Search & seizure; Qualified immunity; Good cause; Jurisdiction; Plumhoff v Rickard; Whether the issues on appeal constituted “factual” or “legal” disputes; Roberson v Torres; Whether defendant violated the plaintiff’s child’s rights by searching him for a gun; Whether the child’s constitutional rights were violated by placement in a “breakdown room”

[This appeal was from the ED-MI.] The court held that defendant-teacher (Russell) was entitled to qualified immunity where his decision to search plaintiff’s (Johnson) child (XM) by having him pull down his trousers did not violate the child’s constitutional rights because he had “good cause” to believe XM may have had a gun at school. Russell is a special-education teacher for defendant-school district. After his assistant principal was told that XM, a 6^th grade special education student, brought a handgun to school, the assistant principal sought out Russell and they searched XM’s locker, which was completely empty, before removing him from class. After he denied having a gun, they asked him to pat himself down and turn out his pockets. Satisfied that he had no weapon, they sent him back to class. Another search took place the next day after a teacher heard XM utter what she perceived to be a gun threat. Again, they found no gun. Russell became concerned that XM may have brought a gun to school and secreted it in the school, and that the gun could be used for violent purposes. XM accused Russell of making him pull down his pants and then Russell lifted up XM’s shirt, where no gun was found. A few days later, XM arrived at the school to serve a suspension, and claimed Russell locked him in the windowless “breakdown room” for 20 minutes. However, the door did not have a lock. He then called Johnson. A year later, she sued the school, teachers, and school officials on his behalf, claiming they violated his constitutional rights. The district court granted all defendants except Russell summary judgment and denied him qualified immunity, ruling that “certain disputed facts—namely, whether Russell strip-searched XM while looking for the gun, and whether he locked XM in the breakdown room—required a decision by a jury.” After the court determined it had jurisdiction to hear the appeal of “legal” questions under Plumhoff, it noted it was not empowered to review a district court’s determinations regarding “factual disputes.” However, when legal and factual disputes are intertwined or confused, the court must try to separate them to determine what is reviewable. After declining to review the factual disputes, the court addressed Johnson’s attempt to prevent Russell from receiving qualified immunity. However, to do so, she would have to establish a constitutional violation. The court held that the search “was justified at its inception” based on XM’s documented history of violence to other students and the gun threat he made to a student within a teacher’s hearing. Thus, “Russell reasonably believed he had a ‘moderate chance of finding evidence of wrongdoing’” when he had XM take down his trousers for a search. Also, having XM take down his trousers has not been found outside the proper scope when there is a possibility that a gun may be found. Neither did placement in the breakdown room constitute a constitutional violation where XM had just been suspended for a violent act and where several days before, there was an “alarming suspicion” that he had brought a gun to school. Russell was entitled to qualified immunity. Reversed.