R v M (MR), [1998] 3 SCR 393 is a leading decision of the Supreme Court of Canada on search and seizure by teachers and principals in Canadian schools (not colleges or universities). In this case, a student's section 8 rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms ("Charter") were not violated by being searched by a school principal with a police constable present. Background A vice-principal of a junior high school in Nova Scotia had been informed by some students that another student, M.R., had planned to sell drugs at an upcoming school dance. The vice-principal asked M.R. and his friend to come to his office. The vice-principal advised them that he was going to search them for drugs. An RCMP officer, who had been called there by the vice-principal according to school policy, was in the office but did not interfere. M.R. emptied his pockets and, after being asked by the vice-principal to do so, pulled up his pant legs. There was a bulge in his sock. The vice-principal removed a plastic bag of marijuana. The bag was given to the police officer who advised M.R. that he was under arrest for possession of a narcotic. The constable read the police caution to M.R., told him that he had a right to counsel (a lawyer) and that he had the right to contact a parent or adult. M.R. tried to reach his mother but was not able to get in touch with her. He said that he did not want to call anyone else. The officer and M.R. then went to M.R.'s locker and searched it. No more drugs were found. The case went to court. M.R.'s lawyer argued that his client's rights had been violated. Cousel pointed to two sections of the Charter. First, section 8 guarantees everyone has the right to be secure against "unreasonable search and seizure". Second, section 10(b) states that "everyone has the right on arrest or detention to retain and instruct counsel without delay and to be informed of that right". According to the defence, both sections had been violated. Opinion of the Court The Supreme Court disagreed. First, it was assumed, for the purposes of this case, that schools were a part of government and that the Charter therefore applied to the actions of the vice-principal. Second, in order for an action to be a "search or seizure" under the