DATE: Saturday, September 6, 1997           TAG: 9709050018

SECTION: LOCAL                   PAGE: B8   EDITION: FINAL 

TYPE: Opinion 

SOURCE: BY ROY D. NICHOLS JR. 

                                            LENGTH:   62 lines

SEARCHES AT GRANBY ARE ``REASONABLE''

Your Aug. 8 editorial not only misinterprets Judge Robert Doumar's recent opinion in the Granby High School search case but grossly distorts the facts of that case.

The school system's search policy encompasses two types of searches: (1) `random' or `administrative' searches involving the use of a metal detector, and (2) `reasonable suspicion' searches prompted by suspicion that one or more students have drugs, weapons or contraband concealed on their persons or in their bags. The case before Judge Doumar had nothing whatsoever to do with `random' or `administrative' searches, and his decision does not affect the school system's policy relating to that type of search. `Random' or `administrative' searches will continue to be used by the school system to assure the safety of our students until we are ordered to do otherwise.

The recent court decision also did not address the general `policy' of the school system relating to student searches, which is that they be `reasonable under all the circumstances.' The decision addressed only the specific facts of the one case before the Court.

The facts of the Granby High School case, moreover, did not establish that the search at issue was `disruptive,' `heavy-handed,' or `overreaching' as you suggested in your editorial comments. To the contrary, the efforts of the school official involved to narrow the field of suspects before deciding the students' bookbags needed to be searched were reasonable and sensible. Within the brief time available to him before the next class was due to enter the classroom, the dean of students interviewed the teacher and several students separately in the hallway, verified that the stolen property had been present in the room, and that the room itself had already been searched, and that no strangers had entered the classroom during the period in question. While reasonable people may disagree as to the importance of the school system's efforts to prevent and detect thefts in the schools, the actions of the school official in this case were certainly not `heavy-handed' or `overreaching.'

The school system has strenuously endeavored to protect students not only from contact with weapons and drugs but also from misconduct by other students. The rulings of the Supreme Court and other Federal Courts have endorsed that effort and have emphasized that school officials need not weigh all of the nuances of constitutional law. School officials are required only to act `reasonably' under the circumstances. Conflicting judicial decisions sometimes make it difficult to determine in advance what a court may later decide was or was not reasonable. Only a few weeks before Judge Doumar's decision, for example, a Federal court of appeals in California ruled that neither `individualized suspicion' nor the involvement of drugs or weapons was necessary to validate a search of a group of 20 students suspected of nothing more serious than smoking cigarettes.

It is important for students, parents, and staff to understand that the recent court decision was limited to the specific facts of the case before the court and does not require any fundamental change in Norfolk Public Schools' position on school searches.

Norfolk Public Schools is committed to taking every reasonable step to guarantee the safety of our students. This means that we plan to continue a vigorous program of `random' administrative searches in our schools and to continue to conduct individual searches which we believe to be reasonable. In addition, the school system has decided to appeal Judge Doumar's decision. KEYWORDS: ANOTHER VIEW

Send Suggestions or Comments to webmaster@scholar.lib.vt.edu