662, 668, 300 S.E.2d 361, 365 (1983). C. Application to the Present Case We first address defendant’s argument that Principal Hart was acting as an agent of the State when he presented the photos to the two girls at the high school. In support of his argument, defendant cites New Jersey v. T.L.O., 469 U.S. 325, 83 L. Ed. 2d 720 (1985), and In re D.D., 146 N.C. App. 309, 554 S.E.2d 346 (2001). Defendant maintains that in these two cases, both the United States Supreme Court and this Court held that public school officials are government actors for purposes of the Fourth Amendment. Defendant asserts that such reasoning is also applicable for purposes of the due process clause under the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States C ol Dist., 393 U.S. 503, 506, 21 L. Ed. 2d 731, 737 (1969) (<HOLDING>). The central premise in all such holdings is
holding that school district policy requiring that students obtain the review and approval of school officials prior to distributing any written material violated free speech rights of students holding that the first amendment does not protect primary and secondary school teachers inclass curricular speech even to the extent academic freedom as a constitutional rule could somehow apply to primary and secondary schools that does not insulate a teachers curricular and pedagogical choices from the school boards oversight as opposed to the teachers right to speak and write publicly about academic issues outside of the classroom holding that school officials may not limit the first amendment rights of students and teachers to freedom of speech and expression recognizing the right of students to challenge on first amendment grounds actions of school officials which circumscribe the range of ideas to which students are exposed holding that students free speech rights were breached by school officials when they prohibited students from peacefully wearing freedom buttons that advocated the lawful and peaceful abolition of racial segregation