Appellants
Robert Horton, Heather Horton, Sandra Sanchez, on their own behalf and on behalf of all other students in the Goose Creek School District
Appellee
Goose Creek Independent School District
Appellants' Claim
That drug-sniffing dogs violated the students' Fourth Amendment rights.
Chief Lawyers for Appellants
Arthur Val Perkins, Stefan Presser
Chief Lawyer for Appellee
Richard A. Peebles
Judges
John M. Wisdom, Carolyn Dineen Randall, Albert Tate, Jr.
Place
U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit, New Orleans, Louisiana
Date of Decision
14 December 1982
Decision
The dogs could sniff students' cars and lockers, but could not sniff the students themselves for drugs.
Significance
Searches conducted of students by school officials made without a reasonablesuspicion were unconstitutional.
School officials and teachers have a duty to ensure that their students are safe and in an atmosphere conducive to learning. Increasingly, however, schoolofficials find that these two goals are difficult to carry out. Students inschools across the nation have been known to bring alcohol, drugs, and even guns into schools, which threaten not only the learning environment, but alsothe safety of everyone within the school. School officials need to balance their desire to maintain a healthy and safe environment, however, with the factthat students are protected by the Constitution. As ruled in Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District (1969), students do not "shed their constitutional rights . . . at the schoolhouse gate."
In Horton v. Goose Creek Independent School District, the efforts of school officials to maintain a healthy and safe learning environment, againstthe backdrop of drug and alcohol abuse, were weighed against the students' constitutional rights. The decision of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals illustrates that the students' Fourth Amendment rights could not be violated simply because they were on school property, despite the sympathy the court showedfor school officials trying to deal with a growing alcohol and drug problem.
In 1978 the Goose Creek Independent School District in Texas brought in drug-sniffing dogs in an attempt to deal with a rampant drug and alcohol problem.The dogs were trained to detect more than 60 different controlled and over-the-counter substances. On an unannounced and random basis, dogs were taken toall of the schools in the district to sniff the students' lockers and cars and were brought into the classrooms to sniff the students themselves. If a dogindicated that a car or locker had an illegal substance, the student was required to open the locker or vehicle for a search. If the dog indicated a student was carrying an illegal substance, he or she was brought into the schooloffice to be searched.
Three students, Robby Horton, Heather Horton, and Sandra Sanchez, speaking for all of the students, sued the school district. They claimed that the dog searches violated their Fourth Amendment rights to be free from illegal searches and seizures, as well as their Fourteenth Amendment rights that assured they would not be deprived of their liberty and property without due process.
All three of the students had been subjected to searches and claimed that they were disruptive and embarrassing. For example, Heather Horton described what happened when a dog entered her classroom to sniff for drugs and alcohol:
Horton described her fear of large dogs and how it interrupted her concentration for her test. Although the dog did not indicate that Heather Horton was carrying any illegal substances, the dogs did react to both Sandra Sanchez andRobby Horton. School officials searched Sanchez's purse without her consentand searched Horton's pockets, socks, and pant legs. No illegal substances were found on either person, and they were deeply embarrassed by the search.
Initially, the case was decided in favor of the school district. The case wasappealed, however, to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. With the facts ofthe case laid out before them, the court divided their decision into two parts. First, they would decide whether the dogs could sniff the students' cars and lockers for drugs, and second, whether they could sniff the students themselves. The judges would decide whether either of these actions violated the students' Fourth Amendment rights--the right to be free from unreasonable searches.
The court ruled that the dogs could sniff the students' lockers and cars without violating their Fourth Amendment rights. Because the lockers and cars were unattended and in public view, the court ruled that it was not a search tohave the dogs sniff these objects. If the dogs were not conducting a technical search, the students could not possibly have their Fourth Amendment rightsbroken.
The court ruled, however, that the dogs could not sniff the students. First,the judges found that the dogs "sniffing around each child, putting his noseon the child and scratching and manifesting other signs of excitementin the case of an alert--is intrusive." Because the dogs intruded on the students' bodies, the judges ruled that the case was a search according to the Fourth Amendment.
