Court Says Schools Not Required to Give Pupils Miranda Warning

School officials are not required to warn students of their constitutional rights before questioning and searching them for illegal drugs or other contraband, a state Court of Appeal ruled Monday.

The three-judge panel unanimously rejected claims by an attorney for a 15-year-old Oakland youth that such warnings must be issued because school authorities are acting as “investigatory agents” of police.

“Questioning of a student by a principal, whose duties include the obligations to maintain order, protect the health and safety of pupils and maintain conditions conducive to learning, cannot be equated with custodial interrogation by law enforcement officers,” the court said in an opinion by Appellate Justice John E. Benson.

The precedent-setting ruling will be binding on trial judges throughout the state unless set aside on appeal. An attorney for the student in the case was not available for comment, but it was expected the state Supreme Court will be asked to review the decision.

“There has been no ruling in California prior to this on whether a ‘Miranda warning’ is required in this situation,” said state Deputy Atty. Gen. Josanna Berkow. “We are very pleased with the decision.”

The case before the appeal court involved a minor identified as Corey L., a student at Madison Middle School accused of possession of cocaine.

According to testimony, Paul Randall, the school principal, and another employee approached the boy in February, 1987, after three students had told Randall that drugs had been brought onto the campus. One of the three said Corey possessed the drugs.

Randall asked Corey if the accusations were true. The youth denied possessing drugs and said, “you can search me if you want to.” Randall searched the boy and found two small bags containing five pea-sized balls of what later was identified as cocaine.

The principal further questioned Corey, who then claimed he had acquired the drugs from somebody else, did not intend to sell it and was afraid to leave it at home. Randall reminded Corey that he had been suspected of drug activity once before when he appeared at school with $195 without adequate explanation.

Randall called police, who came to the school to take Corey into custody. The boy was made a ward of the juvenile court and placed on probation. His attorney then appealed the validity of the action.

The lawyer contended that neither the statements nor the search could be used against Corey because he had not been warned of his right to remain silent and to have a lawyer--a prerequisite to custodial interrogations under the landmark 1966 ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court in Miranda vs. Arizona.

‘Reasonable Suspicion’

Such warnings, the attorney said, were the logical requirement of rulings by both the federal and state high court in 1985, holding that before they can search students, school officials must have “reasonable suspicion” pupils have violated school rules or the law.

But Benson, in an opinion joined by Appellate Justices J. Anthony Kline and Allison M. Rouse, said that warnings were required only for “questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a person has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way.”

Benson noted that federal appeals courts and several courts in other states had reached similar conclusions in cases involving the questioning of students by school authorities.

The panel said also that the principal, having been informed that Corey possessed cocaine, had the required “reasonable suspicion” to justify the search under the 1985 federal and state rulings.