SCHOOL SEARCHES

SCHOOL SNIFFS:

Summary:

A canine sniff of property is not a search under the Fourth Amendment.

The handler should treat this sniff as an allied agency request for a K-9. That is, the handler’s only involvement in the investigation is to provide the locating tool.

School officials only need reasonable suspicion to search a student or their property. An alert from a trained and certified narcotics detector dog gives the school official reasonable suspicion to conduct a warrantless search of the student and / or their property.

School officials do not need a search warrant to conduct the search of the student and / or their property. No reasonable suspicion is needed prior to the canine sniff.

Courts are divided about the reasonableness of canine student searches; however two out of three Federal Courts state that a canine sniff of a person is a search. As two courts state a sniff of a student is a search and the fact an agency is normally liable for any accidental / unintentional K-9 bite, I recommend that K-9’s not be allowed to conduct student sniffs.

A) New Jersey v T.L.O. (469 U.S. 325 (1985) U. S. Supreme Court

Even though this is not a canine case, the United States Supreme Court held that:

1. School searches fall under the Fourth Amendment’s reasonableness standard.
2. School officials do not need a warrant to search a student or their property.
3. School officials do not need probable cause to search; the legality of a search of a student should depend simply on the reasonableness, under all the circumstances of the search (reasonable suspicion).

B) Doe v Renfrow (631 F. 2d 91 (1980) Seventh Circuit

1. Detention of student for 1-1/2 hours was not an unreasonable seizure.
2. Entry by school officials and uniformed police officers into each classroom with the intent to locate drugs, was not a search.
3. Walking up aisles and sniffing by a narcotics detector dog did not violate students’ right.
4. Upon a canine alert, there was no violation of student’s rights by ordering her to empty pockets onto her desk.
5. Nude search of student based solely upon a canine alert after she emptied her pockets was unreasonable.

C) Zamora v Pomeroy (639 F. 2d 662 (1981) Tenth Circuit

1. A warrantless search of school lockers conducted by trained police dogs was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment, even when no reasonable suspicion existed.
2. Where school had assumed joint control of student’s locker and where school authorities conducted warrantless search of lockers after trained police dogs indicated the presence of drugs, there was no search under the Fourth Amendment.

D) Horton v Goose Creek Independent School District (690 F. 2d 470 (1982) Fifth Circuit

1. Police dogs’ sniffing of student lockers in public hallways and automobiles parked on public parking lots did not constitute a search.
2. Dogs’ sniffing of students’ persons could not be justified without reasonable cause.
3. Canine searches of students’ persons could not be justified without reasonable cause.
4. The standard of reasonable cause for school officials is less stringent than that applicable to law enforcement, but requires more than good faith.
5. If, as a result of canine sniff searches of students’ cars and lockers, school had reasonable cause to suspect presence of contraband, no warrant is required to search.
6. Minimal harassment arising from the mere presence of dogs on campus was not unreasonable.

E) Hearn v Board of Public Education (191 F. 3d 1329 (1999) Eleventh Circuit

A search of a teacher’s automobile resulting from a random parking lot sweep by officers, where a narcotics dog alerted to the teacher’s automobile gave probable cause to enter and search the interior.

This alert also gave reasonable suspicion of possible drug use by teacher, so that termination of teacher for refusing to take a drug test after discovery of marijuana in her vehicle, was reasonable.

F) B.C. v Plumas Unified School District (192 F. 3d 1260 (1999) Ninth Circuit

1. The close proximity sniffing of the person is offensive whether the sniffer be canine or human. Because the dog sniff infringed on a person’s reasonable expectation of privacy, we hold that it constitutes a search.
2. A random and suspicionless dog sniff search of a person is unreasonable.

G) Suggested flow chart of school searches of property:

School official requests K-9 sniff of property >

Law enforcement provides the K-9 locating tool and conducts K-9 sniff >

Positive alert from K-9 >

Establishes probable cause for the officer and reasonable suspicion for the school official >

School official conducts a warrantless search of both property and student, pursuant to New Jersey v T.L.O. >

The student suspect is dealt with administratively (suspension / expulsion) >

Law enforcement seizes the contraband for destruction >

If the school official requests criminal prosecution through law enforcement, law enforcement simply forwards the school official’s investigation to the prosecuting attorney’s office. The contraband is booked by law enforcement as evidence.

Return to the Narcotics Legal Index

Return to the Home Page

Webmaster