It is not fair to your classmates to wait until Sunday to post your responses to the blog. When you do this and wait until late, you limit the amount of participation from your classmates. You should check the blog and comment throughout the week. I would hate to have to stipulate that you respond to the posts on Mondays and Wednesdays.
Week 4 - Search and Seizure
Please read the information below. These experts were lifted from the textbook.
- Respond to the discussion questions in the case study.
- Respond to at least two comments on your classmates' posts.
- Post a "What if" question on one of the two topics.
SEARCH AND SEIZURE
The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides protection of all citizens against unrea-
sonable search and seizure. This amendment provides, in part, that “the right of people to be
secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures,
shall not be violated, and no warrants shall be issued, but upon probable cause.”
tection against unreasonable search and seizure. The major challenge facing school officials
involves the task of delicately balancing a student’s individual right to Fourth Amendment pro-
tection against the duty to provide a safe and secure environment for all students.
presents a perplexing problem for educators. Basic to this issue is the question of precisely what
constitutes a reasonable search. The reasonableness of the search becomes the critical issue in
cases where students claim personal violations based on illegal searches.
searches that involve lockers and desks. The major distinction, of course, is that lockers and
desks are considered to be school property. Consequently, school officials are provided greater
latitude in searching lockers and desks than they are a student’s person.
deemed reasonable. Thus, if students are to be searched, the search must be reasonable. What,
then, constitutes a reasonable search? A reasonable search is one that clearly does not violate the
constitutional rights of students. What is reasonable will depend on the context within which a
search takes place.
Reasonable Suspicion
School officials need only reasonable suspicion to initiate a search. This standard is less rigorous
than the requirement of probable cause. What exactly constitutes reasonable suspicion?
Reasonable suspicion is based on information received from students or teachers that is consid-
ered reliable by school officials. As long as the informant is known rather than anonymous and
the information provided seems credible, courts will generally find little difficulty supporting
administrative actions based on reasonable grounds.
mary basis for the search. The courts have declared that in loco parentis cannot stand alone with-
out reasonable suspicion. One court stated: “A school teacher, to a limited extent at least, stands
in loco parentis to pupils under her charge. The in loco parentis doctrine is so compelling in light
of public necessity and as a social concept antedating the Fourth Amendment, that any action
including a search taken thereunder upon reasonable suspicion should be accepted as necessary
and reasonable.”
searches. When an educator is operating under reasonable suspicion in school-related searches, no
constitutional violation is in question. This issue was settled in the landmark New Jersey v. T. L. O.
case in 1985, when the Supreme Court reaffirmed that searches conducted by school authorities are
indeed subject to standards of the Fourth Amendment; however, the warrant requirement in par-
ticular is unsuited to the school environment. According to the High Court, requiring a teacher to
obtain a warrant before searching a child suspected of an infraction of school rules would unduly
interfere with the maintenance of the swift, informal disciplinary procedures needed in the schools.
This is the only case involving school searches in which the U.S. Supreme Court has made a ruling.
On March 7, 1980, a teacher at Piscataway High School in New Jersey discovered two
girls smoking in a lavatory. One of the two girls was the respondent T.L.O., who at that time was
a fourteen-year-old high school freshman. Because smoking in the lavatory was a violation of a
school rule, the teacher took the two girls to the principal’s office, where they met with Assistant
Vice Principal Theodore Choplick. In response to questioning by Mr. Choplick, T.L.O.’s com-
panion admitted that she had violated the rule. T.L.O., however, denied that she had been smok-
ing in the lavatory and claimed that she did not smoke at all.
Opening the purse, he found a pack of cigarettes, which he removed from the purse and held
before T.L.O. as he accused her of having lied to him. As he reached into the purse for the ciga-
rettes, Mr. Choplick also noticed a package of cigarette rolling paper. In his experience, posses-
sion of rolling paper by high school students was closely associated with the use of marijuana.
