856, 862, 6 L.Ed.2d 45 (1961). Each team consisted of a school administrator or teacher, a dog and its handler and a uniformed police officer. See, e. g., Terry v. Ohio, supra. [8] Buss, The Fourth Amendment and Searches of Students in Public Schools, 59 Iowa L.Rev. 1986); Flores v. Meese, 681 F. Supp. You already receive all suggested Justia Opinion Summary Newsletters. 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 . Plaintiff Doe was one of those students to which a dog continued to alert after she emptied her pockets. 2d 790 (1975); Note, School and School Officials, 78 W.Va.L.Rev. 725 (M.D. No. Such a request is akin to a prayer for injunctive relief against a criminal act. 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. 1 v. Lopez 50 V. Dress and Grooming 52 Bannister v. Paradis 52 Davenport v. Randolph County Bd. 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. Brooks v. Flagg Brothers, Inc., supra. 1974) In Re Ronald B., 61 AD2d 204 (1978) People v. Haskins, 48 AD2d 480 (1975) People v. Overton, 24 NY2d 522 (1967) Opinion of Counsel, 1 EDR 800 (1959) Opinion of Counsel, 1 EDR 766 (1952) 1972); In re G. C., 121 N.J.Super. Subscribers are able to see the list of results connected to your document through the topics and citations Vincent found. 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. [2] "Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceedings for redress" 42 U.S.C. Plaintiff was asked if she had ever used marijuana to which she answered she had not. See, e. g., Education Law 3001-3020-a. 3d 777, 105 Cal. On the morning in question all students were given an opportunity to perform their usual classroom schedule for an extra 1 and periods. Highland, Indiana is a community consisting of approximately 30,000 residents located in the northwest corner of the state in Lake County, Indiana. Unit School Dist. These human senses may generally be aided by such non-living artificial devices as binoculars, flashlights, magnetometers, breathalyzers, camera lenses and ordinary prescription glasses. M. v. Bd. Waits v. McGowan, 516 F.2d 203 (3d Cir. 2d 188 (1966). [3] In Ingraham v. Wright,430 U.S. 651, 97 S. Ct. 1401, 51 L. Ed. Bellnier v. Lund Roberts Question:The U.S. Supreme Court ruling that held a school board member liable for damages for violating the constitutional rights of Lee v. Wood v. Strickland Bellnier v. Lund Roberts This problem has been solved! 2d 324 (1976), that the sniffing of a canine at a baggage terminal did not constitute a search. Thus, when a teacher conducts a highly intrusive invasion such as the strip . All the animals used in the March 23, 1979 inspection were certified and trained by Little at her academy. 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. 1975). The cases which have dealt with the issue have reached diverse results, relying upon various theories, which can be generally placed into the following categories: 1) the Fourth Amendment does not apply, as the school official acted in loco parentis (private search); People v. Stewart, 63 Misc.2d 601, 313 N.Y.S.2d 253 (N.Y.Co. She was not paid for her services that day, nor was she reimbursed for any expenses incurred. 5,429 F. Supp. 1977); State v. Baccino, 282 A.2d 869 (Del. California. 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. Bellnier v. Lund, 438 F. Supp. 5, supra. On the morning of December 6, 1974, plaintiffs and their classmates, members of the fifth grade class at Auburn's Lincoln Elementary School, arrived at the classroom in their usual fashion. Chambers v. Maroney,399 U.S. 42, 90 S. Ct. 1975, 26 L. Ed. Both these campuses are located on the same site. Perez v. Sugarman, 499 F.2d 761 (2d Cir. Case 3:19-cv-00513-GTS-ATB Document 163 Filed 01/20/21 Page 3 of 55. This court is ruling that so long as a school is pursuing those legitimate interests which are the source of its in loco parentis status, "maintaining the order, discipline, safety, supervision, and education of the students within the school" (Picha v. Wielgos, supra, 410 F.Supp. You already receive all suggested Justia Opinion Summary Newsletters. Rptr. This element, loosely termed as "state action", is highly amorphous, and is generally determined on a case-by-case basis after an analysis of the facts involved. ACCEPT, 95 S.Ct. den., 423 U.S. 1058, 96 S. Ct. 794, 46 L. Ed. Plaintiffs seek legal, injunctive, and declaratory relief in their action, which is maintained under 42 U.S.C. 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. This Court now finds that in a public school setting, school officials clothed with the responsibilities of caring for the health and welfare of the entire student population, may rely on such general information to justify the use of the canines to detect narcotics. 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. She was permitted to turn her back to the two women while she was disrobing. 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. Transformed by Public.Resource.Org, Inc., at Fri, 14 Mar 2008 10:13:27 GMT 220 (1969); 2) the Fourth Amendment applies, but the Exclusionary Rule does not; United States v. Coles,302 F. Supp. 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. [3] Also present at this meeting was Patricia Little, a trainer of drug detecting canines. This Court now rules on all three forms of relief, declaratory judgment, injunction, and damages. 1368 (1941); see also Brooks v. Flagg Brothers, Inc., 553 F.2d 764 (2d Cir. 