State+of+West+Virginia+v.+Mark+Anthony

__**Background**__ On January 22, 1992, teacher Cathy Galford, at Marlinton Middle School, discovered that the $100 in cash she had placed in her purse under her desk was missing. She left her purse under the desk during a period where no one was in the classroom. The theft was investigated by the school social worker, John Snyder. He first called a male student into his office that has been known around the school for taking things that aren't his. Snyder asked the student to turn his pockets and socks inside out and he also felt his pants legs and his shirt. After he found no money on this student, he learned of another student who had a past history of theft and the student was helping the janitor empty trash cans. He questioned this student, Mark Anthony, and Anthony stated that he was in the classroom by himself, but he didn't take the money. Anthony was also asked to pull down him socks and turn out his pockets. When Snyder reported back to the principal, the principal decided to take matters into his own hands. He took Anthony into the bathroom and asked him to remove his pants. He was then asked to pull open his underwear in the front and back. The money was located in the back of Anthony's underwear. Anthony returned the money and apologized for taking it. Galford then took Anthony to court and was seeking to have him declared a delinquent child. Anthony tried to suppress the evidence of the money found because of the strip search, but the lower court denied the motion and Anthony was found guilty. Anthony thought the lower court was wrong in their decision and stated that the search conducted by the principal was "excessively intrusive" and violated his constitutional rights guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment.

__**Majority Opinion**__ The court never said strip searches were too intrusive, they just stated that in this case, what they were looking for was no immediate danger towards the students or teachers. If it would have been drugs or weapons, the strip would have been considered non-intrusive, but because it was money, the court did say the strip search was going too far.

One judge dissented, but did not state his opinion. 4th Amendment
 * __Dissenting Opinion__**