Free Motion for Reconsideration - District Court of Connecticut - Connecticut

I li . __ Cash 3:03-cv-00372-AVC Document 50-3 Filed 02/14/2007 Page 1 of 4
It - Iaajetzil ttietrtct of Flew Eriieaic. _

EE E3
I I IRIS
· ‘
· . _ . !l.lZ7i·*QTlL[j""`.‘E.' `4·· Q -,;j__i·;1r—#._Zli -
` 2
CV 04 4001319 S : SUPERIOR COURT I
KELLY PHANEUF 1 I UDICIAL DISTRICT .
l I
I V. I : OF NEW BRITAIN _ _
I ROSE CIPRIANO, DORE@ M. I
II FRAIKIN, KATHLEEN BINKOWSKI, . _e I
` PLAINVILLE BOARD OF EDUCATION I · ` _
I and TOWN OF PLAINVILLE : AUGUST 18, 2005
i MEMORANDUM OF DECISION ON ‘ _ I
I MOTION FOR SUMMARY I UDGMENT §
The plaintiff, Kelly Phaneuf, has alleged in her revised complaint dated .
i I January 25, 2005 that sliesuffered damages as aresult of a strip search conducted during
I her senior year at school. Rose Marie Cipriano, the principal, ordered the search based
i upon the statements allegedly made by the plaintiff to aiiotlrenstudent that she possessed
i marijuana. The search, which was performed by her own mother under the observation i ‘ I
ofthe substitute schoolnurse, Dorene M. Fraikin, did not reveal any marijuana. The `
defendants, Cipriano, Frail-ain, Kathleen Binkowski (Superintendent of Schools), the
. I I · ‘
I Town of Plainville and the Plainville Board of Education, have moved for summary
" judgement to enter on all counts on the grounds that the- search was justified. and . I
I _ reasonable under the guidelines set forth in the United States Supreme Courts decision
‘i I 2
l . · . · . · - . E
I 111Nen-·Je:·sc_i·v. TLO., 469 U.S. 325, 105 S.Ct. 733, S3 L.ed.2d 720 (I985). . Q
I _ . _ _ . I I I
II Additionally, the defendants maintain that they are entitled to governmental immunity.
ll ‘
5% I 7 i
l I
I l I I
ll . 5

_ , . ~ Ca e 3:03-cv-00372-AVC Document 50-3 Filed 02/14/2007 Page 2 of 4
i - The constitutional claim that the search violated Article First, § 7 ofthe
_ j Connecticut Corrstitution] was fully addressed by Judge Covello in the companion
- federal case with the same name and parties, Phaneuf v. Crpricmo, et al, Civil No. 3:
a i OBCV 00372 (AVC), albeit as a violation of 42 USC. § 1983 and the fourth amendment
to the United Stateis Constitution. His analysis, based upon current law, including New
I Jersey v. TL. O., thoughtfully and fully addresses every issue raised by the pla-intiff herein
i 1 as to both the justification and the reasonableness of the search and no additional purpose i
, l { would be served by this court further addressingthe matter. Inasrnuch as our appellate
courts have not yet addressed this school strip search issue, it is entirely appropriate to
loolt to and be guided by federal precedent. State v. Geisler, 222 Conn. 672, 685, 610 i
A.2d 1225 (1992). In New Jersey v. TL. O., supra, 469 U.S. 3"ill, the Supreme Court
. . ' stated "[w]e join the majority of courts that have examined this issue in concluding that _
2 E the accommodation of the privacy interests of schoolchildren with the substantial need of
, teachers and administrators for freedom to maintain order in the schools does not require
strict adherence to the requirement that searches be based on probable cause to believe
'Article First, § 7 of the Connecticut Constitution states: "The people shall be
_ secure in their persons, houses, papers and possessions from unreasonable searches or
_ seizures; and no warrant to search any place, or to seize any person or things, shall issue
without describing them as nearly as maybe, nor without probable cause supported by
` oath or 2ll`lClI`1`l`12':lllOl'1.H p

__` · _ . Cade 3:03-cv-00372-AVC Document 50-3 Filed 02/14/2007 Page 3 of 4
E E
l E
I 4
l .
- l
‘ r l
- E
3 1
_ that the subject of the search has violated or is violating the law. Rather, the legality of a
. · i
t ‘ t
‘ search of a student should depend simply on the reasonableness, under all the E
circumstances, of the search. Determining the reasonableness of any search involves a Q
l t
twofold inquiry: first, one must consider whether the . . . action was justified at its `
- t E l
li
_ Q inception . . . second, one must determine whether the search as actually conducted was
reasonably related in scope to the circumstances which justified the interference in the i
‘ i firstplace .... Under ordinary circumstances, a search of a student by a teacher or other i i
school official will be justified at its inception’ when there are reasonable grounds for l
t suspecting that the search will turn up evidence that the student has violated or is
violating either the law or the rules of the school. Such a search will be permissible in its .
scope when the measures adopted are reasonably related to the objectives of the search
- -- and not excessively intrusive in light of the age and sex of the student and the nature of
_ the infraction." (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.)
This court adopts the reasoning of Judge Covello and tinds that the search, 3
i ordered by the school principal based upon the statements of a reputable student,
. i conveyed to a teacher, the plaintiffs pastidisciplinary history, the contraband found in the
i l t i
plaintiffs purse and the pressing concern of drug use, was justified. Additionally, as the i
n l

ll ` t 3
. l ‘ s 3** .
E t i
li . . ;
2 { . . ‘ 5
li ‘ _
5
tt — .

_ _ ,. A -Case 3:03-cv-00372-AVC Document 50-3 Filed 02/14/2007 Page 4 of 4
i 4 r l
l
‘ . search was- conducted solely by the pla1nt1ff"s mother, in a private location, albeit under i
i
I l the supervision of theschool nurse, this court finds that it was reasonable. _ p
' I
. 1 - ‘ g
{ f . The remaining counts ofthe revised complaint allege negligence and negligent
l infliction of emotional distress against the individual or corporate defendants. To the .
l ,
is i
i i extent this court has found the search justified and reasonable, the court need not address i
it . . ,
i Q the other claims as they must fail-under the above reasornng.2 The defendants’ motion q
i y for summary judgment is accordingly granted. · l
. l - K"?)
G" ,::5 li/T lf-
_ Berger, I. l
- p 2The defendants argue that these counts must fail under the doctrine of
{ governmental immunity. In Burns v. Board ofEducat1'0n, 228 Conn. 640, 645, 638 A.2d _
, 1 (1994), the court,held "[t]he doctrines that determine the tort liability of municipal .
{ E employees are well established. Although municipalities are generally immune from Y
l liability in tort, municipal employees historically were personally liable for their own E
s tortious conduct .... The doctrine ofgovernmental immunity has provided some
l exceptions to the general rule oftort liability for municipal employees. [Al municipal
. employee . . . has a qualified immunity in the performance ofa governmental duty, but he l
may be liable ifhe misperforms a ministerial act, as opposed to a discretionaiy act ....
The word ‘minis.terial’ refers to a duty which is to be performed in a prescribed manner l
without the exercise ofjudgment or discretion." (Citations omitted; internal quotation
marks omitted.)The plaintiff has conceded that the officials’ actions were discretionary.
- t ‘
a l