Rule 56. She contacted the various dog handlers in regard to their availability for the inspection informing them of the time and place. Bd., supra. Answers:SelectedAnswer: b. Morse v. Frederick a. It is this Court's finding that no such Fourth Amendment probable cause can be found in this record as to the body search of the only individual plaintiff remaining in this case. 1977); Shipp v. Memphis Area Office Tenn. Dept. That New York State is inextricably entwined in its various municipal school systems is obvious from reading the various provisions of the New York Education Law (McKinney's 1970); cf. Little did not have any knowledge of, or direct involvement in, the search of plaintiff, Doe. 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. Resolution of this question, however, is not necessary for purposes of this motion. 259 (1975). Plaintiff Doe was one of those students to which a dog continued to alert after she emptied her pockets. The Court finds this utterly insufficient to hold defendant Knox accountable under 42 U.S.C. And, generally, the Fourth Amendment makes two demands of a government official wishing to carry out a search. 741-742; see also Mapp v. Ohio,367 U.S. 643, 81 S. Ct. 1684, 6 L. Ed. 777] the court ruled a strip search of a student to be unconstitutional. They also knew the intention by school officials to ask certain students to empty pockets or purses if the dog's alert continued. . Baltic Ind. 1983. People v. D., supra; see also 1 Blackstone's Commentaries 453 (18th Ed. 1971). 5, supra. 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. STUDENT SEARCHES AND SEIZURES: LEGAL STANDARDS, POLICY, AND PROCEDURES. Highland, Indiana is a community consisting of approximately 30,000 residents located in the northwest corner of the state in Lake County, Indiana. 1974); see also State v. Baccino,282 A.2d 869 (Del.Sup.1971) (dictum). 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. The Circuit Court for the District of Columbia responded that defendant's contention was "frivolous" and that the actions of the police were responsible and not in violation of any constitutionally protected rights. Dist. ACCEPT, 95 S.Ct. The pocket search was an invasion of the sphere of privacy which the Fourth Amendment protects; it was a search. Chambers v. Maroney,399 U.S. 42, 90 S. Ct. 1975, 26 L. Ed. App. 591, 284 N.E.2d 108 (1972). Additionally, two students were suspended by the administration because they were found to be in possession of drug paraphernalia. 2d 141 (1974); U. S. v. Falley, 489 F.2d 33 (2d Cir. 1976) (a three way split on critical issues); U. S. v. Paulson, 7 M.J. 43 (April 9, 1979), reversing on other grounds 2 M.J. 326 (A.F.C.M.R. 3d 320, 102 Cal. Dist. The plaintiffs have failed to allege in their Complaint that the actions were not taken in good faith. Goose Creek Ind. . In Lopez, suspension of students by a principal was found to constitute state action where the procedures used and challenged on Due Process grounds were expressly provided for in the Ohio Constitution, and state statutes and corresponding regulations. Both these campuses are located on the same site. [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. We rely on donations for our financial security. Bellnier v. Lund,438 F. Supp. Plaintiff's assertion misreads the present state of the law concerning the use of drug detecting canines. 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. Furthermore, the presence of the uniformed police officer in the room, at the request of the school official and with the agreement that no arrests would occur as a result of finding any drugs upon students, did not alter the basic function of the school official's activities. This is an action whereby the plaintiff children, through their parents comme next friends, seek redress for an allegedly unlawful strip search claimed to have been conducted or condoned by defendants, all of whom are employed by the Auburn Enlarged City School District in one capacity or another. As stated by the Court in Potts. Rptr. The cases of Picha v. Wielgos,410 F. Supp. All students were treated similarly up until an alert by one of the dogs. You're all set! 1977). School Principals,375 F. Supp. 206, 498 F.2d 748 (1974), a marijuana-sniffing dog was allowed to sniff the air around a footlocker in a bus depot. 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. Ala. 1968) (applying "reasonable cause to believe" stan- dard). Bellnier v. Lund, 438 F. Supp. Teachers were informed of the inspection that morning by means of a sealed note upon their classroom desks. 