question in other jurisdictions have upheld searches of students’ lockers. However, in all these cases there was substantially more evidence justifying the search of the students’ lockers. For example, in S.A. v. Indiana, 654 N.E.2d 791 (Ind.App.1995), there were a number of high school locker break-ins, and it was subsequently discovered that the school’s master locker combination book had been stolen. Id. at 792. School security officials were given information that defendant possessed the combination book which resulted in a warrantless search of defendant’s locker and discovery of the book. Id. The Indiana Court of appeals held that a student had no expectation of privacy in his locker and that the warrantless search of that student’s locker was reasonable b 597 N.E.2d 1363 (1992) (<HOLDING>); In the Interest of S.C., 583 So.2d 188 (1991)
holding that even though student had a reasonable expectation of privacy in his locker school officials properly conducted a warrantless search of the students locker because the officials had probable cause to believe that the locker contained marijuana holding that the police officers had probable cause to make a warrantless entry holding that passengers lacked any reasonable expectation of privacy and therefore had no standing to challenge the search of the vehicle holding that the question of whether the police had reasonable suspicion and probable cause to make a warrantless search should be reviewed de novo holding that the odor of marijuana gave officers probable cause to believe members of a group possessed marijuana and therefore a search of each person present was proper