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. . Therefore, the alert of the dog alone does not provide the necessary reasonable cause to believe the student actually possesses the drug. 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. There is nothing sinister about her enterprise. Spence v. Staras, 507 F.2d 554 (7th Cir. 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. Additionally, two students were suspended by the administration because they were found to be in possession of drug paraphernalia. Rptr. But these specific requirements can be modified by special circumstances. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. And, generally, the Fourth Amendment makes two demands of a government official wishing to carry out a search. Nevertheless, it is clear that in imposing the Exclusionary Rule upon the states as a remedial measure, the Court in Mapp did not by any means intend to deprive a person subjected to an unlawful search or seizure of his civil remedies, among them being recourse to a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. at 206, 498 F.2d at 748; Bronstein, supra, at 460; Solis, supra, at 881; Venema, supra, at 1004, 1005. 556 (1973); U. S. v. Thomas, 1 M.J. 397 (C.M.A. The response prompted the assistant vice principal 102 (1972); Doe v. State, 88 N.M. 347, 540 P.2d 827 (1975); People v. Scott D., 34 N.Y.2d 483, The superior court's concern with the teacher's duty and the doctrine of in . (Although cases predating T.L.O., see, e.g., Bellnier v. Lund. No. 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. The Supreme Court established in New Jersey v. T.L.O. 28 U.S.C. By conducting the pocket search, the school officials did not violate the plaintiff's right to be secure against unreasonable search and seizure. This case is therefore an appropriate one for a summary judgment. *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 Second Circuit Court of Appeals held in United States v. Bronstein, 521 F.2d 459 (2d Cir. 2d 509, 75 Cal. 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. [4] Renfrow requested information from the Highland Police Department concerning the use of trained canine units for the planned investigation. School Principals,375 F. Supp. Marshall v. Barlow's, Inc.,436 U.S. 307, 98 S. Ct. 1816, 56 L. Ed. To be sure, the question may be close when the situation is frozen as of the time the search took place. CourtListener is a project of Free Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. More alarming to school officials was the fact that of those twenty-one instances, thirteen occurred within a twenty school day span just prior to the complained of activities. Picha v. Wielgos, supra. 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. A search of those items failed to reveal the missing money. Roberts d.Bellnier v. Lund b. At issue in this law suit is the constitutional propriety of an investigation conducted by administrators of the Highland school system assisted by local police officers at the Junior and Senior High Schools in Highland, Indiana. Any expectation of privacy necessarily diminishes in light of a student's constant supervision while in school. We are also of the view that as the intrusiveness of the search intensifies, the standard of Fourth Amendment "reasonableness" approaches probable cause, even in the school context. Plaintiff brings her action pursuant to both sections 1983 and 1985 of Title 42 U.S.C. A search of those items failed to reveal the missing money. She was then asked to remove her clothing. 1214 - PICHA v. Ass'n,362 F. Supp. 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. 5,429 F. Supp. The Supreme Court of the United States has long recognized that such odors can be convincing evidence of probable cause. They also knew the intention by school officials to ask certain students to empty pockets or purses if the dog's alert continued. Moreover, the presence of the dog and its trainer within the classroom, also at the request and supervision of the school officials, was only an aide to that official's observation of students. ., the student-teacher relationship out of which [in loco parentis] authority readily flows does have an impact on the application of constitutional doctrine to the rights of students." The students were there ordered to strip down to their undergarments, and their clothes were searched.1 When the strip searches proved futile, the students were returned to the classroom. The officers were merely aiding in the inspection, at the request of the school administrators. See, e. g., Education *52 Law 3202 and 3210. 1976); and U. S. v. Grosskreutz, 5 M.J. 344 (C.A.M.1978). Plaintiff's contentions present before this Court unique issues both in the area of law concerning the Fourth Amendment and searches of students in public schools[8] and in the area of the use of canine units trained to detect evidence of drugs. 1975). 1214 (N.D.Ill., E.D.1976), and Potts v. Wright,357 F. Supp. State v. Young, 234 Ga. 488, 216 S.E.2d 586 (1975). From U.S., Reporter Series 392 U.S. 1 - TERRY v. OHIO, Supreme Court of United States. In analyzing the search to determine reasonableness, the Court must weigh the danger of the conduct, evidence of which is sought, against the students' right of privacy and the need to protect them from the humiliation and psychological harms associated with such a search. It is also very clear from the record that some students in this high school are not in sympathy with the claims and contentions of this plaintiff. Bellnier v. Lund,438 F. Supp. 220 (1969); People v. Stewart, 63 Misc.2d 601, 313 N.Y.S.2d 253 (Crim.Ct., N.Y.Co.1970); 3) the Fourth Amendment, although applicable, is emasculated by the inapplicability of the Exclusionary Rule. 2d 725 (1975); also, cf. As *1022 the Supreme Court of the United States stated in Katz v. United States,389 U.S. 347, 88 S. Ct. 507, 19 L. Ed. 