rights, can, by conducting searches outside acceptable parameters, abridge students’ 4th Amendment rights. Balancing the Academy’s interest in the safety of the school’s population against the individual rights of its students, this case, involving only the most generalized and vague reasons to suspect any presence of harmful substances in circulation, was clearly not one where it could have been conceivable that resorting to such an intrusive search of every student without engaging in any follow-up investigation whatsoever would be constitutionally permissible. Accordingly, we hold the trial court erred in concluding the search of T.A.S. was reasonable. Thus, we reverse its order denying her motion to suppress the fruits of the unconstitutional s 43, 148, 607 S.E.2d 304, 307 (2005) (<HOLDING>). 4 . Specifically, one week before the search,
holding the tlo standard governs school searches when school resource officers  who although employed by the local police department are primarily responsible to the school district  are acting in conjunction with school officials holding that a school district owed the highest degree of care to a student on a school bus such that the district could be liable for the sexual abuse of the student by the school bus driver holding search was conducted by school official where school resource officer did not search the bag himself or conduct any investigation on his own and therefore applying the tlo reasonableness standard holding that a school district was not liable for sexual molestation of plaintiffs daughter by a teacher even though the acts occurred on school property and during school hours holding that a students private school tuition should be reimbursed where parent did not unilaterally place student in private school because the school district tacitly consented to the private school attendance before proposing a different placement