(Bellnier v. Lund (N.D.N.Y.1977), Donovan v. Dewey (1981) 452 U.S. 594, 606-607, 101 S.Ct. . Perez v. Sugarman, supra; cf. Terry v. Ohio,392 U.S. 1, 88 S. Ct. 1868, 20 L. Ed. United States District Court, N. D. New York. The Second Circuit Court of Appeals held in United States v. Bronstein, 521 F.2d 459 (2d Cir. 526 (1977). The missing money was never located. Potts v. Wright, supra at 219; see also Picha v. Willgos, supra at 1220. 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. The dog acted merely as an aide to the school administrator in detecting the scent of marijuana. The present case clearly falls within the second enumerated category, for which the Young Court suggests that the proper remedy is a civil rights or tort action, rather than exclusion of evidence so obtained from introduction at a criminal trial. We rely on donations for our financial security. Moreover, the fact that the law is markedly unsettled on the issue of student searches in schools is aptly illustrated by the diversity of results and theories contained in the cases cited earlier in this opinion. Students were instructed to sit quietly in their seats with their hands and any purses to be placed upon their desk tops while the dog handler introduced the dog and led it up and down the desk aisles. Plaintiff is entitled to declaratory relief only upon the Court's finding that the nude body search made without a finding of any reasonable cause to believe is in violation of her Fourth Amendment rights. Maintaining an educationally productive atmosphere within the school rests upon the school administrator certain heavy responsibilities. 47 (N.D.N.Y. View Case; Cited Cases; Citing Case ; Cited Cases . The students were there ordered to strip down to their undergarments, and their clothes were searched. In making such an analysis, some factors which warrant consideration are: 1) the child's age; 2) the child's history and record in school; 3) the seriousness and prevalence of the problem to which the search is directed; and 4) the exigency requiring an immediate warrantless search. 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. 725 (M.D. See, 28 U.S.C. Each classroom teacher was instructed to keep their students in the first period class and to have them perform their customary work. 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. Bellnier v. Lund, 438 F. Supp. Thus, when a teacher conducts a highly intrusive invasion such as the strip . For example, twelve students killed by students in the Columbine High School shooting; Twenty students killed in the Sandy Hook shooting. 1977). 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. In any event, the Court sees no reason for enjoining conduct which has heretofore been declared as unlawful. A canine team visited each classroom in both the Junior and Senior High School buildings. However, in matters concerning the reasonable exercise of supervision and authority by school officials, this Court recognizes that a certain balancing occurs between an individual student's rights and the school administrator's need to protect all students and the educational process. This Court must focus upon the reasonableness of the search to determine its constitutionality. Moreover, there was a feeling, at least by some students including the plaintiff, that peer pressure existed in favor of using drugs while on campus. 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.3 Compare Palacios v. Foltz, 441 F.2d 1196 (10th Cir. 449 (1972); Note, Students and the Fourth Amendment: Myth or Realty?, 46 U.M. *1027 This Court finds no constitutional fault with the basic plan and program as executed. Searches of Places This meeting was attended by school administrators of the Senior and Junior High Schools and by members of the Highland Police Department. The use of drug detecting canine units was discussed at the March 6, 1979 meeting of the Board of the Highland Community School District and Superintendent of Schools, Omer Renfrow. 259 (1975).]" 1043 (N.D.Tex.1974), and Lopez v. Williams,372 F. Supp. There is nothing sinister about her enterprise. Rule 56, with plaintiffs seeking a partial summary judgment, the issue of damages to be left for trial. Id. The proper administration of the public schools necessarily involves the requirement that students be in certain places at certain times. [10] It is the responsibility of the school corporation personnel to supervise students while they attend classes. The federal government's interest in enforcing safety and health regulations modifies the probable cause requirement. The school officials made every reasonable effort to carry off this plan in a manner compatible with proper order in the schools and with the values therein involved. Neither does the same constitute a per se violation of the Fourth Amendment. 2d 188 (1966). 288 (S.D.Ill.1977). 99 (D.Me., N.D.1969); State v. Wingerd, 40 Ohio App.2d 236, 318 N.E.2d 866 (1974) (dictum); State v. Mora,307 So. Subscribers can access the reported version of this case. 