"What Happens … When Two School Employees Suspect That Their Colleague is Under the Influence

"of prescription medication, search her bag without permission, and find a firearm inside? And what happens when school board officials find out and want to question the perpetrator? Has the Fourth Amendment been transgressed?"

See Thursday's opinion by Judge Gregory Van Tatenhove (E.D. Ky.) in Lawson v. Creely for his answers to these questions. The bottom line:

School employees and officials are bestowed with a societal responsibility to keep their pupils safe from harm. As this case demonstrates, that high degree of responsibility can sometimes conflict with the individual rights of others. Here, Holly Lawson's individual [Fourth Amendment] rights were infringed by her colleagues. For the reasons explained above, however, her civil action cannot succeed.

Comments

[Dr. Ed 2]

So the mistake appears to be in agreeing to release the Commonwealth and only sue the two busybodies in their personal capacity. Oh, and of course, not demanding that the cops get a warrant to search her purse. Oh, and not naming the 5th Amendment when her claims appeared to be under it.

I question the competence of her attorney on the first and third of the above, and wonder if the warrant would have been thrown out on the grounds that the busybodies were acting as agents of the police.

But the big question is what were all the pills, what were they for, and what underlying medical condition did the school learn about because of this? That strikes me as an issue that a competent attorney could spin into an ADA suit on the grounds that firing her for the gun (which I presume happened) was only a pretext.

Assuming the gun was otherwise legal, and in Kentucky it probably was, her argument of "accidental" would be legitimate and unless the district had fired a non-disabled individual for the same offense (which I doubt) this could be quite interesting.

Now as to being stupid enough to leave a gun (I presume loaded) in her unattended office, that's unforgivable.

[Bubba Jones]

If she were truly under the influence of a prescription medication while carrying a firearm in a school, she'd be facing a stack of felonies.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Ummm....

Prescribed drugs?

And what constitutes "impairment"? Slurred speech, in and of itself, is not. It would be a messy charge.

[apedad]

" . . . and only sue the two busybodies in their personal capacity . . .
."

No, they were sued as state actors; "Because Ms. Lawson has established that Creely and Franke were state actors . . . . "

" . . . the busybodies were acting as agents of the police."

No, the Court ruled, they were merely concerned coworkers.
"Creely and Franke, and most school employees for that matter, are not law enforcement officers who understand the intricacies of the Fourth Amendment. Instead, Creely and Franke are non-supervisory employees of the Franklin County school system who felt concern for their colleague and their students. They took steps to calm that concern."

[jimc5499]

So basically Creely's and Franke's ignorance is what saved them?

[Dr. Ed 2]

"The official capacity claims against Creely and Franke were dismissed by the Court upon agreement of the Parties, thus the claims against Creely and Franke are now only in their individual capacities. [See R. 16"

[ConservativeProfessor]

Who is the perpetrator, the gun owner or the colleagues who violated her privacy?

[Dr. Ed 2]

Why was she leaving the school in the middle of the day?
That's usually not permitted.

[John F. Carr]

The short form is, the defendants got qualified immunity because no case had previously held that you can't look in your coworker's Louis Vuitton handbag under her desk in her private office.

Supposing qualified immunity had been denied, what damages would be available? My understanding is courts don't like to reward plaintiffs for getting caught committing a crime. Most of the harm here is from getting caught.