elsewhere.” J.L., 529 U.S. at 274, 120 S.Ct. 1375; see also Bd. of Educ. v. Earls, 536 U.S. 822, 830, 122 S.Ct. 2559, 153 L.Ed.2d 735 (2002) (“A student’s privacy interest is limited in a public school environment where the State is responsible for maintaining discipline, health and safety.”); T.L.O. 469 U.S. at 348, 105 S.Ct. 733 (Powell, J., concurring) (noting “the special characteristics of elementary and secondary schools that make it unnecessary to afford students the same constitutional protections granted adults and juveniles in a non-school setting”). 2. Intrusiveness of Search. Second, the search was only moderately intrusive. The search of a book bag carried onto school grounds is certainly invasive. Some book bags will contain children’s personal diaries, letter d Cir.2006) (<HOLDING>). Although the searches in these cases were not
holding that a search of bags carried onto an airplane was minimally intrusive holding tacit consent to search of person was insufficient to prove consent to search bags where bags were not in defendants actual possession defendant merely pointed out bags at officers request and officer never specifically asked for consent to search bags holding that a random visual and manual search of bags and packages carried onto the new york city subway was minimally intrusive holding that search of defendants purse which he carried was authorized by a warrant to search his person holding officers act of removing screws from vehicle to open a concealed compartment commonly used for drug transport was minimally intrusive did no damage to the vehicle and did not exceed the defendants consent to search