1972); In re G. C., 121 N.J.Super. 1983 and 1985, as well as the Fourth, Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution. It is clear that the major thrust of plaintiffs' cause of action is based upon 42 U.S.C. Being aware of prior complaints from class members of missing money, lunches, and other items, and knowing that no one had left the class-room that morning, defendant Reardon commenced a search of the class, with the aid of fellow teachers and school officials, all of whom are named as defendants herein. Although the subject of using drug detecting canines has not been specifically addressed in this circuit, it has been analyzed in other courts. There, a search was conducted of their desks, books, and once again of their coats. ; Pro Get powerful tools for managing your contents. Each of the students entered the classroom and placed his outer garment in a coatroom located wholly within, and accessible only from, the classroom *50 itself. Here, as in Johnson, the court went off on the warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment. 665 - FLORES v. MEESE, United States District Court, C.D. 556 (1973); U. S. v. Thomas, 1 M.J. 397 (C.M.A. 47 (N.D.N.Y. Wood v. Strickland, supra at 321, 95 S. Ct. 992. [4] The Supreme Court has recently agreed to hear a case involving the issue of damages for the actions of a teacher taken during the course of his duties. Rptr. It also includes some new topics such as bullying, copyright law, and the law and the internet. Because smoking in the lavatory was a violation of a school rule, the teacher took the two girls to the Principal . [2] These reports consisted of direct communication between teachers at the Junior and Senior High School and school administrators, either face to face or by signed written notes; by student tips, usually anonymous, by letters from parents, and by telephone calls, also, usually anonymous. Of those eleven, only three other students were subject to the unlawful nude search. Turning next to the search aspect of the Fourth Amendment, the issue becomes whether the activity of the defendants on the morning in question prior to any alert by the trained dogs was a search and, if so, whether the search, although warrantless, was reasonable. The school buildings are adjacent to one another and the approximately 2,780 students of both schools share common facilities located in the buildings. Any expectation of privacy necessarily diminishes in light of a student's constant supervision while in school. Subjecting a student to a nude search is more than just the mild inconvenience of a pocket search, rather, it is an intrusion into an individual's basic justifiable expectation of privacy. Subscribers are able to see a visualisation of a case and its relationships to other cases. In support of his motion, he has submitted an affidavit in which he states that he had no prior knowledge of, nor participation in, the search in issue. The entire search lasted approximately two hours, with the strip searches taking about fifteen minutes. Search of Student & Lockers 47 New Jersey v. T.L.O. The First Circuit had held that such provided probable cause to believe that the footlocker contained a controlled substance. 1983 in an action for declaratory judgment and damages. Subscribers are able to see a list of all the documents that have cited the case. A light relaxed atmosphere was created. Ms. Little with her vast experience in the training of dogs was another resource. The outer garments hanging in the coatroom were searched initially. Such a class would be certified pursuant to F.R.C.P. Rule 56, with plaintiffs seeking a partial summary judgment, the issue of damages to be left for trial. In this case, acting as school officials, the defendants proceeded with a careful and sensitive plan that was formulated with much concern for basic educational values. Body searches involved extensive examination of the student's clothing entailing the removal of some of the garments. The students were then asked to empty their pockets and remove their shoes. See the answerSee the answerSee the answerdone loading Obviously, under the reasoning of Johnson and Chadwick a description of a dog's conduct, training and experience by a knowledgeable person who can interpret the conduct of the dog as signaling the presence of a controlled substance would constitute the minimal requirement for finding probable cause. In the execution of this plan, the school officials sought the aid of other trained persons who had relevant talents from various community resources. 