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. Tinker v. Des Moines School District, 393 U.S. 503, 89 S.Ct. 2d 731 (1969). There can be no doubt that, as the plaintiffs state, the notion that an infant student sheds all of his constitutional rights when he enters the school house door is steadily being dispelled by the courts. State v. Young, 234 Ga. 488, 216 S.E.2d 586 (1975). Additionally, there was evidence from some students of refusal to speak out against those students using drugs for fear of reprisals. Plaintiff further alleges that being subjected to the nude search that morning violated her right against unreasonable search and seizure. 1214 - PICHA v. 375 F.Supp. Marshall v. Barlow's, Inc.,436 U.S. 307, 98 S. Ct. 1816, 56 L. Ed. You already receive all suggested Justia Opinion Summary Newsletters. 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. Movement from class to class entails intrusions upon the students' freedoms. The record here clearly discloses several fatal failures of the plaintiff to meet the elementary requirements of Rule 23. Dist. No. Plaintiff must attend the scheduled classes for the times designated. SCHOOL PRINCIPALS, United States District Court, N. D. Texas, Lubbock Division. See also, Bouse v. Hipes, 319 F. Supp. . 2d 752 (1977). 340, 367 N.E.2d 949 (1977). 1976); and U. S. v. Grosskreutz, 5 M.J. 344 (C.A.M.1978). By conducting the pocket search, the school officials did not violate the plaintiff's right to be secure against unreasonable search and seizure. 1985. In Moore v. Student Affairs Committee of Troy State University,284 F. Supp. Wood v. Strickland,420 U.S. 308, 95 S. Ct. 992, 43 L. Ed. The school officials, therefore, had outside independent evidence indicating drug abuse within the school. 1978); Doninger v. Pacific Northwest Bell, Inc., 564 F.2d 1304 (9th Cir. These human senses may generally be aided by such non-living artificial devices as binoculars, flashlights, magnetometers, breathalyzers, camera lenses and ordinary prescription glasses. Drug use within the school became an activity the school administrator wished to eliminate. 1977). She was then asked to remove her clothing. 1977); U. S. v. Bronstein, 521 F.2d 459 (2d Cir. John P. McQuillan, Gary, Ind., Rhett L. Tauber, Merrillville, Ind., Leon R. Kaminski, Edward L. Volk, LaPorte, Ind., Charles H. Criss, Peru, Ind., David E. Mears, Charles L. Zandstra, Highland, Ind., Jerome H. Torshen, Stephen C. Leckar, Chicago, Ill., for defendants. v. NATIONAL SCREEN SERV. 2d 649 (1976); U. S. v. Martinez-Miramontes, 494 F.2d 808 (9th Cir. *48 *49 New York Civil Liberties Union, Alan H. Levine, New York City, of counsel; Clifford Forstadt, Syracuse, N. Y., of counsel, for plaintiffs. The administrative purpose of the escort was to prevent the disposal of any drugs on the way to the washroom. 1977), a U.S. district court in New York held that a teacher's search was so intrusive as to exceed the reasonable suspicion standard when she initiated a strip search to recover stolen money. Therefore, the nude search of plaintiff was unlawful because it did violate her Fourth Amendment right against an unreasonable search and seizure. United States District Court, N. D. New York. 1974). United States District Court of Northern District of New York. 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. They also knew the intention by school officials to ask certain students to empty pockets or purses if the dog's alert continued. Defendant Knox was employed in December of 1974 by the Auburn Enlarged City School District as the Superintendent of Schools. 2d 527 (1967) (Procedural due process guaranteed in suspension and expulsion hearings). Plaintiff, Diane Doe, seeks to have the actions of the defendant school officials, the police chief of the Highland Police Department and the dog trainer to be declared violative of her constitutional rights guaranteed by the Fourth and Fifth, Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution. 1331, 1343(3) and 1343(4). The dog handler interpreted the actions of the dog for the benefit of the school administrator. In Palacios, the actions of a principal and vice-principal in refusing to allow a student to run for election to student government were found not to constitute state action, as being done pursuant to student government regulations, rather than school policy. It also includes some new topics such as bullying, copyright law, and the law and the internet. 1975), cert. 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. As was appropriately noted by the New York Court of Appeals in a unanimous opinion. 47 (N.D.N.Y 1977) July 11, 1977 438 F. Supp. Pregnancy, Parenthood & Marriage 53 VII. 2d 725 (1975); also, cf. 47 (N.D.N.Y.1977). [4] Renfrow requested information from the Highland Police Department concerning the use of trained canine units for the planned investigation. This Court holds that, while there need not be a showing of probable cause in a case such as this, there must be demonstrated the existence of some articulable facts which together provided reasonable grounds to search the students, and that the search must have been in furtherance of a legitimate purpose with respect to which school officials are empowered to act, such as the maintenance of discipline or the detection and punishment of misconduct. 