In addition to searches based upon reasonable suspicion, school officials can sometimes search students without suspicion that a particular student violated a law or school rule. School officials should be cautious, as suspicionless searches are justified only in narrow circumstances. Specifically, a suspicionless search is only permissible when a student has no expectation of privacy in the place or thing being searched, or the search has been found to be reasonable and is conducted on a random basis (e.g., locker searches). This article identifies some suspicionless searches that typically satisfy this legal standard.  

Plain-View Searches

Although students usually will hide contraband, they sometimes inadvertently leave prohibited items out in the open. Students have no expectation of privacy in items that are in plain view of a school official (e.g., a Fourth Amendment search does not occur if a school administrator walks by a student’s car in the school parking lot and sees a gun lying on the seat). In other words, things that are “out in the open” are not private.

Lockers, Desks, and Other Storage Areas

Before searching a school owned locker, desk, cubby, or other storage area, a school official should review board policy to determine whether students have an expectation of privacy in the particular area being searched. Under the law, schools must have a policy stating that students have no expectation of privacy in school-provided lockers. Board policy also may limit the expectation of privacy a student has in a school-owned desk, cubby, or other storage area. School officials should ensure compliance with any board mandated search procedures. And, if board policy does not clearly provide that students have no expectation of privacy in the storage area being searched, school officials should ensure that the search is reasonable and conducted on a random basis.

Canine Searches

Students also possess no expectation of privacy in odors emanating from their personal belongings. Canine sniffs of property unattached to a person are therefore not considered “searches.” So, school officials may use drugs dogs to conduct sweeps of student vehicles, lockers, and belongings without reasonable suspicion. School officials may not, however, subject the student population to suspicionless drug-sniffing searches of their person.

Metal Detectors

School officials must justify the reasonableness of using a stationary or mobile metal detector search to screen for weapons at schools or school functions, as students have an expectation of privacy regarding their bodies, purses, and backpacks. While there are no Michigan cases (or federal cases binding within Michigan) that address student metal detector searches, courts in other states have upheld the use of metal detectors as a reasonable method of promoting school safety. These court holdings have mostly addressed using metal detectors within a school with a high risk of violence or documented history of weapons. But, courts have also held that there is no need to wait for a problem to manifest before conducting a precautionary search. So, generally, school officials can justify the use of a stationary or mobile metal detector.

Suspicionless student searches can help ensure student safety. Before implementing suspicionless student searches, school officials must identify whether students have an expectation of privacy in the item being searched or whether the search is justified, and determine the appropriate scope of the search. When determining whether a search is justified, school officials should take into account the following factors:

  • Does the search invade the student’s privacy interests?
  • How often will the proposed search disclose the targeted conduct?
  • What prior demonstrated need justifies the search (the more threatening the conduct, the less frequently it need occur to justify certain types of random searches)?
  • Are there less restrictive or intrusive alternatives to detect the infractions (e.g., does it require longer than necessary student detention)?

In light of the complex and fact-intensive nature of these determinations, it may still be necessary to contact your legal counsel for assistance.


Written by Thrun Law Firm, P.C.