B.C. ex rel. B.C. v. Plumas Unified School District
192 F.3d 1260 (1999)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The use of a drug-sniffing dog on a student's person constitutes a search under the Fourth Amendment. Such a suspicionless search is unreasonable unless the school can demonstrate a specific drug problem or crisis that would be jeopardized by requiring individualized suspicion.
Facts:
- B.C. was a student at Quincy High School in May 1996.
- On May 21, 1996, Principal Spears and Vice Principal Barrera instructed B.C. and his classmates to exit their classroom.
- As the students exited and later re-entered the classroom, they were required to walk past Deputy Sheriff Canalia and a drug-sniffing dog, "Keesha."
- While students waited outside, the dog sniffed their backpacks and other belongings left inside the classroom.
- The dog did not alert on B.C., but did alert on another student.
- School and sheriff's department officials admitted they had no individualized suspicion that any student possessed drugs prior to the sniff.
Procedural Posture:
- B.C. filed a lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in federal district court against the Plumas Unified School District, its officials, and sheriff's department officials.
- Plaintiff B.C. and the defendants filed cross-motions for summary judgment.
- The district court denied the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment, ruling that all defendants were entitled to qualified immunity.
- B.C., the plaintiff, appealed the district court's grant of summary judgment for the defendants to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the use of a drug-sniffing dog to sniff the persons of students at school, without any individualized suspicion of wrongdoing, violate the Fourth Amendment's prohibition against unreasonable searches?
Opinions:
Majority - Judge Pregerson
The use of a drug-sniffing dog to sniff a student's person constitutes a search under the Fourth Amendment, and this search was unreasonable. A suspicionless search is permissible only when privacy interests are minimal and an important government interest would be jeopardized by requiring suspicion. Here, the students' privacy interests were not minimal, as having one's body sniffed by a dog is intrusive and potentially distressing. While deterring drug use is an important government interest, that interest was not jeopardized by requiring suspicion because there was no evidence of a drug crisis or significant drug problem at the school. However, because the law regarding dog sniffs of persons was not clearly established at the time due to a circuit split, the defendant officials are entitled to qualified immunity from money damages.
Concurring - Judge Brunetti
While I agree with the majority's ultimate conclusion that the officials are entitled to qualified immunity, I disagree with its reasoning that a search occurred. The use of a drug-sniffing dog to sniff the air around students is not a search under the Fourth Amendment. A 'search' only occurs when a reasonable expectation of privacy is infringed, and there is no reasonable expectation of privacy in contraband. Because a trained narcotics dog detects only the presence or absence of illegal contraband, its use does not implicate a legitimate privacy interest and therefore is not a search. I concur in the judgment granting qualified immunity because the law was not clearly established at the time, but I would not reach the question of whether the dog sniff was an unreasonable search.
Analysis:
This decision established for the Ninth Circuit that a dog sniff of a person is a search, aligning it with the Fifth Circuit's view in Horton and rejecting the Seventh Circuit's approach. It sets a significant precedent for school searches by clarifying that the Vernonia exception for suspicionless searches requires a demonstrated, specific drug crisis, not just a generalized interest in drug prevention. While the officials in this case were protected by qualified immunity, the ruling put school administrators on notice that future random, suspicionless dog sniffs of students would likely be found unconstitutional in the absence of a documented drug problem.
Unlock the full brief for B.C. ex rel. B.C. v. Plumas Unified School District