1972); In re G. C., 121 N.J.Super. [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. See also W. RINGEL, SEARCHES & SEIZURES, ARRESTS AND CONFESSIONS 18.1 (1984). Use applicable law to enhance school safety and fulfill the duty to protect Slideshow 4416335 by ramiro 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. State v. Mora, supra. Dist. 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. Care was taken by the school officials to provide custodians at each exit in case an emergency arose. Jurisdiction is alleged to exist by virtue of 28 U.S.C. At this meeting, the school administrators informed the police officers that they intended to conduct an investigation within the school buildings using canine units to detect and remove any narcotics or narcotic paraphernalia. Renfrow decided to use the trained dogs in a drug investigation and he arranged a second meeting for March 14, 1979. The General School Powers Act of the State of Indiana, I.C. den., 421 U.S. 921, 95 S. Ct. 1589, 43 L. Ed. It is entirely possible that there was reasonable suspicion, and even probable cause, based upon the facts, to believe that someone in the classroom has possession of the stolen money. In addition, in the case of Bellnier v. Lund, the Plaintiff Leonti said he had 4 dollars when Firstly, the students see the searches of their lockers is an invasion of property given by the school itself "The biggest drawback to a school locker search is the lack of trust students may feel as a result of actions they see as an invasion of . at 206, 498 F.2d at 748; Bronstein, supra, at 460; Solis, supra, at 881; Venema, supra, at 1004, 1005. This Court now denies plaintiff's request for certification of a class pursuant to 23(a) and (b) (2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. A search of those items failed to reveal the missing money. 410 F.Supp. Moreover, the procedure of bringing the trained dogs into each classroom was planned so as to cause only a few minutes interruption. There, a search was conducted of their desks, books, and once again of their coats. Finally, for purposes of this section, the sniffing of a trained narcotic detecting canine is not a search. App. Baltic Ind. 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. 1 v. Lopez 50 V. Dress and Grooming 52 Bannister v. Paradis 52 Davenport v. Randolph County Bd. Donate Now Interest of LLv. Picha v. Wielgos,410 F. Supp. 1977); Shipp v. Memphis Area Office Tenn. Dept. Whether or not the Exclusionary Rule is coextensive with the Fourth Amendment, and hence applicable in a criminal action based upon a search such as that now in issue, is subject to considerable speculation. 2d 889 (1968); People v. Singletary, supra; People v. D., supra. 47, 52 (N.D.N.Y. 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. Use of the dogs to detect where those drugs were located was not unreasonable under the circumstances. On March 7, 1980, a teacher at Piscataway High School in Middlesex County, N. J., discovered two girls smoking in a lavatory. This Court can conceive of many situations where the alert of a trained dog alone can provide the necessary reasonable cause for a more complete but private body search. 1971); see also Barrett v. United Hospital,376 F. Supp. and State v. 780 (D.S.Dak.S.D.1973). See U. S. v. Middleton, 3 M.J. 425 (C.M.A.1977). Exigent circumstances can excuse the warrant requirement. 1012 - DOE v. RENFROW, United States District Court, N. D. Indiana, Hammond Division. See the answerSee the answerSee the answerdone loading Although the problem of illicit drug use within the schools was not a novel one in Highland before 1978, it became progressively more acute and more visible within the Senior and Junior High Schools during the 1978 academic year. 259 (1975). 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. 4:1 . People v. D., 34 N.Y.2d 490, 358 N.Y.S.2d 410, 315 N.E.2d 471. 741-742; see also Mapp v. Ohio,367 U.S. 643, 81 S. Ct. 1684, 6 L. Ed. 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. 2d 617 (1977). No. You're all set! 2d 214 (1975), reh. Otherwise, the phrase "acting under color of state law" would be a mere surplusage, since it was previously specified that the acts of school officials were in issue. Plaintiff brings her action pursuant to both sections 1983 and 1985 of Title 42 U.S.C. 2d 527 (1967) (Procedural Due Process). The plaintiffs have prayed for three forms of relief, seeking a declaratory judgment, damages, and an injunction. 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. 