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. See U. S. v. Fulero, 162 U.S.App.D.C. 1976). Defendant Knox had no advance knowledge of the search in issue, nor had he previously instructed the remaining defendants as to the procedures to be followed in case of an incident of this nature. Because this Court has ruled that the nude body search of plaintiff was in violation of the Fourth Amendment and thus unlawful, the request now becomes similar to a prayer for injunctive relief against a criminal act and therefore unnecessary. 47 (N.D.N.Y.1977). 1975), cert. A review of the pleadings, as supplemented by the affidavits of defendants Lund, Reardon, Parker, Butcher, and Knox, reveals that, with one minor exception which will not affect the outcome of the pending motion, there are no material issues of fact to be determined with respect to the question of defendants' liability. 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". See also W. RINGEL, SEARCHES & SEIZURES, ARRESTS AND CONFESSIONS 18.1 (1984). See, e. g., Education. Dogs have long been used in police work. Before such a search can be performed, the school administrators must articulate some facts that provide a reasonable cause to believe the student possesses the contraband sought. A city's interest in enforcing a housing code modifies the probable cause requirement. Furthermore, this court is not here ruling whether any evidence obtained in the search could have been used in a criminal prosecution. 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. 438 F.Supp. . Cf. ; Pro Get powerful tools for managing your contents. 2d 649 (1976); U. S. v. Martinez-Miramontes, 494 F.2d 808 (9th Cir. [12] See Bronstein, supra, at 464 (Mansfield, J. concurring). Cf. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case. [1] Also, during this four week period, school administrators received daily reports from faculty, students and parents concerning the use of drugs within the Junior and Senior High Schools. . Uniformed police officers and school administrators were present in the halls during the entire investigation. Meese, 681 F.Supp. 682 (Ct. of App., 4th Dist. Moore v. Student Affairs Committee of Troy State Univ.,284 F. Supp. Education of Individuals with Disabilities 54 Board of Educ . It is clear that the defendants are entitled to a summary judgment on the issue of monetary damages under the test in Wood. 1971). As stated by the Court in Potts. 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. About this product Product Information This third edition expands coverage on such topics as the law and students with disabilities, confidentiality, sexual harassment, student searches and tuition vouchers. [7] Plaintiff emphasizes the occupations of the volunteer dog handlers used in this investigation as being predominately law enforcement employees. 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. 1977). Ass'n, 362 F.Supp. challenging on Due Process and Cruel and Unusual Punishment grounds, the use of corporal punishment by school officials, the Court seemingly assumed ab initio that the actions complained of constituted "state action". To suggest anything approaching that idea is to do an extreme disservice to a group of dedicated people who carry heavy legal and moral obligations for public education. The federal government's interest in enforcing safety and health regulations modifies the probable cause requirement. 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. 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. 1978); and Miller v. Motorola, Inc., 76 F.R.D. Also requested by plaintiff is a class certification of all persons who were enrolled at Highland High School and Highland Junior High School who were subject to the complained of activities or those who would be enrolled hereafter as such students in those institutions. Business seller information Second, the government official must obtain a warrant before carrying out the search. 52. Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961). 47, 53 (N.D.N.Y.1977). People v. D., supra; see also 1 Blackstone's Commentaries 453 (18th Ed. The competing theories seem to be the following: 1) that the Fourth Amendment applies full force, requiring a finding of probable cause before an impartial magistrate before the search could be declared reasonable. . 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. Auth.,365 U.S. 715, 725, 81 S. Ct. 856, 862, 6 L. Ed. Cf. Both parties have moved for a summary judgment, pursuant to F.R.C.P. Moreover, the law in the area of student searches in public schools is obviously unsettled as suggested by the diversity of the theories and results in the cases cited here. 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. Four such teams were used in the Senior High School building and two were operating in the Junior High School rooms. Wood v. Strickland,420 U.S. 308, 95 S. Ct. 992, 43 L. Ed. The missing money was never located.