1971), with Warren v. National Ass'n of Sec. See U. S. v. Middleton, 3 M.J. 425 (C.M.A.1977). . See, e. g., Education. One case may point the direction. 682 (Ct. of App., 4th Dist. 1974). 2d 317 (La.S.Ct. See also, Bouse v. Hipes, 319 F. Supp. Moreover, each handler, provided their dog at their own expense and was not representing any law enforcement agency while at the schools. Act. It has long been established that law enforcement personnel can and must use the basic human senses in the detection of crime. den., 419 U.S. 897, 95 S. Ct. 176, 42 L. Ed. [9] This *1019 latter area also has implications in the public school context. Super. 2d 1081 (1961) (opinions of Justices Clark, Black and Harlan). The inspection occurred in both the Junior and Senior High School campuses and began during the first period class. GALFORD v. MARK ANTHONY B on CaseMine. 5,429 F. Supp. 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. 2d 889 (1968); People v. Singletary, supra; People v. D., supra. Subsequent to oral argument and upon the granting of a motion to dismiss certain party *1015 plaintiffs, made by plaintiffs' counsel, only Diane Doe and her parents as next friends remain as plaintiffs in this action. There is also a basic burden to demonstrate that the plaintiff will be an adequate representative of the other members of a class. 780 (D.S.Dak.S.D.1973). No fault is found with requiring students to remain in their seats without notice and with their hands on their desks for short periods of time. 47, 53 (N.D.N.Y.1977). After each alert, the student was asked to empty his or her pockets or purse. of Troy State Univ., 284 F. Supp. Dunaway v. New York,--- U.S. ----, ----, 99 S. Ct. 2248, 60 L. Ed. 1940). An appeal by defendant Reardon to the class regarding knowledge of the missing money proved fruitless. See, e. g., Buss, The Fourth Amendment and Searches of Students in Public Schools, supra at fn. 1832). If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. There is always the possibility that one's clothing may have been inadvertently exposed to the pungent odor of the drug. 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. Upon request of the Highland School officials, Little agreed to provide the necessary trained dog units for the March inspection. 725 (M.D. One was a friend of the plaintiff's mother. 2d 214 (1975), reh. 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. ; Login; Upload The Katz Court held that police action which intrudes upon and invades an individual's justifiable expectation of privacy constitutes a search within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. Cf. Get free summaries of new Northern District of New York US Federal District Court opinions delivered to your inbox! However, in view of the relatively slight danger of the conduct involved (as opposed to drug possession, for example), the extent of the search, and the age of the students involved, this Court cannot in good conscience say that the search undertaken was reasonable. 410 F.Supp. By conducting the pocket search, the school officials did not violate the plaintiff's right to be secure against unreasonable search and seizure. 515 (S.D.Ind.1970). 725 (M.D. Each of the students entered the classroom and placed his outer garment in a coatroom located wholly within, and accessible only from, the classroom. Waits v. McGowan, 516 F.2d 203 (3d Cir. Picha v. Wielgos,410 F. Supp. Although they were obviously clothed with their state authority, they had previously agreed that no arrests would be made as a result of any drugs found that morning. Free shipping for many products! at 674, 97 S. Ct. at 1414 (Emphasis Added). 1971); see also Barrett v. United Hospital,376 F. Supp. Get free summaries of new Northern District of Indiana U.S. Federal District Court opinions delivered to your inbox! See also State v. Baccino, supra. Considering first plaintiff's contention that the investigation of March 23, 1979 constituted a mass detention and deprivation of freedom in violation of the Fourth Amendment, this Court finds the assertion to be without merit. 