Skip to main content

Student phone searches at school

O. W. v. Carr

Updated Nov 12, 2026

In brief

Where it stands
Dismissed

Petition denied.

What it’s about
O.W. asked the Supreme Court to review questions about school searches of a student’s phone, police questioning at school, a 13-year-old’s statements, and related legal issues.
Who it affects
O.W. received no Supreme Court review, and the Court issued no ruling on the questions raised in the petition.

Summary: written with AI from the case record.

Illustration for O. W., Petitioner v. Marie L. Carr, et al.
Conceptual illustration · AI-generated

What it's about

The Court refused to hear the case (denied review) and did not decide those questions.

O.W.’s petition also raised questions about a 13-year-old’s statements and other legal issues in the Fourth Circuit case.

Question presented

1. Whether, under the Fourth Amendment, a school official may search the digital contents of a student’s cellular phone without a warrant, probable cause, or consent. 2. Whether a school and police may, through a school resource officer partnership, conduct routine criminal investigations of students — searching and interrogating them — under the relaxed standards governing school discipline, rather than the Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendment safeguards that would apply if law enforcement acted directly. 3. Whether a court assessing the voluntariness of a thirteen-year-old’s statements must account for the child’s age under J.D.B. v. North Carolina and this Court’s related juvenile precedents. 4. Whether the voluntariness of a confession, and the disputed historical facts underlying it, may be resolved at summary judgment, or must be submitted to a jury under the Seventh Amendment when those facts are genuinely disputed. 5. Whether the Fourth Circuit erred in requiring a § 1983 litigant to prove civil conspiracy by (1) direct proof of an express unlawful agreement and (2) “nefarious motive” of defendants. 6. Whether a court of appeals departs from its adjudicative role, and the principle of party presentation, when it formulates a general legal standard that no party advanced and applies it as the governing rule of decision.

Documents

1

Docket activity

11
  • New analysis added

    Nov 12, 2026 · Court records

  • AI analysis generated: Case Briefing

    Nov 12, 2026 · Generated

  • AI analysis generated: Decision Record

    Nov 12, 2026 · Generated

  • Case data updated: summary, question_presented, generation_metadata

    Nov 12, 2026 · Court records

  • Case data updated: question_presented, extraction_metadata

    Nov 12, 2026 · Court records

Show 6 more
  • Case data updated: status

    Nov 12, 2026 · Court records

  • New document added

    Oct 13, 2026 · supremecourt.gov

  • Case data updated: documents, description, proceeding_type

    Sep 16, 2026 · supremecourt.gov

  • Case data updated: documents, description, document_url, proceeding_type

    Aug 25, 2026 · supremecourt.gov

  • Case data updated: documents, description, document_url, proceeding_type

    Aug 24, 2026 · supremecourt.gov

  • Brief added: Petition

    Jul 31, 2026 · Court records

Sources

Primary materials plus reporting. Best-effort analysis: this explainer relies on a mix of primary materials and trusted secondary sources. Official filings and opinions remain authoritative.

Checked Nov 12, 2026Methodology

Court records and filings

Reporting and analysis