Cf. This Court finds the reasoning utilized in Moore v. Student Affairs Committee of Troy State University, supra, and State v. Young, supra, that of applying the Fourth Amendment but with a lesser standard than probable cause with respect to student searches, to be the more persuasive. These areas may be searched on a school-wide or individual basis when the school determines there is cause to conduct such a search. 23(b) (2). The Second Circuit Court of Appeals held in United States v. Bronstein, 521 F.2d 459 (2d Cir. 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. Mackenzie, Smith, Lewis, Michell & Hughes, Syracuse, N. Y., Kevin M. Reilly, Syracuse, N. Y., of counsel, for defendants. This Court now rules on all three forms of relief, declaratory judgment, injunction, and damages. 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. 2 of their federal statutory and constitutional rights under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Individuals with The Supreme Court established in New Jersey v. T.L.O. Potts v. Wright, supra at 219; see also Picha v. Willgos, supra at 1220. 2d 930 (1967). Doe v. This Court finds for the reasons stated below that entry by the school officials into each classroom for five minutes was not a search contemplated by the Fourth Amendment but, rather, was a justified action taken in accordance with the in loco parentis doctrine. The objective was to rid the Junior and Senior High Schools of illicit drugs and discourage further drug use on the campuses. 11, 275 N.E.2d 317 (1971), and Gary Teachers Union No. One of the two girls was the respondent T. L. O., who at that time was a 14-year-old high school freshman. Little and her dog were accompanied by a school official and a Highland Police officer during her portion of the inspection, limited only to the Senior High School. 47, 52 (N.D.N.Y. United States District Court of Northern District of New York. U. S. v. Ramsey,431 U.S. 606, 97 S. Ct. 1972, 52 L. Ed. Wood v. Strickland Question 10 2 out of 2 points Which court case found that schools have the right to discipline students who present messages that conflict with stated anti-drug policies, even where the evidence of disruption of school activities might be absent? F.R.C.P. 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. The effect was anything but a gestapo-like effort run by gestapo-type people. 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. v. South Dakota H. Sch. Each handler participated as an unpaid volunteer with their own dogs.[7]. And searches to prevent skyjacking are subject to a modified probable cause requirement and are excepted from the warrant requirement. Therefore, the alert of the dog alone does not provide the necessary reasonable cause to believe the student actually possesses the drug. Chambers v. Maroney,399 U.S. 42, 90 S. Ct. 1975, 26 L. Ed. 1978); Doninger v. Pacific Northwest Bell, Inc., 564 F.2d 1304 (9th Cir. [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. In doing so the Court must take into account the special duties and responsibilities imposed upon school officials to provide a safe atmosphere for a student to develop, the attendant limited powers which the school officials possess in loco parentis to effectuate the maintenance of proper discipline. In U. S. v. Chadwick,433 U.S. 1, 97 S. Ct. 2476, 53 L. Ed. Those members of the proposed class are not so numerous so as to make joinder of them as parties impracticable. Ala. 1968) (applying "reasonable cause to believe" stan- dard). 837 (E.D.N.Y 1979) (1 time) View All Authorities Share Support FLP . 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 . It is generally known that marijuana radiates a distinctive odor which can be detected by humans acquainted with it, and by trained dogs. 5, supra. [3] Also present at this meeting was Patricia Little, a trainer of drug detecting canines. Fourteen handlers and their dogs participated during the inspection. 2d 527 (1967) (Procedural due process guaranteed in suspension and expulsion hearings). 1983 in an action for declaratory judgment and damages. Because of the constant interaction among students, faculty and school administrators, a public school student cannot be said to enjoy any absolute expectation of privacy while in the classroom setting. Weighing the minimal intrusion against the school's need to rid itself of the drug problem, the actions of the school officials leading up to an alert by one of the dogs was reasonable and not a search for purposes of the Fourth Amendment. 856, 862, 6 L.Ed.2d 45 (1961). 739 (1974); 2) the Fourth Amendment does not apply because of the doctrine in loco parentis which clothed the school officials with immunity as a "private citizen." No. 725 (M.D. U. S. v. Guerra, 554 F.2d 987 (9th Cir. 53 VI. of Emp. Get free access to the complete judgment in STATE EX REL. Brooks v. Flagg Brothers, Inc., 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. 47 - BELLNIER v. LUND, United States District Court, N. D. New York. 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. Rptr. It is clear that the major thrust of plaintiffs' cause of action is based upon 42 U.S.C. Ball-Chatham C.U.S.D. See East Texas Motor Freight System v. Rodriquez,431 U.S. 395, 97 S. Ct. 1891, 52 L. Ed. Most notable, in this regard, is the compulsory education provision, Education Law 3205, and its companion sections. She contacted the various dog handlers in regard to their availability for the inspection informing them of the time and place. 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. The dog handler interpreted the actions of the dog for the benefit of the school administrator. Teachers were informed of the inspection that morning by means of a sealed note upon their classroom desks. 