The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal in favor of a Virginia assistant principal, a school resource officer, the school board, and the city after a 13‑year‑old student, O.W., sued under § 1983 following his investigation and juvenile prosecution for possessing and sharing a sexually explicit image of a 14‑year‑old classmate. Because the district court correctly applied the governing constitutional standards, the Fourth Circuit affirmed in full.
On the Fourth Amendment claim, the court held that the assistant principal’s search of O.W.’s phone complied with New Jersey v. T.L.O. The search was justified at its inception because the administrator had received a report—and then a confession—that O.W. possessed a nude photo of a 14‑year‑old student, conduct that violated both school rules and Virginia criminal law. The scope of the search was also reasonable: the assistant principal instructed O.W. to unlock the phone and then looked only in the photo gallery, the most likely location for the image. The court rejected the argument that the search became a police search simply because the administrator later turned over evidence to the SRO.
Turning to the Fifth Amendment claim, the court held that O.W.’s confession to the assistant principal was voluntary under the totality of the circumstances. Although O.W. was 13 and unaccompanied by a parent, the questioning occurred during the school day, in a familiar school office, for a relatively short period, and without threats, deprivation, or coercive tactics. The assistant principal’s admonitions not to lie and statements that other accounts were consistent did not amount to coercion. Because voluntariness is a legal question and the undisputed facts pointed to only one conclusion, the court affirmed dismissal of this claim.
The Fourth Circuit also rejected O.W.’s civil‑conspiracy claim against the SRO and the city. To survive, a plaintiff must produce evidence that defendants shared a mutual understanding to violate constitutional rights. O.W. relied primarily on the Memorandum of Understanding between the school district and police department, but the court held that the MOU merely coordinated responses to criminal activity and contained nothing unlawful. There was no evidence—direct or circumstantial—that the SRO and city agreed to deprive O.W. of his rights.
Finally, the court affirmed dismissal of the claims against the city and school board. Municipal liability requires an underlying constitutional violation caused by an official policy or custom. Because neither the assistant principal nor the SRO violated O.W.’s constitutional rights, and because no policy or custom was shown to have caused any alleged harm, the claims necessarily failed. With no genuine disputes of material fact and no constitutional violations, the Fourth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for all defendants.
Don’t miss out on ED311 blog posts! Subscribe to the ED311 newsletter.