In Scott v. County of San Bernardino, published September 10, 2018, the 9th Circuit affirmed summary judgment granted to the plaintiffs, three middle-school students. The three students, 12- and 13-year-old girls, went to school officials to talk about another student's bullying and threats toward them. A school administrator asked one of the defendants, a deputy who was a school security officer, to come to the campus to talk to the girls and the girl they complained about. He intended to mediate the conflict. WIthin a few minutes, however, he decided that the girls were being disrespectful. He decided to arrest them, to prove that he "wasn't playing around," "to prove a point" and "to make [them] mature a lot faster." He and another deputy defendant handcuffed the girls. The allege aggressor was released to her father on campus. The others were driven in a police vehicle to the sheriff's department, where they were interviewed and released to their parents. No charges were filed. At trial, the district court granted the plaintiffs summary judgment both on their 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim and their state law false arrest claim.
The 9th Circuit agreed that the deputies were liable. New Jersey v. TLO ruled that the Fourth Amendment protects students, subject to a "special needs" exception under which warrantless searches do not violate the Fourth Amendment if the actions are justified at their inception and reasonably related in scope to the circumstances that justified the actions. The arrests violated both parts of the test. The actions were not justified at their inception. The deputies had no specific information any of the arrested girls had done anything. Further, under the special needs exception, the officers' subjective motivation may be considered. The deputies' stated reasons for the arrest did not provide justification for arrest. Further, handcuffing and arresting middle-school girls was an unreasonable response to the school's need. Because the law was clear that the deputies' arrest violated the Fourth Amendment, they were not entitled to qualified immunity. Under state law, none of the statutes under which the deputies justified the arrest applied. The district court therefore properly granted summary judgment on the state law false arrest ground as well.
Comments