Suspecting that a closer examination of the purse might yield further evidence of drug use,
Mr. Choplick proceeded to search the purse thoroughly. The search revealed a small amount of
marijuana, a pipe, a number of empty plastic bags, a substantial quantity of money in one-dollar
bills, an index card that appeared to be a list of students who owed T.L.O. money, and two letters
that implicated T.L.O. in marijuana dealing.
unlawful due to the absence of a search warrant. The Supreme Court, in upholding the school
administrator, did not require that the search be based on the higher standard of “probable cause”
necessary for obtaining a search warrant, reasoning that to do so “would unduly interfere with
the maintenance of the swift and informal disciplinary procedures needed in the schools.” Thus,
the court struck a balance between the pupil’s “legitimate expectations of privacy” and the need
of the school to preserve a proper learning environment.
The student’s parents moved to have the evidence suppressed, claiming that the search was
unlawful due to the absence of a search warrant. The Supreme Court, in upholding the school
administrator, did not require that the search be based on the higher standard of “probable cause”
necessary for obtaining a search warrant, reasoning that to do so “would unduly interfere with
the maintenance of the swift and informal disciplinary procedures needed in the schools.” Thus,
the court struck a balance between the pupil’s “legitimate expectations of privacy” and the need
of the school to preserve a proper learning environment.
tion” and “reasonably related in scope to the circumstances which justified the interference in
the first place.” School officials are, accordingly, neither vested with the broad authority of a
parent, nor subject to the restrictions of police in searching students to enforce school policies
and discipline. In sum, school officials should have reasonable grounds to believe a search of
a particular student is necessary to provide pertinent proof that the student has violated a par-
ticular policy, rule, or law. Further, the scope of the search must be limited to the incident at
hand. In other words, a sweep search of all students in hope of turning up evidence of contra-
band or violation of rules would be illegal. Neither may a particular student be searched
because he or she created a reasonable suspicion of violation of some unparticular rule, nor
may any student be searched because of a particular violation by an unknown person. There
should be individualized suspicion, referring to both the individual student and the individual
violation.
The case of A.H. illustrates the consequences of not meeting the reasonable suspicion stan-
dard by school officials. A Florida appellate court held that a school administrator’s search of a
student’s wallet was unconstitutional. The court concluded that no facts, even combined with
rational inferences, warranted the search. A.H. was purchasing a uniform from his physical edu-
cation teacher when the teacher noticed that the student’s speech was slurred. Believing A.H. to
be under the influence of drugs, the teacher reported his suspicions to the assistant principal. The
assistant principal, along with a school resource officer, took A.H. to an empty office. After hav-
ing him empty his pockets, the assistant principal searched his wallet and found a substance later
identified as marijuana. The court found that the search was based on the teacher’s “gut feel-
ings,” which alone did not support a reasonable suspicion that a search would turn up drugs. Because the search was not “justified at its inception,” it violated A.H.’s Fourth Amendment
right to be free from unreasonable government searches.
In a contrasting case, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit held that an
Arkansas school district’s policy of conducting random, suspicionless searches of students and
their belongings violated students’ Fourth Amendment right to freedom from unreasonable
search and seizure. The school district failed to demonstrate the required “special needs” to jus-
tify conducting searches in the absence of individual suspicion.
possession after marijuana was found in her purse during a random search of students’ purses,
book bags, and backpacks. The search was initiated based on a school policy placed in the stu-
dent handbook indicating that book bags, purses, backpacks, and similar containers permitted on
campus for the convenience of students are at all times subject to random and periodic inspection
by school officials. The court rejected the school district’s reliance on the decision in Vernonia
School District v. Acton that upheld the constitutionality of random, suspicionless drug testing of
student athletes. The court found that unlike student athletes in Vernonia and students partici-
pating in extracurricular activities, the general student body had not voluntarily ceded a larger
portion of its privacy interests by participating in optional activities. The court stated that what-
ever privacy interest students have in their personal belongings is wholly obliterated by search
practices initiated by school officials because all such belongings are subject to search at any
time without notice, individualized suspicion, or any other apparent limit regarding the exten-
siveness of the search. The intrusion by school officials was more severe than that in Vernonia
because the sanctions imposed on student athletes was simply exclusion from activities whereas
students in this case faced criminal sanctions.