1977) (applying standard of "reasonable grounds" based on "articulable facts"); Moore v. Student Affairs Comm. School Dist., supra at 478-79; People v. Scott D., supra, 34 N.Y.2d at 490; Bellnier v. Lund, supra at 53.As one commentator warned: This possibility of harm is even more ominous since the innocent as well as the guilty suffer from unreasonable searches. Turning to this case, the evidence shows the school administrators had compiled an extensive list of previous incidents of drug use within the school. 410 (1976). 1977). The plaintiffs have prayed for three forms of relief, seeking a declaratory judgment, damages, and an injunction. See, e. g., McCabe v. Nassau County Medical Center, 453 F.2d 698 (2d Cir. It should be noted at this point that had the role of the police been different, this court's reasoning and conclusion may well have been different. Northwestern Sch. Section 1983 requires a showing of action "under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage of any State or Territory" to support a cause of action. Ala.1968); M. v. Bd. In twenty school days before the investigation, thirteen incidents were reported where students were found either to be in possession of drugs or drug paraphernalia or under the influence of drugs or alcohol. There were no facts, however, which allowed the officials to particularize with respect to which students might possess the money, something which has time and again, with exceptions not relevant to this case, been found to be necessary to a reasonable search under the Fourth Amendment. On March 7, 1980, a teacher at Piscataway High School in Middlesex County, N. J., discovered two girls smoking in a lavatory. Rule 56. Except for the five minute interval when the canine unit entered the room, plaintiff and all other students were exposed only to a longer than normal first period class. People v. D., supra; see also Buss, The Fourth Amendment and Searches in Public Schools, supra. 47, 54 (N. D. N. Y. See, e. g., Education *52 Law 3202 and 3210. However, when the dog has alerted as to a particular student in the above context and that student is removed from the basic routine as above described and taken to another area of the school for a more thorough examination of the student's body and clothing, another set of constitutional values comes into play. Bellnier v. Lund,438 F. Supp. Being aware of prior complaints from class members of missing money, lunches, and other items, and knowing that no one had left the class-room that morning, defendant Reardon commenced a search of the class, with the aid of fellow teachers and school officials, all of whom are named as defendants herein. What level of information is necessary must be determined on a case by case basis, however, this Court holds the lesser standard of a "reasonable cause to believe" applicable in such a determination. 4. 1043 - WARREN v. NATIONAL ASS'N OF SEC. Bringing these nonschool personnel into the classroom to aid the school administrators in their observation for drug abuse is, of itself, not a search. Cf. 733, 21 L.Ed.2d 731 (1969). See also W. RINGEL, SEARCHES & SEIZURES, ARRESTS AND CONFESSIONS 18.1 (1984). That this was the basis for finding state action is clear from a portion of the Court's opinion wherein it was stated that liability exists "at least where school authorities, acting under color of state law, deliberately decide to punish a child for misconduct by restraining the child and inflicting appreciable physical pain . Cf. Roberts d.Bellnier v. Lund b. 99 (D.Me.N.D.1969); and 4) the Fourth Amendment is applicable but the standard of determining whether the search was reasonable will be lowered to something other than probable cause. Therefore, this Court finds that the defendant school officials are immune from liability arising out of the search and are entitled to summary judgment on the issue of monetary damages. 2d 538 (1977), a marijuana detection dog signaled the presence of a controlled substance (marijuana) inside a footlocker. The Supreme Court established in New Jersey v. T.L.O. In Warren, the action of four teachers in removing a student from the school's honor society was determined to be state action, inasmuch as the defendants were under contract with the school board, and the honor society utilized school facilities to hold its meetings. Mackenzie, Smith, Lewis, Michell & Hughes, Syracuse, N. Y., Kevin M. Reilly, Syracuse, N. Y., of counsel, for defendants. Dist. 1214 (N.D.Ill., E.D.1976), and Potts v. Wright,357 F. Supp. (internal citation omitted). 2d 355 (1977). This Court now DENIES plaintiff's motion for a permanent injunction as to all issues raised. 