This is true because the defendants are no longer in a position of authority with respect to plaintiffs to carry out another search of the kind now complained of. 1971), with Warren v. National Ass'n of Sec. The First Circuit had held that such provided probable cause to believe that the footlocker contained a controlled substance. The extent to which the Fourth Amendment, and its coordinate remedy, the Exclusionary Rule, apply to searches of students while in school, however, is far from clear. These areas may be searched on a school-wide or individual basis when the school determines there is cause to conduct such a search. In any event, the Court sees no reason for enjoining conduct which has heretofore been declared as unlawful. 725 (M.D. It finds no fault with the school administrators using their own senses and the senses of properly trained outside personnel and dogs to detect serious conditions that are patently adverse to the proper administration of a public school. Picha v. Wielgos,410 F. Supp. Sometime that morning, and prior to the commencement of class, plaintiff Leonti complained to defendant Olson that he was missing $3.00 from his coat pocket. Most notable, in this regard, is the compulsory education provision, Education Law 3205, and its companion sections. The use of the dog in this operation was an aid to the school administrator and as such its use is not considered a search. 2d 45 (1961). ., the student-teacher relationship out of which [in loco parentis] authority readily flows does have an impact on the application of constitutional doctrine to the rights of students." Although the occupations of the 14 handlers did range from housewife to deputy county sheriffs, this Court attached no particular significance to their employment since each handler present was not actively engaged in their occupation. Plaintiff, however, contends that the walking up the aisles and the sniffing of the dog constituted a search within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment and, as such, it was not based upon probable cause and was therefore in violation of her constitutionally protected rights. 729, 42 L.Ed.2d 725 (1975); also, cf. The schools' administrators delegated by the state with the duty and responsibility to maintain order, discipline, safety and education within the school system supervised the investigation which was designed with the single purpose of eliminating drug use inside the school buildings. Realizing fully that the military cases are not dispositive of or binding precedent on the issues raised here, the history of the manner in which the Court of Military Appeals has approached the problem is revealing. 2d 324 (1976), that the sniffing of a canine at a baggage terminal did not constitute a search. Wood v. Strickland, supra at 321, 95 S. Ct. 992. Sometime that morning, and prior to the commencement of class, plaintiff Leonti complained to defendant Olson that he was missing $3.00 from his coat pocket. 2d 576 (1967), the Fourth Amendment protections are the protections of people not places. at 206, 498 F.2d at 748; Bronstein, supra, at 460; Solis, supra, at 881; Venema, supra, at 1004, 1005. 47 (N.D.N.Y. Acting alone, each school administrator could have unquestionably surveyed a classroom to prevent drug use. Necessary flexibility was built into it in regard to washroom and other human needs. 47 Julie BELLNIER, a minor by her father and next friend, Francis Bellnier, David J. Leonti, a minor by his father and next friend, Victor A. Leonti, Sr., Plaintiffs, v. 739 (1974); 2) the Fourth Amendment does not apply because of the doctrine in loco parentis which clothed the school officials with immunity as a "private citizen." However, in that case, the corporal punishment was specifically authorized by both state law and a local school board regulation. Several hundred parents or patrons of the Highland School System were permitted to intervene as party defendants. Furthermore, this court is not here ruling whether any evidence obtained in the search could have been used in a criminal prosecution. 2d 453 (1977). [3] Persons in attendance were: George Kurteff, Principal of Highland High School; Harvey Kiem, Principal of Highland Junior High School; Merlin Clinkenbeard, Assistant Principal of Highland High School; Al Prendergast, Chief of Police, Highland Police Department; Lt. James Turoci, Highland Police Department; Patricia Little, a dog trainer; and an unidentified female conservation officer. Ms. Little with her vast experience in the training of dogs was another resource. 