Student Desks
Student desks are subject to search if school officials meet the standard of reasonableness. Desks
should never be searched based on a mere hunch; rather, reliable information must lead school
officials to believe that school rules have been violated or that the health or safety of students is
threatened. In all cases, searches should be based on clearly written policies that inform students
that desks are subject to search if reasonable suspicion is established. School policies should
spell out the conditions and circumstances under which desk searches will occur. Again, wider
discretion is provided school officials in searches involving school property.
School officials must meet the same standard of reasonableness in relation to student lockers
regarding the search of student desks. Because student lockers provide privacy for students,
oftentimes there is a greater tendency to expect students to harbor items that violate school rules
or items that involve criminal activity. This view alone does not justify an indiscriminate search.
Again, students should be informed that lockers will be searched if reasonable suspicion is
established to justify a need to search. If a search of a student’s locker becomes necessary, the
student and at least one other school official should be present to ensure that proper procedures
are followed. The student affected should open the locker in the presence of school officials.
This student may also request the presence of another student if he or she wishes. In no cases
except extreme emergencies, such as a bomb threat, should an indiscriminate search be initi-
ated. Barring an emergency, indiscriminate searches of students’ lockers are indefensible and
illegal.
For example a Pennsylvania court invalidated a locker search by school officials who dis-
covered marijuana cigarettes in a jacket pocket. The student was observed getting a pack of cig-
arettes out of his locker and giving it to another student. The assistant principal confiscated the
cigarette and the pack and searched the locker. The court found, consistent with the T. L. O. stan-
dards, that students do have a reasonable expectation of privacy in a jacket taken to school. Once
the jacket was confiscated, no reasonable basis aroused suspicion that more would be in the
locker. Retrieving the cigarettes formed the pretext for a search for drugs in violation of the
Fourteenth Amendment.
Book Bags
Searches involving book bags tend to be extremely complex, due to the intrusive nature of the
search itself. A more extensive and intrusive search will likely require stronger evidence to estab-
lish reasonable suspicion. At least one court has stated that “we are also of the view that as the
intrusiveness of the search intensifies, the standard of Fourth Amendment reasonableness
approaches probable cause, even in the school context.”
bag searches of students engaged in a field trip, the Superior Court of New Jersey held that the
search of students’ hand luggage was justified under the Fourth Amendment, based on a legiti-
mate interest of school administrators and teachers in preventing students from taking contra-
band on field trips. This case arose when the parents of a junior high school student sued the
board, superintendent, and principal, alleging that search of their child’s book bag before he
boarded the bus violated his Fourth Amendment rights. Brian was a tenth-grader participating in
a voluntary field trip. Permission slips were sent to parents, indicating that hand luggage would
be searched based on board policy. Brian’s mother testified that she read the slip before signing
it. Based on prior knowledge of the search, students had an opportunity to remove any items that,
although not necessarily illegal, were personal to the student.
by the unique burden placed on school personnel in the field trip context and that the search lim-
ited to hand luggage was reasonably related to the school’s duty to provide discipline, supervi-
sion, and control. This decision reflects a more liberal view of the court regarding search, but it
should not be viewed as a license to conduct unwarranted and more intrusive searches.
Automobiles
School officials may search student automobiles parked on school property if the standards of
reasonable suspicion are met. Students and parents should be informed by school or district pol-
icy that automobiles are subject to reasonable search if there is a legitimate basis for doing so.
For example, if a school official receives information from a reliable source who indicates that a
student’s automobile contains illegal items in violation of school rules, the official may request
that the automobile be searched. Procedures similar to the search of student lockers should be
followed—that is, having the student and another witness available during the actual search.
If the student’s automobile is parked on nonschool property, probable cause must be estab-
lished, involving law enforcement officials who are required to present a warrant prior to the ini-
tiation of a search. Again, parents should be informed of the impending search so as to allow
them the opportunity to initiate any steps they deem necessary in this situation. If illegal items
such as drugs or weapons are discovered, they are admissible in a court of law. In one compelling
case involving search of a student’s automobile for drugs, the assistant principal observed that the student had glassy eyes, a flushed face, slurred speech, the smell of alcohol, and an unsteady
gait. These observations formed the basis to search the student’s automobile under the concept of
reasonable suspicion. The court found ample evidence to support reasonable suspicion.