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. omitted) ("[n]o one would seriously dispute that a nude search of a child is traumatic"); Bellnier v. Lund, 438 F. Supp. No. Although she wore a jacket with her academy's patch sewn on the sleeve and an American flag patch attached to the other sleeve, she did not wear the uniform of any law enforcement agency. People v. D., 34 N.Y.2d 490, 358 N.Y.S.2d 410, 315 N.E.2d 471. 739 (1974); see, e. g., Tinker v. Des Moines School District, supra (First Amendment), and In re Gault,387 U.S. 1, 87 S. Ct. 1428, 18 L. Ed. No incidents of disruption occurred in the classrooms because of the presence of the dogs or the teams. 1973); U. S. v. Lewis, 392 F.2d 377 (2d Cir. 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. 3. The Supreme Court established in New Jersey v. T.L.O. No police investigations took place on that day nor have any arrests or prosecutions been initiated as a result of the March 23, 1979 inspection. In Beard v. Whitmore Lake School District,' the Sixth Circuit examined whether the law governing searches of students, specifically strip searches, was clearly estab- lished and deprived school officials of qualified immunity. 475 F.Supp. 2d 752 (1977). No. v. South Dakota H. Sch. v. Acton 49 Trinidad Sch. 452 F.Supp. Solis, supra. In Solis, the Court of Appeals reversed the district court's holding that use of the dog was a search without probable cause and therefore illegal. 108, 296 A.2d 102 (1972); see also Shaw, Admissibility, in Criminal Cases, of Evidence Obtained by Search Conducted by School Official or Teacher, 49 A.L.R.3d 978; 4) the Fourth Amendment applies in full, requiring a finding of probable cause in order for a search to be reasonable. 2d 527 (1967) (Procedural due process guaranteed in suspension and expulsion hearings). *1024 In conducting the pocket search, as well as the other searches in question, the school officials clearly were not concerned with the discovery of evidence to be used in criminal prosecutions, but rather were concerned solely with the elimination of drug trafficking within the schools. Ms. Little was engaged in a perfectly legitimate, if unprofitable, enterprise of training these type dogs. [12] United States v. Fulero (footlocker); United States v. Bronstein (suitcase); United States v. Solis (semi-trailer); United States v. Venema (rented locker). 1973); People v. Jackson, 65 Misc.2d 909, 319 N.Y.S.2d 731 (App. The pocket search was conducted in furtherance of the school's legitimate interest in eliminating drug trafficking within the school. Most notable, in this regard, is the compulsory education provision, Education Law 3205, and its companion sections. This case is therefore an appropriate one for a summary judgment. Upon doing so, this Court holds that conducting a nude search of a student solely upon the continued alert of a trained drug-detecting canine is unreasonable even under the lesser "reasonable cause to believe" standard. That limited in loco parentis relationship modifies the student's Fourth Amendment guarantee of a sphere of privacy which the student can justifiedly expect state officials not to invade. On March 28, 1984, the Court heard argument on the appropriateness of the exclusionary rule as a 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. 2d 324; U. S. v. Pond, 523 F.2d 210 (2d Cir. of Educ. The Fourth Amendment recognizes that for each individual there is a sphere of privacy which that individual can justifiedly expect government officials not to invade. However, in that case, the corporal punishment was specifically authorized by both state law and a local school board regulation. Renfrow decided to use the trained dogs in a drug investigation and he arranged a second meeting for March 14, 1979. Moreover, plaintiff as well as other students in a public school, does not fall within the meaning of Katz because of the very nature of public school education. Once inside the room, no student left prior to the alleged search now the subject of this action. 780 (D.S.Dak.S.D.1973). 1214, 1218-19 (N.D.Ill.1976). 2d 752 (1977). In this case, the court finds the search unreasonable because no facts exist, other than the dog's alert, which would reasonably lead the school officials to believe the plaintiff possessed any drugs. Additionally, there was evidence from some students of refusal to speak out against those students using drugs for fear of reprisals. 1 Wigmore, Evidence, Section 177(2) (3d Ed.
Kevin Mccarthy Family Background, Kicker Hs8 Vs Hs10, Shooting On Youngstown East Side, Articles B