On March 1, 2017, the Ohio Supreme Court heard oral arguments in State of Ohio v. Polk, No. 2016-0271, a case of national importance involving the constitutionality of a search conducted by a school security officer which uncovered bullets in a student’s book bag. The Ohio Channel’s video of the oral arguments in State of Ohio v. Polk is set forth below for your viewing pleasure.
In State of Ohio v. Polk, the discovery of bullets led the school officials to search the student himself, which produced a firearm on school grounds. The trial and appellate courts ultimately suppressed all evidence regarding the gun, finding that the security officer did not have reasonable grounds to conduct the initial search leading to the discovery of bullets because the school security officer may have been motivated by rumors regarding the student’s gang affiliation. The issues before the Ohio Supreme Court involve, in part, (1) whether the exclusionary rule, which bars admissibility of evidence from an illegal search, applies to searches conducted by public school employees and (2) whether a public school employee’s search of an unattended book bag needs to meet the standard of being reasonable or does the employee’s intent determine whether the search is permitted?
These issues attracted the attention of several state and national school organizations. The Ohio School Boards Association and the Ohio Education Association filed a joint amicus, or “friend of the court,” brief. The joint amicus brief asserts that (1) the focus of the lower courts on the security officer’s intent ignores the unique nature of the school setting and improperly applies standards that are intended for law enforcement officials in the criminal context – not for school employees in the context of advancing school safety and (2) extension of the exclusionary rule to searches conducted by school employees is wrong as searches conducted by school employees are done for school purposes only – not for law enforcement purposes.
A ruling in this case is expected later this year. Please check back with our blog regularly for a comprehensive summary of the Ohio Supreme Court’s highly anticipated ruling.
To read Court News Ohio’s summary of the legal arguments in this case, please click here.
Authors: Matthew John Markling and Patrick Vrobel
Note: This blog entry does not constitute – nor does it contain – legal advice. Legal jurisprudence is like the always changing Midwestern weather. As a result, this single blog entry cannot substitute for consultation with a McGown & Markling attorney. If legal advice is needed with respect to a specific factual situation, please feel free to contact a McGown & Markling attorney.