D.M., Appellant-Respondent, v. State of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff (2026)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Case Summary

[1] D.M. appeals the juvenile court's finding of delinquency for committing dangerous possession of a firearm, a Class A misdemeanor. D.M. argues that the principal and a resource officer at his high school conducted a search that violated his rights under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Thus, D.M. claims that a handgun seized from his jacket pocket should not have been admitted into evidence at the fact-finding hearing.

[2] We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[3] On November 26, 2024, fifteen-year-old D.M. was attending school at Arsenal Technical High School (Tech), in Indianapolis. At approximately 1:00 p.m., Tech's principal, Reginald Shelt (Principal Shelt), received a “pretty intense” radio call regarding students running in Treadwell Hall—the largest building on Tech's campus. Transcript Vol. II at 8. Treadwell Hall was a known “hotspot” that involved numerous reports of fights, drug possession, and weapons. Id. at 8-9.

[4] After receiving the call, Principal Shelt went to Treadwell Hall and when he arrived, he heard students running and encountered a group of five or six students at the top of the stairs, including D.M. Although the students were supposed to be in class at the time, Principal Shelt noted that in his experience, students typically do not run from him for skipping class. Rather, students tend to run when they have engaged in more serious misconduct, such as possessing weapons or drugs or vandalizing school property.

[5] Principal Shelt took the group from Treadwell Hall to the dean's office to be searched. D.M. was the first to be searched, and Principal Shelt escorted him to a small room that adjoined the dean's office. Tim Hamilton, a police officer with Indianapolis Public Schools, accompanied Principal Shelt and D.M. into the room to assist with the search. While Principal Shelt searched D.M.’s backpack, D.M. stated that he was carrying a gun. Officer Hamilton placed D.M. in handcuffs and asked where the weapon was. D.M. responded that the gun was in his left jacket pocket. Officer Hamilton retrieved a handgun with four rounds of ammunition in the magazine from D.M.’s jacket and placed it in a desk drawer.

[6] On November 27, 2024, the State filed a delinquency petition alleging that D.M. committed dangerous possession of a firearm, a Class A misdemeanor. D.M. moved to suppress the handgun from its admission into evidence, claiming that the search violated his Fourth Amendment rights. More particularly, D.M. asserted that the State could not point to any specific articulable facts or circumstances that justified the search.

[7] The State maintained that the search was reasonable when considering the totality of the circumstances. The State pointed out that Treadwell Hall is a “hotspot” for trouble and that Principal Shelt observed suspicious behavior in that students do not ordinarily run from him for merely skipping class, which means that “something else is wrong [and] it raises his suspicion.” Transcript Vol. II at 70-71.

[8] The juvenile court denied the motion to suppress and following the presentation of evidence at the July 30, 2025, fact-finding hearing, it found the dangerous possession of a firearm allegation to be true. D.M. was placed on probation and was ordered to complete a home-based case work course and a gun violence prevention program.

[9] D.M. now appeals.

Standard of Review

[10] This court reviews de novo a ruling on the constitutionality of a search or seizure, but we give deference to a trial court's determination of the facts, which will not be overturned unless clearly erroneous. See, e.g., Carpenter v. State, 18 N.E.3d 998, 1001 (Ind. 2014) (holding that the ultimate determination of the constitutionality of a search or seizure is a question of law that we consider de novo).

Discussion and Decision

[11] Students’ privacy interests must be balanced with ‘the substantial interest of teachers and administrators in maintaining discipline in the classroom and on school grounds,’ a task that has become increasingly difficult with the pervasive onslaught of drugs and violent crimes in schools.” Myers v. State, 839 N.E.2d 1154, 1159 (Ind. 2005) (quoting New Jersey v. T.L.O., 469 U.S. 325, 339 (1985)). Students are entitled to less privacy at school than adults would enjoy in comparable situations. R.M. v. State, 20 N.E.3d 873, 876 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014).

[12] In T.L.O., the United States Supreme Court decided that the legality of a search of a student “should depend simply on the reasonableness, under all the circumstances, of the search.” 469 U.S. at 341. That said, a school official's search of a student is not subject to the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement and does not require the same degree of suspicion that constitutes probable cause. Berry v. State, 561 N.E.2d 832, 837 (Ind. Ct. App. 1990) (citing T.L.O., 469 U.S. at 340-41).

[13] In determining whether a particular search is reasonable, two inquiries must be made. R.M., 20 N.E.3d at 876. First, one must consider “whether the ․ action was justified at its 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 first place.” T.L.O., 469 U.S. at 341. Under ordinary circumstances, a search of a student by a teacher or other school official will be “justified at its inception” when there are reasonable grounds for 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. Id. 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.” Id.

[14] In this case, D.M. challenges only whether the search was justified at its inception. The evidence at the fact-finding hearing showed that Treadwell Hall is a “hotspot” and it is “usually where the trouble happens.” Transcript Vol. II at 8-9, 51-52. Principal Shelt and Officer Hamilton both testified about the problems at Treadwell Hall that included issues with fights, drugs, and weapons when students should have been in class. As Principal Shelt was walking up the stairs at Treadwell Hall, he heard students running. When he reached the top of the stairs, he observed a group of students that included D.M.

[15] The fact that the students were running from Principal Shelt provided a reasonable basis for him to believe that they were engaged in misconduct more than merely skipping class. As Principal Shelt testified at the fact-finding hearing, the penalties for skipping class at Tech are minor, and students do not run “from the principal because they're cutting class.” Transcript Vol. II at 10, 13. Principal Shelt further testified that students run from him because they have done something “out of the ordinary,” such as smashing a window or having drugs or a weapon. Id. at 13. Officer Hamilton testified that in his “experience when [students] run [they] find a lot of stuff.” Id. at 55.

[16] After D.M.’s backpack was searched, he admitted he had a handgun in his jacket that led Officer Hamilton to retrieve it. The evidence demonstrated that Principal Shelt had reasonable suspicion to believe that a search of D.M. would produce evidence that he was violating the law or school rules, thus making the search reasonable at its inception. See T.L.O., 469 U.S. at 342 (stating that a search will be justified at its inception “when there are reasonable grounds for 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”). Because the search was reasonable and therefore not violative of D.M.’s Fourth Amendment rights, we conclude that the handgun was properly admitted into evidence at the fact-finding hearing.

[17] Judgment affirmed.

Altice, Judge.

Brown, J. and DeBoer, J., concur.