The Colorado Supreme Court on Monday agreed to examine whether Denver school officials acted lawfully when they searched a student’s backpack, ultimately uncovering a loaded handgun.

The justices also narrowly turned down a second appeal out of Denver involving the application of the Americans with Disabilities Act to child welfare proceedings. Granting an appeal requires the consent of at least three of the court’s seven members.

A decision by the Supreme Court on the boundaries of school administrators’ authority to conduct searches would have implications for the privacy rights of students who have prior involvement with the justice system.

On Aug. 29, 2019, three days after school started, Dean of Students William Thompson and school resource officer Johnny Avila attempted to search the backpack of a high school student identified as J.G. The prior year, the school put him on a “safety plan” after a judge found J.G. responsible for a handgun offense. Months later, they amended the plan when J.G. was involved in another episode of criminal conduct.

The amended plan for the 2018-2019 school year noted that J.G. “will need to be searched everyday by admin and security,” a condition that also applied to his backpack. Although the safety plan did not contain an expiration date, Avila testified it was his understanding the safety plan was in effect for as long as J.G. was enrolled at the unidentified high school. (Denver Public Schools lists Thompson as an employee at John F. Kennedy High School.)

Thompson and Avila’s August 2019 search turned up a loaded handgun, and Juvenile Court Judge Laurie A. Clark adjudicated J.G. delinquent on two weapons offenses, which is the equivalent of finding an adult guilty. J.G. attempted to suppress evidence of the gun by arguing school officials violated his constitutional right against unreasonable searches, but Clark disagreed.

J.G. turned to the Court of Appeals, claiming administrators lacked reasonable suspicion to search him. Even if the safety plan continued into the 2019-2020 school year, which J.G. disputed, he believed the plan itself was not grounds for the search.

A three-judge panel for the appellate court acknowledged probable cause of a crime must typically be present for warrantless searches, but that standard was “relaxed” in schools. Instead, the question was whether the search was reasonable.

The Court of Appeals concluded J.G.’s safety plan was in effect and its explicit allowance of backpack searches meant school officials acted lawfully.

“Therefore, J.G. didn’t have a legitimate expectation of privacy in his backpack,” wrote Judge Craig R. Welling in the panel’s June 16 opinion. “By bringing a backpack to school and refusing to submit to the routine searches contemplated by his Safety Plan, J.G. violated school rules. Given the protective purpose of J.G.’s active Safety Plan, the warrantless search of his backpack was justified at its inception.”

The Supreme Court will analyze whether school administrators’ knowledge of J.G.’s prior criminal conduct and the resulting safety plan justified their warrantless search of the backpack.

The case is People in the Interest of J.G.

Although the court declined to hear another appeal out of Denver, two justices indicated their willingness to take up the case.

In October, the Court of Appeals decided, 2-1, that child welfare workers had not accommodated a cognitively-impaired mother’s disability in the lead-up to the termination of her parental rights.

El Paso County originally initiated the proceedings against the mother, identified as S.M.P., and her then-8-year-old son. The county alleged a history of domestic violence, unstable housing and child neglect. The case eventually transferred to Denver, where Clark was also the judge who presided.

S.M.P., who was in the “borderline range of intellectual functioning,” underwent a treatment plan that included domestic violence counseling and life skills coaching. Clark terminated S.M.P.’s legal relationship with her child after determining S.M.P. was unfit and that Denver had accommodated her disability under the treatment plan.

In October, a Court of Appeals panel reversed the ruling. The majority did not believe Denver accommodated S.M.P. under the Americans with Disabilities Act. For example, S.M.P.’s caseworker did not appear to use techniques to address S.M.P.’s verbal processing problems, and there was no evidence her domestic violence counselor could work with cognitively-impaired people.

Judge Steve Bernard disagreed. In his view, S.M.P. understood domestic violence was a problem in her life, yet she had stopped engaging with counseling and flat-out said she did not need it. Bernard saw no indication any further accommodations would make a difference in her parenting capabilities.

“I take no joy in this prediction,” he wrote, “but, based on the record, I think it is reasonably probable that all that reversing the court’s judgment and remanding this case to the court to craft a new treatment plan will do is to delay permanency for the child for a much longer time.”

Justices Melissa Hart and Maria E. Berkenkotter would have accepted the appeal to review whether the appellate panel’s majority correctly applied the requirements of federal law to S.M.P.’s case.

The case is People in the Interest of M.A.P.