# Tiffany Thomas v. Clayton County Bd. of Education

> Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · August 15, 2001 · 261 F.3d 1160

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9415622

## Case

- **Full name:** Tiffany THOMAS, a Minor by Her Father Gregory THOMAS, Carl G. Casey, a Minor by His Mother Virgil M. Casey, Et Al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. R.G. ROBERTS, Individually and in Her Official Capacity as Assistant Principal, West Clayton Elementary School, Zannie Billingslea, Et Al., Defendants-Appellees
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
- **Decided:** August 15, 2001
- **Citations:** 261 F.3d 1160; 2001 U.S. App. LEXIS 18375; 2001 WL 920674
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Roney
- **Judges:** Black, Roney, Cox
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9415622

## Opinion text

RONEY, Circuit Judge, specially concurring:
I fully concur in the decision of the court to affirm the district court’s judgment for the defendants in this case, and I fully concur in the decision that the individual defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. I have more doubt as to the constitutional analysis and the parameters of the circumstances that require individualized suspicion. Certainly neither the district court nor this Court holds that individualized suspicion is required in every school situation. The search probably went too far in this ease to be classified as reasonable, and I do not fault the Court for deciding this rises to a constitutional level, following the somewhat unclear guidance of prior cases.
It appears to be common knowledge, however, that schools are in distress because of problems in maintaining discipline. Courts should be cautious in imposing constitutional theory that well fits individual adults in general societal situations upon the group requirements of elementary public schools. The principles that guide a decision as to reasonableness in one situation may not be too useful in the other. School children have a basic right to receive an education, which should not be trumped by the play of peripheral “constitutional rights.” As I understand the Court’s opinion, however, and that of the district court, no hard and fast rule has been established, and there seems to be room for teachers and school authorities to, on occasion, act in a way that might be considered “unreasonable” in a common sense view, without being held to be “constitutionally unreasonable.”

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9415622. Public record. Not legal advice.