The officers called D.H. into the classroom, read D.H. her rights, and searched her bag, where they found a small bag of marihuana. On appeal, D.H. contends that (1) her backpack was seized for Fourth Amendment purposes when she was required to leave it behind in her classroom while she went into the hallway as instructed, and (2) because neither the school nor the officers had reason to believe she was engaged in criminal activity or in violation of school rules, they lacked reasonable suspicion to seize her bag. For those reasons, she ai'gues that the seizure of her backpack was a violation of her constitutional rights and that the marihuana, as the fruit of an improper seizure, should have been suppressed. See Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643, 655, 81 S.Ct. 1684, 6 L.Ed.2d 1081 (1961) (<HOLDING>). Standard of Review In reviewing a trial
holding that evidence obtained by improper search or seizure is inadmissible holding that evidence obtained through unconstitutional searches and seizures is inadmissible in state court holding that evidence resulting from an unconstitutional search or seizure must be suppressed holding that the admission of evidence obtained as a result of an illegal search and seizure is subject to a harmlesserror analysis holding all evidence obtained by searches and seizures in violation of the constitution is by that same authority inadmissible in a state court