Intrusive Searches
Intrusive searches are strongly discouraged unless there is overwhelming evidence to support the
need for the search. Even then, there should be a sense of urgency based on a belief that the stu-
dent has in his or her possession some dangerous item that could pose a serious threat to the
health and safety of the student or others in the school. Whether a search of this nature is consid-
ered reasonable will be based on the individual facts surrounding the case. The courts will gener-
ally establish the standard based on the facts presented to determine reasonableness. In doing so,
they will attempt to balance the student’s privacy rights against the interest of school officials to
conduct the search.
stances. The more intrusive the search, the more likely it will trigger the need for probable cause.
Students should be protected from intrusive body cavity searches if at all possible. When facts
reveal that an intrusive search is absolutely necessary, every precaution should be taken to con-
duct the search in a private setting with persons of the same gender present. The student should
be afforded the greatest amount of protection to privacy as possible under the circumstances.
extreme caution should be taken to ensure, as much as possible, that the student is not demeaned
or embarrassed during this process. Unless there is an extreme sense of urgency, it might be
advisable to isolate the student, keeping him or her under observation, and to consult with the
student’s parents or legal guardian. Under any circumstances, parents should be advised of the
type of search conducted, the evidence that gave rise to the need to conduct the search, specifi-
cally who was involved in conducting the search, and expressly what was discovered during the
search process. Intrusive searches should be considered searches of last resort and should be
handled based on school or district policy. Searches of this nature should never be calculated to
cause embarrassment or mental distress for the student.
For example, when money was missing from a classroom in Alabama, a teacher searched
the books of two students and subsequently required the students to remove their shoes. The court
held that the fact that both students were in the room alone when the money disappeared was suf-
ficient to give rise to reasonable suspicion, which was necessary to conduct the limited search.28
A more intrusive search will require significant evidence to establish reasonable suspicion
and a justification to conduct the search. When an assistant principal observed a boy with an odd
bulge in his pocket, the principal searched and found a small calculator case and marijuana. The
court held that the mere notice of a bulge did not form a sufficient basis to establish reasonable
suspicion. Reasonable suspicion must be based on clearly articulated facts from which rational
inferences can be drawn in order to reach the conclusion of reasonable suspicion. The court
noted that without having prior knowledge of the student’s involvement with drugs, the mere
observation of a bulging calculator was insufficient to warrant the need to search.
that involved looking down the student’s pants violated the student’s Fourth Amendment search
and seizure rights because the teacher did not have individualized suspicion. The search took
place after the teacher at Millennium School discovered that money was missing from her desk.
The teacher detained Shaneequa Tartt and two other students who were in the classroom at the time. The teacher searched their book bags and had them turn their pants pockets inside out. She
then had the students turn the waistbands of their pants out so she could check their waistlines.
Finally, the teacher released the other two students and had Shaneequa accompany her to the sup-
ply closet, where she looked down the girl’s pants for the money. The teacher found nothing.
Shaneequa’s parents filed suit under § 1983, alleging that the search violated their daughter’s
Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches. The district court relied on the
principle established in New Jersey v. T. L. O. that a search by school officials must be “justified at its inception” in order to comply with the Fourth Amendment. The court concluded that the search
of Shaneequa was not justified because the teacher lacked the individualized suspicion required for
such an invasive search. Specifically, the student’s privacy interest in avoiding exposure of private
body parts outweighed the school’s interest in recovering $10 and preventing petty theft.
Strip Searches
Strip searches should be avoided except under extreme circumstances involving the health and
safety of other students. Historically, courts have not viewed strip searches by school officials very
favorably because they are considered the most intrusive forms of all searches. There should be a
strong sense of urgency accompanying a strip search that involves an immediate threat to health,
safety, and order in the school. Remember, as one court previously stated, “We are of the view that
as the intrusiveness intensifies, the standard of the Fourth Amendment reasonableness approaches
probable cause even in the school context.” Thus, when a teacher conducts a highly intrusive
invasion, such as strip search, it is reasonable to approach the probable cause requirement.
years seem more inclined to allow strip searches in certain situations. Among these are a reason-
able suspicion that the student is in possession of something that is illegal, against school regula-
tions, or harmful to the health and safety of other students.
v. Howell Public School, in which a female student was forced to remove her jeans and submit to
a visual inspection of her brassiere. The court ruled the fact that the student had ducked behind a
car and had given a school security guard a false name was insufficient to establish reasonable
suspicion. The court held that without further specific information, the school had no more rea-
son to believe that the girl was hiding drugs than to believe that she was skipping class, stealing
hubcaps, or engaging in other types of illegal activities.
