School Official Says “Anything Above Zero” Is Reasonable Suspicion in Gun-Owner Truck Search

A New Hampshire school administrator testified that anything “above zero”—even a one-percent possibility—could amount to reasonable suspicion to search a student’s vehicle for a firearm, according to a new federal court filing.

That admission is now at the center of Jack Harrington’s reply supporting summary judgment in Harrington v. Crawford, a Second Amendment Foundation lawsuit against Hillsboro-Deering school officials. Administrators searched Harrington’s truck after learning that the then-18-year-old student had lawfully possessed a handgun away from campus. They found no firearm.

AmmoLand previously reported that the dispute began with Harrington discussing an off-campus traffic stop during which his handgun had been in his glovebox. An assistant coach overheard part of that conversation and later passed it along. By the time the account reached the administrators who ordered the April 24, 2025, search, Harrington argues, it contained no information connecting the handgun to school property.

“Anything Above Zero” Is Not Reasonable Suspicion

In the reply filed August 5, Harrington says the defendants still cannot identify a fact known to the decision-makers showing that he possessed a gun at school, violated the law, or broke school policy.

The filing instead points to Assistant Principal Brian McGinn’s deposition testimony. Asked whether “anything above zero” constituted reasonable suspicion, McGinn answered yes. He also agreed that a one-percent chance would suffice. Principal James O’Rourke reportedly admitted that his claimed suspicion was based on “speculation or guess” and that the timing of the earlier traffic stop “wouldn’t have mattered.”

If the school’s theory is accepted, any student known to hunt, compete, visit a range, or come from a gun-owning household could be placed under permanent suspicion. Lawful exercise of the Second Amendment would become the government’s excuse to disregard the Fourth.

“The school’s knowledge that Jack was a lawful gun owner outside of school did not justify their search of his truck,” SAF Senior Director of Legal Operations Bill Sack said in an August 6 statement. “They had no information to indicate he had ever brought the gun to school or had done anything illegal or against school policy whatsoever.”

Five Refusals Do Not Become Consent

The defendants also argue that Harrington consented. Their own testimony, as presented in the reply, makes that defense difficult to square with the facts.

School officials allegedly decided to conduct the search before Harrington was removed from class. A uniformed, visibly armed police officer stood near the only door of the small office. Harrington was not told he could leave or refuse. He reportedly rejected the search four or five times, while his parents also refused consent over the phone.

O’Rourke testified that officials presented the search as something that was going to happen and merely explained why. McGinn testified that refusing consent meant “automatic suspension.” After officials continued pressing him, Harrington asked whether they only needed to inspect the glovebox before he could return to class.

The defendants point to his eventual “okay.” Harrington calls it submission to asserted authority, not voluntary consent.

“Administrators ignored repeated insistent refusals by Jack to provide consent and now rest their hat on the fact that after telling him the search was going to happen regardless, he replied ‘okay,’” Sack said. “That is not consent in the eyes of the law.”

The Second Amendment Does Not Cancel the Fourth

Public-school searches ordinarily operate under the reduced reasonable-suspicion standard recognized in New Jersey v. T.L.O. Harrington argues that probable cause should apply here because the police officer was enlisted before he was questioned and was present to take custody of any weapon and pursue possible criminal “next steps.” The Supreme Court left that precise law-enforcement question open in T.L.O.

The reply maintains that the search fails under either standard. The defendants do not claim they had probable cause, and “anything above zero” cannot satisfy reasonable suspicion.

“Being perceived as a lawful gun owner does not place you in a class of second-class citizens who are subject to search at any time,” SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb said. “These school officials overstepped their authority here.”

School safety does not create a blank check to discard the Bill of Rights. Government must possess facts indicating wrongdoing before it searches a citizen’s property. It cannot use the exercise of one enumerated right as evidence justifying the invasion of another.

The Second Amendment does not erase the Fourth, and lawful gun ownership is not a perpetual search warrant. The court has not yet ruled on Harrington’s summary-judgment motion.

About Duncan Johnson:

Duncan Johnson is a lifelong firearms enthusiast and unwavering defender of the Second Amendment—where “shall not be infringed” means exactly what it says. A graduate of George Mason University, he enjoys competing in local USPSA and multi-gun competitions whenever he’s not covering the latest in gun rights and firearm policy. Duncan is a regular contributor to AmmoLand News and serves as part of the editorial team responsible for AmmoLand’s daily gun-rights reporting and industry coverage.