4 The plaintiffs have failed to allege in their Complaint that the actions were not taken in good faith. 2d 889 (1968); People v. Singletary, supra; People v. D., supra. No marijuana or other drugs were found in plaintiff's possession, although it was later discovered that plaintiff had been playing with one of her dogs that morning of the search and that dog was in heat. (Bellnier v. Lund (N.D.N.Y.1977), Donovan v. Dewey (1981) 452 U.S. 594, 606-607, 101 S.Ct. 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. Additionally, there was evidence from some students of refusal to speak out against those students using drugs for fear of reprisals. 1998 -NMCA- 51, Kennedy v. Dexter Consolidated Schools, No. 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. 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. Little's main responsibility was to coordinate the efforts of the school officials with the dog handlers. 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. Furthermore, this court is not here ruling whether any evidence obtained in the search could have been used in a criminal prosecution. Thus, in State v. Young, supra, a well reasoned opinion, the Georgia Supreme Court found three categories of searches, for purposes of the Fourth Amendment: 1) wholly private searches, with no Fourth Amendment applicability; 2) state action, but no involvement of law enforcement agents, so that the Fourth Amendment applies, but not the Exclusionary Rule; and 3) search by law enforcement agents, to which both the Fourth Amendment and the Exclusionary Rule apply in toto. 14 See, e.g., Bellnier v. Lund (N.D.N.Y.1977). 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. Rptr. During the inspection, a dog alerted[5] to a particular student on approximately fifty occasions. The unnecessary duplication of sanctions is evident in either case. 780 (D.S.Dak.S.D.1973). Case 3:19-cv-00513-GTS-ATB Document 163 Filed 01/20/21 Page 3 of 55. 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. Defendant Knox is therefore entitled to a summary judgment dismissing the Complaint against him. Both parties have moved for a summary judgment, pursuant to F.R.C.P. Cf. By conducting the pocket search, the school officials did not violate the plaintiff's right to be secure against unreasonable search and seizure. Plaintiff Leonti stated that he was sure that he had $4.00 when he arrived at school, showing defendant Reardon the four raffle ticket stubs indicating sales proceeds in the amount of $4.00, only $1.00 of which remained in Leonti's pocket. Presentation Creator Create stunning presentation online in just 3 steps. Professors, teachers and school administrators are increasingly faced with concerns not even thought of in previous decades. Students are exposed to various intrusions into their classroom environment. 4 v. Gary, 152 Ind.App. You also get a useful overview of how the case was received. She contends that this violated her constitutional right to be secure against unreasonable search and seizure. 1977). at 999-1001; see also Picha v. Wielgos, supra. 1331, 1343(3) and 1343(4). Solis, supra. 410 (1976). Act. Perez v. Sugarman, 499 F.2d 761 (2d Cir. People trafficking in illegal narcotics often attempt to conceal the odor. A body search[6] was conducted with respect to eleven students because the dog continued to alert after the student had emptied pockets or purse. v. 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. Spence v. Staras, 507 F.2d 554 (7th Cir. 2d 576 (1967), the Fourth Amendment protections are the protections of people not places. 47 (N.D.N.Y.1977). 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. [12] United States v. Fulero (footlocker); United States v. Bronstein (suitcase); United States v. Solis (semi-trailer); United States v. Venema (rented locker). 340, 367 N.E.2d 949 (1977). Request a trial to view additional results. App. 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. This Court cannot say as a matter of law that the alerting of a trained dog standing alone is sufficient to establish reasonable cause to believe a complete body search by school officials in surroundings that insure and maintain human dignity. To carry out this procedure, they requested the assistance of the Highland Police Department and of volunteer canine units experienced in drug detection. The plaintiff further seeks to have the complained of activities of the named defendants permanently enjoined. 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. [1] The 13 students involved in drug related incidents were withdrawn from the school system. 1985. 2d 731 (1969) (First Amendment protection when wearing black armbands as a form of student expression); In re Gault,387 U.S. 1, 87 S. Ct. 1428, 18 L. Ed. Answers:SelectedAnswer: b. Morse v. Frederick a. den., 421 U.S. 921, 95 S. Ct. 1589, 43 L. Ed. 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. Moreover, granting plaintiff's prayer for injunctive relief as to the other aspects of the inspection complained of would be inconsistent with this Court's findings. As the Supreme Court has stated with reference to the Equal Protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, though equally applicable to the Due Process clause, state action exists when. In finding that the Fourth Amendment does apply in this case, this Court does not mean to imply that a showing of probable cause is necessary in order to uphold the search as reasonable. v. South Dakota H. Sch. 2d 305 (1978). Neither does the same constitute a per se violation of the Fourth Amendment. This Court finds that joinder would have been permissible and that in light of counsel's motion to dismiss party plaintiffs it now DENIES plaintiff's motion for class certification.
Is David W Harper From The Waltons Married, Cost To Build A House In Crestline California, Articles B