Final answer:
To justify a conviction of theft, there must be evidence of intent to steal, not just possession of stolen property. A search that does not reveal stolen goods cannot support a theft conviction, and possession of unlawful weapons alone does not prove theft without further evidence of intent and the act of robbery.
Step-by-step explanation:
False. Simply having possession of stolen property is not sufficient to justify a conviction of theft. To be convicted of theft, there must be evidence that the person knowingly obtained or possessed property that they knew was stolen, with the intent to permanently deprive the owner of the property. Circumstantial evidence, such as the possession of recently stolen property, may raise a presumption or inference of guilt, but this alone does not automatically lead to a conviction without additional evidence of the individual's intent to steal.
In the scenario mentioned, where a search of Savanna's belongings was justified under T.L.O., but extending the search beneath her clothes was not, it is clear that possession of stolen goods was not discovered during the initial search. Hence, it would not be sufficient for a conviction of theft based solely on her possession.
Moreover, in the scenario of two individuals apprehended by the police with suspicion of armed robbery, even if they are found in possession of unlawful weapons, that does not constitute direct evidence of theft unless it can be shown that they had the intention to steal and that they indeed committed the robbery.