Horton v. Goose Creek Independent School District - Significance, Search And Seizure In The Schools, Further Readings
Robert Horton, Heather Horton, Sandra Sanchez, on their own behalf and on behalf of all other students in the Goose Creek School District
Goose Creek Independent School District
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
John M. Wisdom, Carolyn Dineen Randall, Albert Tate, Jr.
U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit, New Orleans, Louisiana
Date of Decision
14 December 1982
The dogs could sniff students' cars and lockers, but could not sniff the students themselves for drugs.
- 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).
"School Searches of Students and Seizures of Their Property." http://eric-web.tc.columbia.edu.
- Hudson v. Palmer - Significance, Impact, Do Prison Inmates Have Rights?
- Hishon v. King - Significance
- Horton v. Goose Creek Independent School District - Further Readings
- Horton v. Goose Creek Independent School District - Significance
- Horton v. Goose Creek Independent School District - Search And Seizure In The Schools
- Other Free Encyclopedias