Court Error – Standard of Reasonableness – TLO

Listen to this article

WI Court of Appeals – District III

Case Name: State of Wisconsin v. Blong Simba Vang

Case No.: 2018AP1730-CR

Officials: Stark, P.J., Hruz and Seidl, JJ.

Focus: Court Error – Standard of Reasonableness – TLO

Blong Vang appeals a judgment of conviction, following his guilty plea, on one count of conspiracy to commit child abuse—intentionally cause bodily harm, contrary to WIS. STAT. §§ 948.03(2)(b) and 939.31 (2019-20). Vang was arrested after law enforcement discovered weapons in his vehicle located in an Appleton East High School (Appleton East) parking lot. The circuit court denied Vang’s motion to suppress evidence of the weapons and statements he made after his arrest. In doing so it relied upon the reasonableness standard articulated in New Jersey v. T.L.O., 469 U.S. 325 (1985). That standard permits the search of a student on school grounds without probable cause or a warrant if the search is reasonable under all of the circumstances. Reasonableness of a search under this standard is determined using a two-part test: (1) the search must be “justified at its inception”; and (2) the search must be “reasonably related in scope to the circumstances which justified the interference in the first place.” Id. at 341-42 (citation omitted).

Vang contends that the circuit court erred in determining that his vehicle search was subject to the T.L.O. reasonableness standard. Specifically, Vang argues that probable cause was needed to search his vehicle because Vang was not a student of the high school, the search was conducted by law enforcement, and the investigation leading to the search was instigated by a school resource officer.

We conclude that the circuit court properly applied the T.L.O. “reasonableness, under all the circumstances” standard to deny Vang’s suppression motion. As the federal district court in United States v. Aguilera, 287 F.Supp. 2d 1204, 1209 (E.D. Cal. 2003), recognized, the duty of school officials to keep students safe applies equally to threats posed by students or non-students. We therefore conclude that standard applies equally to searches on school grounds of both students and non-students of the school where the search occurs.

Further, the decision here to search Vang’s vehicle was made by school officials, not by law enforcement. Finally, the search was justified at its inception so as to ensure the safety of students, and it was reasonably related in scope to that safety concern. We therefore affirm Vang’s judgment of conviction.

Recommended for Publication

Full Text

Derek A Hawkins is Associate Corporate Counsel, IP at Amazon.