[gridlock]

Passing thru a detector could be argued as not being a search since no one is actually searching him.

A metal detector without a search policy is useless. In the event of an alarm, the student must be searched, otherwise all false positives must be denied access, and that is just not gonna happen.

All the metal detector does is reduce the number of physical searches that must be employed by pre-screening out the bulk of the students. But, ultimately, the policy is to search students because they have triggered a metal detector. Since 99.99% of these searches will be for false positives, the fact that the metal detector goes off does not really constitute reasonable suspicion.

[DustyMoment]

In the event of an alarm, the student must be searched, otherwise all false positives must be denied access, and that is just not gonna happen.

I think we can argue that the student that refuses a second level search (such as being wanded) following a metal detector alarm, does not have to agree to be physically searched as the term implies. The student may refuse the search and, as a consequence of that refusal, be denied entry to the school. They have no automatic right to access if they fail to adhere to a policy designed to provided protection for the greatest number of people.