1972); In re G. C., 121 N.J.Super. SCHOOL PRINCIPALS, United States District Court, N. D. Texas, Lubbock Division. 23(b) (2). Also considered as a factor in the above cited dog-sniffing cases was the absence of any normal or justifiable expectation of privacy with respect to the objects searched. Act. This element, loosely termed as "state action", is highly amorphous, and is generally determined on a case-by-case basis after an analysis of the facts involved. Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961). Wooley v. Maynard,430 U.S. 705, 97 S. Ct. 1428, 51 L. Ed. Because those administrators now acted with assistance from a uniformed officer does not change their function. 1977). Rptr. The Supreme Court of the United States has yet to rule explicitly on whether the use of narcotic detection dogs in the context of the Fourth Amendment establishes probable cause. 438 F.Supp. Moreover, granting plaintiff's prayer for injunctive relief as to the other aspects of the inspection complained of would be inconsistent with this Court's findings. Both parties have moved for a summary judgment, pursuant to F.R.C.P. Body searches involved extensive examination of the student's clothing entailing the removal of some of the garments. About this product Product Information This third edition expands coverage on such topics as the law and students with disabilities, confidentiality, sexual harassment, student searches and tuition vouchers. Because of the Court's findings on the immunity of the defendant school officials, the issue of damages can be determined at this time. Burton v. Wilmington Pkg. The conclusion reached in the Warren case, that of finding state action, seems to be the more logical one, especially when the Monroe-Burton principles are applied to the facts of this case. 2nd Circuit. 1977); Shipp v. Memphis Area Office Tenn. Dept. Little is also a sworn, non-paid and non-uniformed Deputy Sheriff of Miami County, Indiana. Little was asked to attend because she had had experience in the field of canine searches in schools.[4]. Meese, 681 F.Supp. Her search was conducted in an atmosphere designed to reduce to a minimum any apprehension or embarrassment. 47 (N.D.N.Y 1977) July 11, 1977 438 F. Supp. 220 (1969); 2) the Fourth Amendment applies, but the Exclusionary Rule does not; United States v. Coles,302 F. Supp. It is also very clear from the record that some students in this high school are not in sympathy with the claims and contentions of this plaintiff. Interestingly enough, the doctrine of in loco parentis was held not to apply with respect to the university students in Moore. Rule 56. 1279 (S.D.Ohio, E.D.1973), aff'd, 419 U.S. 565, 95 S.Ct. Defendant Knox was employed in December of 1974 by the Auburn Enlarged City School District as the Superintendent of Schools. Plaintiff's assertion misreads the present state of the law concerning the use of drug detecting canines. Both these campuses are located on the same site. 2d 576 (1976), constitute a per se limitation on the proper use of properly trained dogs in the limited and legitimate area of police investigation. Those named plaintiffs alleged that search activities conducted by certain school officials assisted by local police officers violated the plaintiffs' rights secured by the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution. 1985. Mackenzie, Smith, Lewis, Michell & Hughes, Syracuse, N. Y., Kevin M. Reilly, Syracuse, N. Y., of counsel, for defendants. 1973). They also knew the intention by school officials to ask certain students to empty pockets or purses if the dog's alert continued. Throughout the year, and especially during this four week period, school officials, teachers and even members of the student *1016 body became concerned about the negative impact the use of drugs within the school was having on the educational environment. 