Second, the judges found that not only was it a search to have the dogs sniffthe students, but it was also unreasonable. The officials conducting the search did not have any individual suspicion that a particular student was carrying drugs or alcohol. As such, it was unreasonable to search all of the students and subject them to an intrusive, and even offensive experience, with nocause.
In the case of Horton v. Goose Creek Independent School District the court upheld the constitutional rights of the students. But in the years thatfollowed many decisions were made in favor of school officials. As in the case of Smith v. McGlothilin (1997), a vice principal made a group of students caught smoking on school grounds empty their pockets and purses. When the search of one girl yielded three knives, she was turned over to the police. Ultimately the actions of the vice principal were upheld. Clearly, when administrators are able to substantiate a "reasonable suspicion" and keep the scope of the search limited, courts rule in favor of the schools.
Related Cases
Search and Seizure in the Schools
Fourth Amendment requirements differ, depending on whether the place in whicha search and seizure occurs is a private or a public locale. And within public venues, schools present a special situation, in part because both law andjudicial practice tend to grant lesser rights (but also a lesser degree of culpability) to minors.
A pivotal case in the development of law regarding school search and seizureis New Jersey v. T.L.O. (1985), in which a unanimous Supreme Court applied the Fourth Amendment prohibition against unreasonable search and seizureto public schools. But in the same case, a 6-3 majority held that probable cause is not needed to justify, or a search warrant to legalize, a search of astudent by a school authority. Rather than probable cause, Justice White established a two-pronged test of "reasonableness" as a basis for searches.
Thus under T.L.O., the legality of school locker searches is predicated on the student's expectation of privacy. Searches of vehicles in the schoolparking lot are not considered unreasonable, and the California Attorney General in 1992 likewise applied the reasonableness standard to justify the placement of metal detectors as part of a generalized search for weapons.
Sources
"School Searches of Students and Seizures of Their Property." http://eric-web.tc.columbia.edu.
Robert Horton, Heather Horton, Sandra Sanchez, on their own behalf and on behalf of all other students in the Goose Creek School District
Appellee
Goose Creek Independent School District
Appellants' Claim
That drug-sniffing dogs violated the students' Fourth Amendment rights.
Chief Lawyers for Appellants
Arthur Val Perkins, Stefan Presser
Chief Lawyer for Appellee
Richard A. Peebles
Judges
John M. Wisdom, Carolyn Dineen Randall, Albert Tate, Jr.
Place
U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit, New Orleans, Louisiana
Date of Decision
14 December 1982
Decision
The dogs could sniff students' cars and lockers, but could not sniff the students themselves for drugs.
Significance
Searches conducted of students by school officials made without a reasonablesuspicion were unconstitutional.
School officials and teachers have a duty to ensure that their students are safe and in an atmosphere conducive to learning. Increasingly, however, schoolofficials find that these two goals are difficult to carry out. Students inschools across the nation have been known to bring alcohol, drugs, and even guns into schools, which threaten not only the learning environment, but alsothe safety of everyone within the school. School officials need to balance their desire to maintain a healthy and safe environment, however, with the factthat students are protected by the Constitution. As ruled in Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District (1969), students do not "shed their constitutional rights . . . at the schoolhouse gate."
In Horton v. Goose Creek Independent School District, the efforts of school officials to maintain a healthy and safe learning environment, againstthe backdrop of drug and alcohol abuse, were weighed against the students' constitutional rights. The decision of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals illustrates that the students' Fourth Amendment rights could not be violated simply because they were on school property, despite the sympathy the court showedfor school officials trying to deal with a growing alcohol and drug problem.
In 1978 the Goose Creek Independent School District in Texas brought in drug-sniffing dogs in an attempt to deal with a rampant drug and alcohol problem.The dogs were trained to detect more than 60 different controlled and over-the-counter substances. On an unannounced and random basis, dogs were taken toall of the schools in the district to sniff the students' lockers and cars and were brought into the classrooms to sniff the students themselves. If a dogindicated that a car or locker had an illegal substance, the student was required to open the locker or vehicle for a search. If the dog indicated a student was carrying an illegal substance, he or she was brought into the schooloffice to be searched.
