People v. Overton, 24 N.Y.2d 522 (1969)
A school official with supervisory responsibility over student lockers can consent to a search of a locker when a reasonable suspicion arises that it contains evidence of illegal activity, and this consent is not considered coercion under the Fourth Amendment.
Summary
The case concerns the legality of a search of a high school student’s locker. Police detectives, with a warrant later deemed ineffective for searching the locker, searched the student’s locker with the vice-principal’s consent and found marijuana. The New York Court of Appeals held that the evidence was admissible, reasoning that the vice-principal, acting on a reasonable suspicion and having a duty to maintain order, had the authority to consent to the search. The court distinguished this situation from cases involving coerced consent, such as *Bumper v. North Carolina*, emphasizing the school official’s delegated duty and the school’s retained control over the lockers.
Facts
Three detectives obtained a warrant to search two students and their lockers at Mount Vernon High School. The vice-principal, Dr. Panitz, summoned the students. The detectives searched the defendant and found nothing. After questioning, the defendant vaguely admitted to possibly having marijuana in his locker. Dr. Panitz, using a master key, opened the locker, where detectives found marijuana cigarettes in the defendant’s jacket.
Procedural History
The trial court denied the defendant’s motion to suppress the evidence, arguing the school retained dominion over the lockers. The Appellate Term reversed, finding the search illegal. The New York Court of Appeals initially reversed the Appellate Term, upholding the search. The Supreme Court then granted certiorari, vacated the judgment, and remanded the case for reconsideration in light of *Bumper v. North Carolina*. On reargument, the New York Court of Appeals adhered to its original decision, upholding the admissibility of the evidence.
Issue(s)
Whether a high school vice-principal can validly consent to the search of a student’s locker, and whether evidence obtained from that search is admissible in a criminal proceeding against the student.
Holding
Yes, because the vice-principal had a duty to maintain order and security in the school, and the student did not have exclusive control over the locker. Therefore, the vice-principal’s consent was valid, and the evidence was admissible.
Court’s Reasoning
The court reasoned that Dr. Panitz, as the vice-principal, had a duty to enforce school rules and regulations. The court emphasized that school authorities have a right, and even a duty, to inspect lockers when suspicion arises that something illegal may be secreted there. The court distinguished this case from *Bumper v. North Carolina*, where the Supreme Court found coercion when officers claimed authority to search a home under a warrant. In *Overton*, the court found no coercion because Dr. Panitz was fulfilling his delegated duty as a public official by permitting an inspection of public property. The court stated, “Being responsible for the -order, assignment, and maintenance of the physical facilities, if any report were given to me by anyone of an article or item of the nature that does not belong there, or of an illegal nature, I would inspect the locker.” The court further noted that the lockers were not the private property of the defendant, and the school retained control over them. The consent was “equated to a nondelegable duty, which had to be performed to sustain the public trust.” Therefore, the evidence obtained from the search was admissible.