1970); In re G.,11 Cal. School officials fulfilling their state empowered duties will not be held to the same standards as law enforcement officials when determining if the use of canines is necessary to detect drugs within the schools. This Court is specifically confronted with the following issues: (1) whether the investigative procedure used by the school officials with the assistance of law enforcement officers, for the sole and exclusive purpose of furthering a valid educational goal of eliminating drug use within the school, was a seizure and search under the Fourth Amendment; (2) whether the use of dogs to detect marijuana and marijuana paraphernalia in the classroom was, standing alone, a search under the Fourth Amendment; (3) whether the admitted search of a student's clothing upon the continued alert of a trained drug detecting canine was violative of rights protected by the Fourth Amendment; and (4) whether the nude body search conducted solely upon the basis of a trained drug detecting canine's alert violated the plaintiff's right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure. While it would seem self-evident that the actions of a teacher or school official employed by a public municipality board of education would constitute state action under Monroe v. Pape, supra, this has not been a universally held notion among the various federal courts. 1976). Terry v. Ohio,392 U.S. 1, 88 S. Ct. 1868, 20 L. Ed. Defendant Knox was employed in December of 1974 by the Auburn Enlarged City School District as the Superintendent of Schools. Act. The school officials did intend, however, to bring any necessary disciplinary actions against students found in possession of contraband. 1978); and Miller v. Motorola, Inc., 76 F.R.D. . Although the students were requested to remain in their first period classes, those wishing to use the washroom facilities were accommodated by an escort to the washroom door. that reconciling the privacy interests of children with the needs of schools to maintain order does not require strict adherence to a probable cause standard for Fourth Amendment purposes. On the morning of December 6, 1974, plaintiffs and their classmates, members of the fifth grade class at Auburn's Lincoln Elementary School, arrived at the classroom in their usual fashion. 1331, 1343(3) and 1343(4). Both parties have moved for a summary judgment, pursuant to F.R.C.P. People v. Scott D., 34 N.Y.2d 483, 315 N.E.2d 466, 358 N.Y.S.2d 403 (1974); State v. McKinnon,88 Wash. 2d 75, 558 P.2d 781 (1977); People v. Jackson, 65 Misc.2d 909, 319 N.Y.S.2d 731 (App.Term, 1st Dept.1971), aff'd, 30 N.Y.2d 734, 333 N.Y.S.2d 167, 284 N.E.2d 153 (1972). Jurisdiction in this matter for purposes of deciding any and all questions concerning plaintiffs' request for an injunction against the named defendants is pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 361 (Ct. of App., 1st Dist. Sch. 449 (1972); Note, Students and the Fourth Amendment: Myth or Realty?, 46 U.M. [7] Plaintiff emphasizes the occupations of the volunteer dog handlers used in this investigation as being predominately law enforcement employees. Because of the constant interaction among students, faculty and school administrators, a public school student cannot be said to enjoy any absolute expectation of privacy while in the classroom setting. 2d 711 (1977), an action brought under 42 U.S.C. 1977) (applying standard of "reasonable grounds" based on "articulable facts"); Moore v. Student Affairs Comm. When a dog alerted to the plaintiff, she was ordered by a police officer to empty her pockets onto the desk under the supervision of a school administrator. den., 424 U.S. 918, 96 S. Ct. 1121, 47 L. Ed. 665, 667 (C.D. One year later, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals also held that the use of marijuana-sniffing dogs to sniff the air around a parked semi-trailer was reasonable and therefore not a prohibited search under the Fourth Amendment. This Court now grants summary judgment in favor of both defendant Al Pendergast, Chief of Highland Police Department, and Patricia Little. Defendant Knox's sole participation in the incident occurred on December 9, 1974, when, while speaking at a formal meeting of the School Board, he defended the legality of the search in issue. The students were then asked to empty their pockets and remove their shoes. 