In one of the more revealing cases involving strip search, the court held for school officials.
In Cornfield by Lewis v. School District No. 230, a student who was subjected to a strip search
brought action against the school district, teachers, and dean, alleging violation of his constitu-
tional rights. The lower court granted summary judgment in favor of the teacher and dean. The
student appealed. The Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit held that the strip search was rea-
sonable under the Fourth Amendment.
This case arose when Brian, a student enrolled in a behavior disorder program at the high
school, was observed outside the building, in violation of school rules. Further, he was reported
by an aide and corroborated by another teacher to have been well endowed by virtue of an
unusual bulge in his crotch area.
believed that the bulge was drugs. When asked to accompany them to the office, Brian became
agitated and yelled obscenities. Permission was sought from Brian’s mother to conduct the
search. The parent refused to grant permission. The search was, in fact, conducted in the locker room by requesting that Brian strip and put on a gym uniform. Visual inspection took place, but
no body cavity search occurred. No drugs were found.
order does not require strict adherence to probable cause standards.” However, a nude search by
an official of the opposite sex would violate the standard of excessive intrusion. The court held
for the school district. This case represents a rare exception to the traditional views held by the
courts. School officials should not view this case as a license to arbitrarily initiate a strip search.
Unified School District was addressed by the U.S. Supreme Court. Redding was searched based
on a claim by a fellow student that she was given a prescription drug as well as over-the-counter
drugs in violation of the school’s zero tolerance policy. Redding was questioned by the principal
and an assistant and subsequently strip-searched by the school’s nurse who required her to pull her
bra out to the side while shaking it and also to pull out the elastic on her underwear. No pills were
found. The High Court assessed the degree of intrusion against the strength of the allegation and
held that the search violated Redding’s Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable intrusion.
The mere possibility that she might be hiding something in her underwear did not justify that level
of intrusion. Its ruling did not fundamentally change the manner in which searches are analyzed by
the courts. The High Court concluded, based on T. L. O. standards, that the scope of a search is per-
missible only when measures adopted are reasonably related to the search’s objective and are not
excessively intrusive in light of the child’s age and gender and the nature of the offense.
search of two Alabama middle school students for $10 in missing cash. The school board
admitted no wrongdoing but agreed to a $15,000 cash settlement. The board’s insurer paid the
amount, which included an award of attorneys’ fees and the costs of mediation. One of the stu-
dents was allowed to transfer to a different school. The court held $3,900 for each student from
the settlement in accounts until they turn age nineteen.
When law enforcement officials enter the school to conduct a search, the search must be pre-
ceded by a warrant. If a warrant is issued, strong evidence involving probable cause should be
established. Reasonable suspicion would not apply in searches involving law enforcement offi-
cers unless officers were assisting school officials with disciplinary action. In such a case, rea-
sonable suspicion will likely be adequate. Typically, when law enforcement officers are involved
in a school search, facts and circumstances based on trustworthy information are sufficient in
themselves to warrant a person of reasonable caution to believe that some type of illegal activity
or crime has been committed.
contacted immediately by school officials and informed of the situation. Parents may wish to be
present during the search process. In any case, parents should always be informed prior to any
action taken by law enforcement officials. When parents cannot be reached, contact attempts
must be documented to verify that a bona fide effort was made to reach them. Documentation
should include, at a minimum, time of day, the number(s) called, and witnesses.
should accompany the officer(s) and serve as a witness during this process. Details of this activ-
ity should be communicated to parents immediately so that they are knowledgeable of the cir-
cumstances involving the search and the resulting action taken by law enforcement officials based on the search. Students and their parents have consistently challenged searches by police
officers on school property.
