Reset A A Font size: Print

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.

IN RE: WILLIAM P., Respondent-Appellant. Erie County Attorney, Petitioner-Respondent.

Decided: December 31, 2008

PRESENT:  MARTOCHE, J.P., SMITH, CENTRA, GREEN, AND PINE, JJ. David C. Schopp, Law Guardian, The Legal Aid Bureau of Buffalo, Inc., Buffalo (Charles D. Halvorsen of Counsel), for Respondent-Appellant. Cheryl A. Green, County Attorney, Buffalo (Michael J. Liszewski of Counsel), for Petitioner-Respondent.

 Respondent appeals from an order adjudicating him to be a juvenile delinquent based on the finding that he committed the crime of unlawful possession of weapons by persons under 16 (Penal Law § 265.05).   That statute expressly provides that “[a] person who violates the provisions of [section 265.05] shall be adjudged a juvenile delinquent.”   Respondent contends that Family Court erred in refusing to suppress the gun without conducting a hearing because he was illegally searched by the school principal.   We reject that contention.   A suppression hearing was unnecessary inasmuch as respondent's “allegations on their face ‘did not lay out a factual scenario which, if credited, would have warranted suppression’ ” (Matter of Elvin G., 47 A.D.3d 527, 527, 851 N.Y.S.2d 129, quoting People v. Coleman, 82 N.Y.2d 415, 432, 604 N.Y.S.2d 922, 624 N.E.2d 1017).   According to respondent, the principal confronted him based on information from another student that respondent was in possession of a gun in his book bag.  “Under ordinary circumstances, a search of a student by a ․ 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 ․ the law” (New Jersey v. T.L.O., 469 U.S. 325, 341-342, 105 S.Ct. 733, 83 L.Ed.2d 720) and, here, respondent “did not present a legal basis upon which to challenge the [principal's] conduct” (Elvin G., 47 A.D.3d at 527-528, 851 N.Y.S.2d 129).

It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.