Advocates for Children’s Services of Legal Aid of North Carolina et al. Amicus Brief, In the Matter of T.A.S.

This amicus brief by Advocates for Children’s Services of Legal Aid of North Carolina, American Civil Liberties Union, The Gault Center, and others argues the suspicionless search of all female students at an alternative school is unconstitutional under the 4th Amendment where the search’s main purpose was arrest and prosecution by law enforcement. Further, the brief argues the blanket strip search of only girl students violated the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment.

From the brief: “Through this case, the State asks the Court to significantly limit the rights of all students, especially those who attend alternative schools in North Carolina. Amici respectfully request that this Court decline the State’s invitation to so drastically limit students’ rights. The State’s argument that individualized suspicion is categorically not required in student searches -even strip searches, and even searches conducted in a gender-discriminatory manner -in the State’s numerous alternative schools has no basis in law. Neither the United States Supreme Court, nor any court in this federal circuit, nor any state decision compels such a sweeping eradication of students’ rights.
All Amici have experience in students’ rights cases,and recognize the careful consideration courts give to balancing those rights against the needs of schools to maintain order. Amici take the position that the Court can and should affirm the Court of Appeals’ decision reversing the lower court’s denial of the motion to suppress. The decision by the Court of Appeals is a correct application of the balancing test, holding that the blanket search of every student was constitutionally unreasonable since the officials ”lacked individualized suspicion as to which students were responsible for the alleged infraction or any particularized reason to believe the contraband sought presented an imminent threat to school safety.” In re T.A.S., _ N.C. App. _, 713 S.E.2d 211> 212 (2011).”