Three students, Robby Horton, Heather Horton, and Sandra Sanchez, speaking for all of the students, sued the school district. They claimed that the dog searches violated their Fourth Amendment rights to be free from illegal searches and seizures, as well as their Fourteenth Amendment rights that assured they would not be deprived of their liberty and property without due process.
All three of the students had been subjected to searches and claimed that they were disruptive and embarrassing. For example, Heather Horton described what happened when a dog entered her classroom to sniff for drugs and alcohol:
Well, we were in the middle of a major French exam and the dog camein and walked up and down the aisles and stopped at every desk and sniffed on each side all around the people, the feet, the parts where you keep your books under the desk.
Horton described her fear of large dogs and how it interrupted her concentration for her test. Although the dog did not indicate that Heather Horton was carrying any illegal substances, the dogs did react to both Sandra Sanchez andRobby Horton. School officials searched Sanchez's purse without her consentand searched Horton's pockets, socks, and pant legs. No illegal substances were found on either person, and they were deeply embarrassed by the search.
Initially, the case was decided in favor of the school district. The case wasappealed, however, to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. With the facts ofthe case laid out before them, the court divided their decision into two parts. First, they would decide whether the dogs could sniff the students' cars and lockers for drugs, and second, whether they could sniff the students themselves. The judges would decide whether either of these actions violated the students' Fourth Amendment rights--the right to be free from unreasonable searches.
The court ruled that the dogs could sniff the students' lockers and cars without violating their Fourth Amendment rights. Because the lockers and cars were unattended and in public view, the court ruled that it was not a search tohave the dogs sniff these objects. If the dogs were not conducting a technical search, the students could not possibly have their Fourth Amendment rightsbroken.
The court ruled, however, that the dogs could not sniff the students. First,the judges found that the dogs "sniffing around each child, putting his noseon the child and scratching and manifesting other signs of excitementin the case of an alert--is intrusive." Because the dogs intruded on the students' bodies, the judges ruled that the case was a search according to the Fourth Amendment.
Second, the judges found that not only was it a search to have the dogs sniffthe students, but it was also unreasonable. The officials conducting the search did not have any individual suspicion that a particular student was carrying drugs or alcohol. As such, it was unreasonable to search all of the students and subject them to an intrusive, and even offensive experience, with nocause.
In the case of Horton v. Goose Creek Independent School District the court upheld the constitutional rights of the students. But in the years thatfollowed many decisions were made in favor of school officials. As in the case of Smith v. McGlothilin (1997), a vice principal made a group of students caught smoking on school grounds empty their pockets and purses. When the search of one girl yielded three knives, she was turned over to the police. Ultimately the actions of the vice principal were upheld. Clearly, when administrators are able to substantiate a "reasonable suspicion" and keep the scope of the search limited, courts rule in favor of the schools.
Related Cases
- Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, 393 U.S. 503 (1969).
- New Jersey v. T.L.O., 469 U.S. 325 (1985).
- Arizona v. Hicks, 480 U.S. 321 (1987).
- Veronia School District 47J v. Acton, 515 U.S. 646 (1995).
- Smith v. McGlothlin, 119 F.3d 788 (1997).
Search and Seizure in the Schools
Fourth Amendment requirements differ, depending on whether the place in whicha search and seizure occurs is a private or a public locale. And within public venues, schools present a special situation, in part because both law andjudicial practice tend to grant lesser rights (but also a lesser degree of culpability) to minors.
A pivotal case in the development of law regarding school search and seizureis New Jersey v. T.L.O. (1985), in which a unanimous Supreme Court applied the Fourth Amendment prohibition against unreasonable search and seizureto public schools. But in the same case, a 6-3 majority held that probable cause is not needed to justify, or a search warrant to legalize, a search of astudent by a school authority. Rather than probable cause, Justice White established a two-pronged test of "reasonableness" as a basis for searches.
Thus under T.L.O., the legality of school locker searches is predicated on the student's expectation of privacy. Searches of vehicles in the schoolparking lot are not considered unreasonable, and the California Attorney General in 1992 likewise applied the reasonableness standard to justify the placement of metal detectors as part of a generalized search for weapons.
Sources
"School Searches of Students and Seizures of Their Property." http://eric-web.tc.columbia.edu.
User Comments Add a comment…