## Facts

- A public-school student told Pasadena Independent School District administrators that he had purchased marijuana at school from classmate James Thomas Salazar.
- Marijuana was found in the reporting student’s locker, and he provided a written statement identifying Salazar as the seller and describing the on-campus purchase.
- The school’s assistant principal and the school security guard—an off-duty police officer working for the school—removed Salazar from class and questioned him in an office.
- A Pasadena police officer also participated in the questioning; the interview lasted about 30–40 minutes.
- Salazar was suspended under the district’s drug policy based on the accusation and the related evidence; he was not prosecuted criminally.
- Two days later, the school principal held a hearing with Salazar and decided to permanently suspend him.
- District officials rescinded that permanent suspension and assigned Salazar to a school suspension site (a disciplinary placement) pending another hearing.
- Additional hearings and reviews followed, including a second principal hearing and appeals within the district’s administrative chain.
- The school board conducted hearings and reduced the sanction to a 30-day suspension/assignment at the disciplinary facility.
- Under the district’s good-behavior credit rules, Salazar completed the 30-day sanction in roughly 15 days and returned to regular classes.
- Salazar sued school administrators and trustees under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging unconstitutional search/seizure (Fourth Amendment), compelled self-incrimination (Fifth Amendment), denial of counsel (Sixth Amendment), and denial of procedural due process (Fourteenth Amendment) arising from the interrogation and disciplinary process.

## Issues

1. Whether Salazar’s removal from class and questioning by school officials and a school security guard who was an off-duty police officer amounted to an unreasonable seizure under the Fourth Amendment in the school-discipline context.
2. Whether the questioning without Miranda-type warnings violated the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination when the consequences were school discipline rather than criminal prosecution.
3. Whether Salazar had a Sixth Amendment right to counsel during the interrogation and school disciplinary proceedings.
4. Whether the notice and series of hearings, reviews, and appeals satisfied Fourteenth Amendment procedural due process for the suspension and alternative placement imposed.

## Decision

- The court granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment on all federal constitutional claims.
- The court held the detention and questioning were reasonable under the Fourth Amendment standard applicable to school investigations tied to discipline.
- The court held there was no Fifth Amendment violation because the matter resulted in school discipline and not a criminal prosecution using compelled statements.
- The court held the Sixth Amendment right to counsel did not attach because there were no adversarial criminal proceedings.
- The court held Salazar received constitutionally sufficient notice and multiple opportunities to be heard, so there was no Fourteenth Amendment due process violation.

## Legal Principles

- Student searches and related seizures in public schools are measured by reasonableness under all the circumstances, not the full probable-cause framework used for ordinary police activity.
- The involvement of an off-duty officer serving in a school security role does not automatically convert a school disciplinary investigation into a criminal case for Fourth Amendment analysis.
- The Fifth Amendment’s self-incrimination protection and Miranda safeguards generally apply to custodial interrogation connected to criminal prosecution; school discipline without a criminal case does not, by itself, require Miranda-type warnings.
- The Sixth Amendment right to counsel attaches when adversarial criminal judicial proceedings begin; school disciplinary proceedings alone do not trigger that right.
- Procedural due process for student discipline requires notice of the accusation and an opportunity to respond; layered hearings and multiple internal appeals can exceed the constitutional minimum required for suspensions and similar sanctions.

## Conclusion

In *Salazar v. Luty*, the federal district court held that a public school’s response to an on-campus marijuana-sale accusation—removing the student from class for questioning, suspending him under the district drug policy, and then providing repeated hearings and appeals culminating in a reduced suspension—did not violate the student’s Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, or Fourteenth Amendment rights, and the court entered summary judgment for the school officials and trustees.


Salazar v. Luty, 761 F. Supp. 45 (1991)