276 The Clearing House May/June 1995 ing. It is clear that the major thrust of plaintiffs' cause of action is based upon, Section 1983 requires a showing of action, "under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage of any State or Territory". A search of those items failed to reveal the missing money. . 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. Therefore, the alert of the dog alone does not provide the necessary reasonable cause to believe the student actually possesses the drug. It has long been established that law enforcement personnel can and must use the basic human senses in the detection of crime. 47 (N.D.N.Y. 466, 47 C.M.R. The response prompted the assistant vice principal Plaintiff will not be heard to say that because she was made to stay in her classroom an extra 1 hours, she was denied a constitutionally protected freedom from unreasonable seizure. ", 97 S. Ct. 2486. Defendant Knox, who in December of 1974, was the Superintendent of Schools of the Auburn Enlarged City School District, has moved for a summary judgment in his favor. Moore v. Student Affairs Committee of Troy State Univ.,284 F. Supp. 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. 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. In such a case, there must be adherence to the protections required by the Fourth Amendment. 901 (7th Cir. omitted) ("[n]o one would seriously dispute that a nude search of a child is traumatic"); Bellnier v. Lund, 438 F. Supp. 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. BELLNIER v. LUND Email | Print | Comments (0) No. The school community of Highland has, among several elementary schools, a Junior and Senior High School. 2d 419 (1970). Ms. Little with her vast experience in the training of dogs was another resource. at 1221), it is the general rule that the Fourth Amendment allows a warrantless intrusion into the student's sphere of privacy, if and only if the school has reasonable cause to believe that the student has violated or is violating school policies. 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. 1043 (N.D.Tex.1974), and Lopez v. Williams, 372 F.Supp. United States v. Skipwith, 482 F.2d 1272 (5th Cir. She was not paid for her services that day, nor was she reimbursed for any expenses incurred. 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. den., 393 U.S. 891, 89 S. Ct. 212, 21 L. Ed. at 292.[13]. Acting alone, each school administrator could have unquestionably surveyed a classroom to prevent drug use. The class members were then taken to their respective restrooms, the girls to the girls' room by defendants Olson and Butcher, and the boys to the boys' room by defendants Reardon, Parker, and Lund. See Baker v. McCollan, ___ U.S. ___, 99 S. Ct. 2689, 61 L. Ed. The dog's conduct constituted evidence that caused the court to observe that "Even on the record the issuance of a warrant by a judicial officer was reasonably predictable. Bellnier v. Lund, 438 F. Supp. The Court is not unmindful of the dilemma which confronts school officials in a situation such as this. M. v. Board of Education Ball-Chatham Comm. U. S. v. Ramsey,431 U.S. 606, 97 S. Ct. 1972, 52 L. Ed. Since no search was performed up until the time the dogs alerted, no warrant was necessary for the initial observation by the school officials. 791 (S.D.N.Y.1974), aff'd, 506 F.2d 1395 (2d Cir. 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. But these specific requirements can be modified by special circumstances. Fifty students were alerted to by the drug detecting canines on the morning in question. She was quietly escorted to a nurse's station in the Junior High School and was asked to remain in the waiting room. After extensive oral argument and presentation of evidence on June 7, 1979, this Court dismissed all but the above captioned defendants. 288 (S.D.Ill.1977); Bellnier v. Lund,438 F. Supp. Term, 1st Dept. 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. 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. Little did not have any knowledge of, or direct involvement in, the search of plaintiff, Doe. 47 (N.D.N.Y. 1998 -NMCA- 51, Kennedy v. Dexter Consolidated Schools, No. Mackenzie, Smith, Lewis, Michell & Hughes, Syracuse, N. Y., Kevin M. Reilly, Syracuse, N. Y., of counsel, for defendants. View Case Cited Cases Citing Case Citing Cases Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. 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. and Educ. See, e. g., Buss, The Fourth Amendment and Searches of Students in Public Schools, supra at fn. Plaintiff Doe was one of those students to which a dog continued to alert after she emptied her pockets. of Troy State Univ., 284 F. Supp. A common thread that runs through all four of the above cited circuit cases was the fact that the law enforcement officers had previous independent information or "tips" concerning the whereabouts of the drugs that were later sniffed out by the dogs. And searches to prevent skyjacking are subject to a modified probable cause requirement and are excepted from the warrant requirement.

Former Suffolk County Police Commissioner, Articles B