Source: Standard-Times (MA)
Contact:  http://www.s-t.com/
Pubdate: Wednesday, 30 September, 1998
Author: Scott Smith

SCHOOL OFFICIALS ON THIN ICE IN USING DRUG-SNIFFING DOGS

SOMERSET The latest debate surrounding the use of police dogs in Swansea
public schools is controversial because many believe that canine searches
infringe on the "safeguards to the privacy and security of individuals
against arbitrary invasions by government officers" (from the Fourth
Amendment to the U.S. Constitution). The Fourth Amendment protects citizens
from unreasonable searches by state agents by requiring them to obtain a
judicially issued search warrant that is based on "probable cause" before
conducting a search.

The "probable cause" standard requires that state agents have reasonable
grounds of suspicion, supported by sufficient evidence that incriminating
evidence will be found from issuing a warrant to search. This is the
procedure police must follow.

School teachers, who are considered "agents of the state," have been
allowed greater latitude because of the nature of their responsibilities in
maintaining discipline. The courts have concluded that enforcing the
requirements of probable cause and obtaining a search warrant would unduly
interfere with the maintenance of swift and informal disciplinary
procedures needed in schools. There is some dispute whether the easing of
search requirements is legal when a police officer is present, which is the
situation in schools when canine drug searches are conducted.

The courts' easing of the Fourth Amendment requirements has held that the
legality of school searches should be predicated "simply on the
reasonableness, under all circumstances, of the search." The court defined
two tests for determining "reasonableness." The first consideration is: Is
the search justified by believing that reasonable grounds for suspecting
that the search will turn up evidence that a student has violated the law
or school rules? The second consideration is: Is the scope of the search
reasonable, meaning, are the measures adopted reasonably related to the
objectives of the search and not excessively intrusive in the light of the
age and sex of the student and the nature of the infraction?

Both of these questions have been decided in lower courts in different ways
when the use of drug-detecting dogs have been employed and challenged. A
Texas federal district court has concluded that the use of dogs in a
blanket sniffing of students did constitute a search and noted that
drug-detecting dogs posed a greater intrusion upon personal privacy than
electronic surveillance devices that have been found to constitute searches.

Similarly, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that sniffing of
students by dogs significantly intrudes on a person's privacy, thereby
constituting a search. It should be noted that the courts have found that
searches of public property (schools and lockers) by drug sniffing dogs
does not violate Fourth Amendment rights but that personal subjection to
search by drug sniffing dogs in schools does.

Whenever school administrators or law enforcement officials are questioned
about these canine searches, their answer is they are only searching the
building, lockers and classrooms. In the past, before bringing the dogs in
to search classrooms in the Somerset High School, students asked to leave
the room filed past these drug attack dogs. I know this because a canine
search of my son's classroom was "randomly" conducted. This concerned and
prompted me to investigate these activities.

The procedure for searching classrooms at Somerset High School and other
public schools, in my opinion, violates the Fourth Amendment right to
privacy. The problem is that canine police dogs "alert" upon the slightest
smell of whatever it is they have been trained to detect. It does not
matter whether they smell contraband in a locker or on a student; the
animal will "alert" and by having students file past the dogs, a personal
search has occurred.

I also believe the random scheduling and enforcement of these operations by
government agents in the form of police officers, dogs and teachers,
without provocation, violates the first component of the "reasonableness''
test previously mentioned. Having students file past drug-sniffing dogs
before the classroom is searched violates the second. With potential
transgression of the Fourth Amendment, area schools and police departments
leave themselves open for damaging, drawn-out and expensive lawsuits.

Finally, it is my feeling that random public searches, without cause,
desensitize and acclimate our children toward accepting government
intrusion as normal and expected. Somerset High School along with the
Bristol County sheriff and Somerset police have been conducting canine and
police searches regularly for the past four years and have never found
illegal drugs or anything else. I become concerned when I think of the
psychological effect these random, intrusive, police operations must be
having on our kids' concept of freedom in America and what the real
objective of this government activity is.

Scott Smith is a Somerset resident. 
- ---
Checked-by: Mike Gogulski