Doran v. Contoocook Valley Sch. Dist., No. 07-307 (D. N.H. Mar. 25, 2009)
A U.S. district court in New Hampshire has ruled that the use of drug sniffing dogs by police to conduct a drug sweep of a high school, which encompassed such personal items as student backpacks and purses, did not constitute a search implicating students’ Fourth Amendment rights. In addition, the court ruled that holding the students on the football field during the sweep did not amount to a seizure under the Fourth Amendment. The sweep was conducted by local and state police after Contoocook Valley Regional High School officials had become increasingly concerned that they had a significant drug problem. Shortly before the police arrived, CVRHS ordered students to assemble on the football field but to leave their personal items behind in the building. During the sweep, the dogs alerted to eight bags, which the police turned over to school officials. The operation yielded no illegal substances. A group of parents sued Contoocook Valley School District (CVSD), alleging that the sweep violated the students’ Fourth Amendment freedom from unreasonable searches and that holding them on the field was an unreasonable seizure.
The court granted CVSD’s motion for summary judgment. The court concluded that federal court decisions concluding that canine sniffs of school lockers, cars, and luggage are not searches within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment “leave little doubt that the mere use of trained drug dogs on school grounds to sniff students’ personal items does not qualify as a search within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment.” The court emphasized that the sweep not involve sniffing anyone’s person but merely personal belongings. As for the alleged unreasonable seizure, the court pointed out that the traditional definition of seizure was analytically inapplicable to the school setting, because “students are generally not at liberty to leave the school building when they wish.” As a result, the only way a school official’s action could qualify as a seizure was if the limitation on the student’s freedom of movement “significantly exceed[s]” the limitation inherent in every-day, compulsory attendance. Confining students to the football field did not constitute such a limitation, because students periodically were confined in a similar way when emergency evacuation drills were conducted. The court also noted that the evacuation was not conducted in a stigmatizing manner, as no student or group of students was singled out.
Doran v. Contoocook Valley Sch. Dist., No. 07-307 (D. N.H. Mar. 25, 2009)
[Legal Clips Editor’s Note: In April, the Honolulu Advertiser reported that the Hawai'i Board of Education (BOE) had approved the use of drug sniffing dogs at two high schools. Highlights of that story, along with links to resources on the use of drug-sniffing dogs in schools, are at the first link below. The Advertiser subsequently reported that the board last month delayed its final decision on the controversial matter.]
NSBA School Law pages on Hawai'i board’s initial vote
Honolulu Advertiser, 5/27/09, By Loren Moreno