 56.1 Statement ¶ 18.

Guarricino proceeded to search the majority of the twenty rooms occupied by the students. Guarricino's Deposition at 169. He entered each room with hotel security employees, and a hotel security pass key was utilized in order to gain access. Defendants' Rule 56.1 Statement at ¶ 16. The students were not present during the search. Guarricino's Deposition at 166. With the exception of searching various safes within each room, Guarricino generally searched only those areas in plain view. Defendants' Rule 56.1 Statement at ¶ 18. Some debate also exists amongst the parties whether he searched open or closed dresser drawers, Plaintiffs' Rule 56.1 Statement ¶ 25, but it is undisputed that Guarricino did not open suitcases or any other closed containers. Defendants' Rule 56.1 Statement at ¶ 18. Finally, Guarricino asserts and plaintiffs do not deny that Guarricino searched the rooms safes, having his suspicion aroused after seeing a safe key sitting in plain view in one of the plaintiff's rooms. Guarricino's Deposition at 174; Plaintiffs' Rule 56.1 Statement at ¶¶ 26-7. For most of the safe searches, Guarricino also utilized a pass key provided by hotel security. Guarricino's Deposition at 175. This search ultimately uncovered an undisclosed amount of marijuana in the room safe in Ricci's room, and a bottle of alcohol was found in a drawer in Rhodes's room.² Defendants' Rule 56.1 Statement at ¶ 17. The smoke detector in Rhodes' room was also disconnected and two burning scented candles were also found. Id. Plaintiffs were sent home early from the trip and ultimately suspended from school for three days. Plaintiffs Exhibit I. As a result of this search and the ensuing punishment, plaintiffs sued Guarricino and the Highland Falls-Fort Montgomery Central School District under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, claiming a violation of their constitutionally protected Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures.³

DISCUSSION

I. Introduction

The law is clear, and the parties do not dispute, that students, whether on-campus or traveling off-campus as part of a school activity, are protected by the Fourth Amendment. New Jersey v. T.L.O., 469 U.S. 325, 105 S.Ct. 733, 83 L.Ed.2d 720 (1985). The law is equally clear, however, that students who are under public school supervision have diminished Fourth Amendment protection. Id. at 340-43, 105 S.Ct. 733. Ordinarily, a search, even one that may be permissibly carried out without a warrant, must be based upon "probable cause" to believe that a violation of the law has occurred. Id. at 340, 105 S.Ct. 733. However, when public students are acting in a supervised environment, under the control of public school teachers or administrators, the search must merely be reasonable under the given circumstances, and probable cause need not exist for the search to be constitutional. Id. at 341, 105 S.Ct. 733. Determining the reasonableness of any student search involves a two-fold inquiry: first, one must consider whether the action in question was justified at its inception, and, second, one must determine whether the search as actually conducted was reasonable in scope. Id. at 341-42, 105 S.Ct. 733. The Supreme Court has explained this two-step analysis in the following way:

Under ordinary circumstances, a search of a student by a teacher or other school official will be `justified at its inception' when there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that the search will turn up evidence that the student has violated or is violating either the law or the rules of the school. Such a search will be permissible in its scope when the measures adopted are reasonably related to the objectives of the search and not excessively intrusive in light of the age and sex of the student and the nature of the infraction.

Id. We will...