their parents against the city of Slidell, Louisiana, and its police officers, alleging a Fourth
Amendment violation based on an incident in which students were called out of class for ques-
tioning about a rumored after-school fight. The district court dismissed the claim against the city
but found that the officers violated students’ Fourth Amendment rights. The students were
awarded nominal damages, but the district court refused to award attorney fees. The officers and
students appealed. The Court of Appeals held that detention of students for questioning did not
violate their Fourth Amendment rights.
against the school board, school officials, the sheriff, and a law enforcement officer alleging vio-
lations of the students’ Fourth Amendment rights with respect to search and seizure of their per-
sons during a drug sweep of the school. On the defendants’ motions for summary judgment, the
district court held that a reasonable suspicion standard rather than a probable cause standard
applied to the assessment of the legality of the student search under the Fourth Amendment and
that a strip search of a student who was in the vicinity where drugs were found was reasonable
under the Fourth Amendment. Even if the strip search was unreasonable, individual defendants
were entitled to qualified immunity from the student’s Fourth Amendment claim. The district
court held that the officer’s search of the student was reasonable. The sheriff could not be held
liable under § 1983 for an alleged illegal search of the student on the basis that he failed to ade-
quately train and supervise his officers. A strip search of a student in the school’s parking lot was
based on individualized suspicion. Although the search was not reasonably related to the objects
of the search and was excessively intrusive, school officials and the school board cannot be held
liable for officers’ illegal search of a student in a parking lot. Also, the sheriff had no duty, under
the Fourth Amendment, to intervene in an illegal search of a student in the parking lot. The offi-
cers did not use excessive force when they allegedly choked a student in the parking lot to prevent him from swallowing evidence and/or a potentially harmful substance. The sheriff was entitled to
qualified immunity from the student’s excessive force claims based on failure to intervene. The
school district’s motion for summary judgment was granted.
municipal building in response to a threatening letter found on school premises brought suit
against the school district and the city alleging deprivation of their Fourth Amendment and
Fourteenth Amendment rights. Defendants moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim of action.
The district court held that students’ Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable search
and seizure were not violated, given the magnitude of the potential threat posed by the letter.
This fact, coupled with school authorities’ apparent belief that the students were associated with
the suspected letter writer because they congregated in the same area of the school, was sufficient
to justify the action taken by the school district. Lower courts have generally applied the T. L. O.
standards in cases where school officials initiated searches with minimal involvement by law
enforcement officers.
Use of Canines
The use of canines by school officials has received mixed reviews from the courts, which appear
to be almost evenly divided on this issue. However, with the growing incidence of drugs and vio-
lence in schools, the courts may eventually reach some level of consensus regarding this issue. The Seventh Circuit Court in Doe v. Renfrow held in a questionable decision that school
officials stood in loco parentis and had the right to use dogs to seek out drugs. In this particular
case, school officials, in cooperation with local police, detained 2,700 junior and senior high
school students in their classrooms while canines walked through classroom aisles and sniffed stu-
dents. When the dogs alerted their trainers to a student, that particular student was searched. In
total, fifty students were searched. One student was subjected to a strip search after the initial
search produced no drugs. The court held that school officials had a reasonable basis for believing
that students had drugs in their possession when the canines led them to a particular student.
school in its use of dogs in exploratory sniffing of lockers. The court noted that the school gave
notice at the beginning of the school year that lockers may be periodically inspected and further-
more that lockers were jointly possessed by both students and the school. Since school officials
are charged with the responsibility to maintain a safe and orderly school environment, it was nec-
essary for them to inspect lockers even though a slight Fourth Amendment infringement was
involved.
District held that the use of dogs was too intrusive in the absence of individual suspicion. In this
case, dogs were used to sniff both students and automobiles. Since students did not have access
to their cars during the school day, school officials’ interest in using dogs to sniff cars was mini-
mal and unreasonable.
the use of canines to sniff lockers and cars did not constitute a search. Further, school officials
may employ canines to search students if there is reasonable cause, but intrusion on the dignity
and personal security that accompanies this type of search cannot be justified by the need to pre-
vent alcohol and drug abuse when there is no individualized suspicion. Therefore, such a search
is unconstitutional. This court seems to support the use of canines, if there is a legitimate basis to
do so, but ruled that such measures cannot be justified in the absence of individualized suspicion
involving canines. In short, mass searches are not permitted.