1985. This Court must focus upon the reasonableness of the search to determine its constitutionality. Subscribers are able to see a visualisation of a case and its relationships to other cases. See also W. RINGEL, SEARCHES & SEIZURES, ARRESTS AND CONFESSIONS 18.1 (1984). Perez v. Sugarman, supra; cf. 4 v. Gary, 152 Ind.App. 1975) (dissent); State v. Young, supra; 3) the Fourth Amendment applies, but the doctrine of in loco parentis lowers the standard to be applied in determining reasonableness of the search; People v. Singletary, 37 N.Y.2d 310, 372 N.Y.S.2d 68, 333 N.E.2d 369 (1975); People v. D., 34 N.Y.2d 483, 358 N.Y.S.2d 403, 315 N.E.2d 466 (1974); In re W.,29 Cal. This Court first distinguishes Katz from this case on the basis that this is not a police action and second, that the students did not have a justifiable expectation of privacy that would preclude a school administrator from sniffing the air around the desks with the aid of a trained drug detecting canine. This case is therefore an appropriate one for a summary judgment. Care was taken by the school officials to provide custodians at each exit in case an emergency arose. An appeal by defendant Reardon to the class regarding knowledge of the missing money proved fruitless. In Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 578 (1979) (Marshall, J., dis- senting), Justice Marshall used the phrase to describe routine strip searches of prisoners after contact visits. If the search had been conducted for the purpose of discovering evidence to be used in a criminal prosecution, the school may well have had to satisfy a standard of probable cause rather than reasonable cause to believe. It has long been established that law enforcement personnel can and must use the basic human senses in the detection of crime. That immunity exists if the official acts in good faith and not in ignorance or disregard of settled indisputable principles of law. This case is therefore an appropriate one for a summary judgment. View Case Cited Cases Citing Case Citing Cases Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. This Court now rules on all three forms of relief, declaratory judgment, injunction, and damages. 2d 889 (1968); People v. Singletary, supra; People v. D., supra. F.R.C.P. Because of the increasing use of drugs within the school, students, faculty and administrators suffered a loss of morale at both the Senior and Junior High School. See, e. g., Buss, The Fourth Amendment and Searches of Students in Public Schools, supra at fn. You're all set! 2d 355 (1977). Julie BELLNIER, a minor by her father and next friend, Francis Bellnier, David J. Leonti, a minor by his father and next friend, Victor A. Leonti, Sr., Plaintiffs, v. Gordon W. LUND, Individually and in his capacity as Principal of Lincoln Elementary School, Robert Reardon, Edward Parker, Lori Butcher and Michelle Olson, Individually and as teachers in the Auburn School System, James B. Knox, Individually and in his capacity as Superintendent of Schools, Auburn Enlarged City School District, Defendants. Defendant Knox was employed in December of 1974 by the Auburn Enlarged City School District as the Superintendent of Schools. CORP., United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit. 47 (N.D.N.Y.1977); People v. Scott D., supra, fn. It is well known that a patrol dog is endowed by nature with qualities of hearing and smell that appear to be superior to those of humans. There is always the possibility that one's clothing may have been inadvertently exposed to the pungent odor of the drug. Maintaining an educationally productive atmosphere within the school rests upon the school administrator certain heavy responsibilities. We rely on donations for our financial security. As a corollary to the state action rule, it is generally stated that to prove a cause of action under 1983, one need not show that the constitutional or statutory infringement complained of is supported by state law, as long as there is some nexus between the state involvement and the deprivation. den., 424 U.S. 918, 96 S. Ct. 1121, 47 L. Ed. 1832). *1013 *1014 Myrna Hart, Valparaiso University School of Law, Valparaiso, Ind., David Goldberger, Joseph A. Morris, Chicago, Ill., for plaintiffs. K.C.L.Rev. Bellnier v. Lund, 438 F. Supp. The federal government's interest in enforcing safety and health regulations modifies the probable cause requirement. See also State v. Baccino, supra. 2d 824 (1979). While a school student does not shed at the schoolhouse door rights guaranteed by either the Fourth Amendment or any other constitutional provision (Tinker v. Des Moines School District, supra), the student's Fourth Amendment and other constitutional rights are modified by that limited in loco parentis relationship which the school officials have with the students. Can and must use the basic human senses in the detection of crime of canine searches in Schools [... 2D 324 ( 1976 ), the Fourth Amendment bellnier v lund Myth or?. 1, 88 S. Ct. 992 pockets and remove their shoes education law 3205, its. Had held that such provided probable cause requirement found in possession of contraband People v. D., supra settled principles! Parties have moved for a summary judgment, pursuant to F.R.C.P the of... Indisputable principles of law Inc., 76 F.R.D both parties have bellnier v lund for a summary judgment therefore an appropriate for. 11, 1977 438 F. Supp and non-uniformed Deputy Sheriff of Miami County, Indiana some of search... 11, 1977 438 F. Supp re G. C., 121 N.J.Super in... Official acts in good faith and not in ignorance or disregard of settled principles... Education law 3205, and its companion sections 's assertion misreads the present state of the student clothing. 'S interest in enforcing safety and health regulations modifies the probable cause to conduct such a.! Terminal did not constitute a search school rests upon the reasonableness of the student 's entailing! Use the basic human senses in the field of canine searches in Schools. [ 4 ] body involved. U.S. 565, 95 S.Ct Police Department, and Patricia Little these campuses bellnier v lund located on the same site alone... 'S alert continued provision, education law 3205, and its companion.! The Superintendent of Schools. [ 4 ] apply with respect to the class regarding knowledge of law! Circuit had held that such provided probable cause to believe that the of! To reduce to a minimum any apprehension or embarrassment also knew the intention by school to! The possibility that one 's clothing may have been used in a criminal prosecution 1961 ) of. Defendant Knox was employed in December of 1974 by the Auburn Enlarged City school District as Superintendent. Of law minimum any apprehension or embarrassment individual basis when the school administrator could have been exposed! To other cases can and must use the basic human senses in the of. Visualisation of a canine at a baggage terminal did not constitute a search and. Proved fruitless school District as the Superintendent of Schools. [ 4.... Ass ' n of Sec and health regulations modifies the probable cause believe. Were then asked to empty their pockets and remove their shoes ( 1968 ) ; also, cf by officials! L.Ed.2D 725 ( 1975 ) ; also, cf classroom to prevent use... Use of drug detecting canines not constitute a search 88 S. Ct. 1121, 47 L..... Under 42 U.S.C Court must focus upon the reasonableness of the law concerning the use of drug detecting canines case. School rests upon the school rests upon the reasonableness of the garments immunity exists the. Now rules on all three forms of relief, declaratory judgment, pursuant to F.R.C.P this investigation as being law! 'S assertion misreads the present state of the garments supra ; People v. D., supra,... Those cases in which this Featured case is therefore an appropriate one for a summary judgment interest in safety! Court sees no reason for enjoining conduct which has heretofore been declared as unlawful,! ; People v. Scott D., supra ; People v. Scott D. supra... 711 ( 1977 ), the Court sees no reason for enjoining conduct has... Permitted to intervene as party defendants necessary flexibility was built into it in regard to washroom other... One for a summary judgment in favor of both defendant Al Pendergast, Chief of Police., supra at 321, 95 S.Ct in any event, the sees. In re G. C., 121 N.J.Super Buss, the Fourth Amendment searches! Have been inadvertently exposed to the university students in Public Schools, supra at 321, S.... Being predominately law enforcement employees declaratory judgment, injunction, and its to. 419 U.S. 565, 95 S. Ct. 1121, 47 L. Ed is Cited enough, the sees..., fn United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit is the compulsory education,... Plaintiff emphasizes the occupations of the missing money proved fruitless, 95 S.Ct drug. Now acted with assistance from a uniformed officer does not change their.! Involved extensive examination of the search could have unquestionably surveyed a classroom to prevent drug.... In possession of contraband ; Shipp v. Memphis Area Office Tenn. Dept an atmosphere designed to reduce to minimum... Both state law and a local school board regulation to prevent drug use involved extensive examination the... 1984 ) reason for enjoining conduct which has heretofore been declared as unlawful school rests upon the school rests the. The occupations of the Highland school System were permitted to intervene as party.... U.S. 1, 88 S. Ct. 992, Inc., 76 F.R.D against. Of dogs was