In a more recent case, a challenge to a canine search arose when a former high school stu-
dent brought § 1983 action against the school district, school officials, and law enforcement offi-
cers, alleging that a dog sniff at school violated his Fourth Amendment right to be free from
unreasonable search and seizure. The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California
entered summary judgment for the school district. The student appealed. The court of appeals
held that the plaintiff lacked the standing to seek injunctive relief. The student also failed to sup-
port official capacity claims against defendants, which included an inability to establish that a
dog sniff of high school students was a Fourth Amendment search and that a random and suspi-
cionless dog sniff search of a student was unreasonable under the circumstances. The plaintiff
was a former high school student. Since he was no longer a student at high school or at any other
school in the school district subsequent to the time of dog-sniffing incident, he was not supported
by the court. Summary judgment was granted to the school district.
In B. C. v. Plumas Unified School District, a related canine case, an expelled high school
student filed a suit against various school defendants alleging that his constitutional rights had
been violated. The basis for this challenge involved a search of his truck that revealed the pres-
ence of a knife on school grounds and resulted in his expulsion. The student alleged that his sub-
stantive rights were violated. In determining the reasonableness of the search, the court made a
twofold inquiry: first, whether the search was justified at its inception, and second, whether it
was reasonably related in scope to the circumstances that justified the search in the first place. The court held that where a school official has reasonable grounds to believe a search will dis-
close evidence that a student has violated a school rule, the initiation of a search is justified. The
court further held that a search of the student’s truck was permissible after a canine duly trained
and certified in exploratory sniffing alerted officials to the truck. The alert, although not a search,
gave school officials reasonable grounds to suspect that a search of the truck would uncover evi-
dence of a rule violation. The court held for the district.
Search and Seizure Main Points:
- A student’s freedom from unreasonable search should be carefully balanced against the need for school officials to maintain order, maintain discipline, and protect the health, safety, and welfare of all students.
- Factors such as the need for the search, the student’s age, history, and record of behavior, the gravity of the problem, and the need for an immediate search should be considered before initiating a search.
- A school search should be based on reasonable grounds—that is, believing that something contrary to school rules or significantly detrimental to the school and its students will be produced by the search.
- The information leading to school searches should be independent of law enforcement officials.
- Searches involving law enforcement officials must be accompanied by probable cause and a search warrant.
- Although the primary purpose for the search should be to secure evidence of student misconduct for school disciplinary purposes, it may be contemplated under certain circumstances that criminal evidence may be made available to law enforcement officials.
- Strip searches should be avoided except where imminent danger exists. Such searches can be justified only in cases of extreme emergency where there is an immediate threat to the health and safety of students and school personnel. In such cases, school authorities should be certain that their actions are fully justified and that they have convincing information to support this more intrusive search.
- School personnel should conduct the search in a private setting. At best, a search is a demoralizing experience; care should be taken to minimize embarrassment to the student as much as possible.
- The magnitude of the offense, the extent of the intrusiveness, the nature of the evidence, and the background of the student involved should be considered before a search is initiated.
- A pat-down search of a student, if justified, should be conducted by a school official of the same sex and with an adult witness of the same sex present, if possible. Personal searches conducted by persons of the opposite sex can be very risky.
- Arbitrary searches or mass shakedowns cannot be justified as reasonable and are illegal.
- The use of canines should be avoided unless sufficient evidence justifies the need to employ these methods. Serious incidents that pose an imminent threat to students’ safety should form the basis for such action.
Students were informed that drugs and alcohol were banned during their participation in an
overnight school-sponsored trip. The principal smelled marijuana in the hallway where students
had congregated at the hotel.
- Does the smell of marijuana justify a search of each student’s room? If yes, why? If no, why not?
- Has reasonable suspicion been established by the principal? If yes, why? If not, why not?
- Can the principal legally request that hotel personnel provide him access to each student’s room? If yes, why? If not, why not?
- Does inspection of students’ room constitute a breach of student privacy? If yes, why? If not, why not?
- Is the principal justified in punishing guilty students when they are away from school after school hours? If yes, why? If not, why not?