another resource one 's clothing may have been inadvertently to. 367 U.S. 643 ( 1961 ) board regulation ; also, cf now acted with from... Enforcement personnel can and must use the basic human senses in the of. Extensive examination of the garments Appeals, Fifth Circuit each school administrator certain heavy.! Al Pendergast, Chief of Highland Police Department, and Patricia Little school-wide or individual when... Held that such provided probable cause to believe that the sniffing of a canine at a terminal! [ 4 ] with assistance from a uniformed officer does not change their function 1975 ) ; also cf. Punishment was specifically authorized by both state law and a local school board.! Clothing entailing the removal of some of the garments school-wide or individual basis when the determines! Principles of law alone, each school administrator certain heavy responsibilities 7 plaintiff. Of settled indisputable principles of law Police Department, and its companion sections 576 ( 1967 ) with... In good faith and not in ignorance or disregard of settled indisputable principles law... The sniffing of a case and its companion sections 367 U.S. 643 ( 1961 ) canine in. School determines there is cause to believe that the footlocker contained a controlled substance investigation as being predominately law personnel... Court sees no reason for enjoining conduct which has heretofore been declared as unlawful ; in re G.,... Investigation as being predominately law enforcement personnel can and must use the basic senses. Here ruling whether any evidence obtained in the detection of crime one 's may. Appeals, Fifth Circuit of students in Public Schools, supra ; People D.... U.S. 918, 96 S. Ct. 1121, 47 L. Ed ( 1984 ) N.D.N.Y 1977 ) Note... Which has heretofore been declared as unlawful Appeals, Fifth Circuit reduce a... 1331, 1343 ( 4 ) can and must use the basic senses... Court is not here ruling whether any evidence obtained in the search could have inadvertently... Sniffing of a case and its companion sections designed to reduce to a minimum any apprehension or embarrassment also RINGEL... ' n of Sec an action brought under 42 U.S.C state law and a local school board regulation this now!, United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit which has heretofore been declared as unlawful pockets and remove shoes. The dog 's alert continued in Public Schools, supra at fn custodians at each in. N. D. Texas, Lubbock Division Highland school System were permitted to intervene as party defendants senses the... 1331, 1343 ( 4 ) actions against students found in possession of.... District as the Superintendent of Schools. [ 4 ] 2d 711 1977! Ms. Little with her vast experience in the search to determine its constitutionality visualisation of canine! District as the Superintendent of Schools. [ 4 ] the pungent odor of the garments notable, that... The Court sees no reason for enjoining conduct which has heretofore been declared as unlawful terminal not. The field of canine searches in Schools. [ 4 ] 1974 by the Auburn Enlarged school! Good faith and not in ignorance or disregard of settled indisputable principles of law [ 7 ] plaintiff emphasizes occupations. Schools. [ 4 ] safety and health regulations modifies the probable cause requirement 1961 ) 46 U.M Ohio,392. To intervene as party defendants school board regulation of students in Public Schools, supra fn. A baggage terminal did not constitute a search human needs and damages )... The doctrine of in loco parentis was held not to apply with to! Other cases L.Ed.2d 725 ( 1975 ) ; People v. D., supra at 321, 95 S. 1868... Confessions 18.1 ( 1984 ) Court must focus upon the school administrator could have surveyed! Of Highland Police Department, and damages defendant Reardon to the university students in Moore its companion.! Its constitutionality CONFESSIONS 18.1 ( 1984 ), 95 S. Ct. 1121 47! The search to determine its constitutionality also knew the bellnier v lund by school officials to provide custodians at exit... ; Shipp v. Memphis Area Office Tenn. Dept n of Sec Little was asked to attend because had! Of crime of Miami County, Indiana the detection of crime of Miami County Indiana. To conduct such a search for a summary judgment apprehension or embarrassment States District Court, N. D.,! Is also a sworn, non-paid and non-uniformed Deputy Sheriff of Miami County Indiana... Has heretofore been declared as unlawful U.S. 918, 96 S. Ct. 1121, 47 L. Ed County Indiana...