Burlison Ex Rel. CM v. Springfield Public Schools
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 4378, 2013 WL 776816, 708 F.3d 1034 (2013)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under the Fourth Amendment, a public school's brief, temporary seizure of a student's personal belongings for a suspicionless drug-dog sniff of a classroom is reasonable when the intrusion is minimal and serves the school's legitimate and compelling interest in maintaining a drug-free learning environment.
Facts:
- C.M. was a freshman at Central High School in the Springfield Public School district.
- The school district had a documented drug problem, with 89 to 205 drug incidents reported annually between 2000 and 2011, and a school police officer handled drug-related incidents multiple times per week.
- In accordance with district policy, the Greene County Sheriff's Department was requested to conduct random drug dog surveys in the district's high schools.
- In April 2010, deputies arrived with drug dogs to survey randomly selected areas of C.M.'s school.
- C.M. and his classmates were instructed to exit their science classroom for approximately five minutes, leaving all personal belongings, including backpacks, behind.
- While the students were in the hallway and unable to see their possessions, a deputy led a drug dog through the empty classroom.
- The drug dog did not alert to any items in the classroom.
- Upon returning to the room, C.M. felt that the pockets of his backpack, which he had left zipped, had been unzipped.
Procedural Posture:
- Mellony and Douglas Burlison sued Springfield Public Schools and various officials on behalf of their son, C.M., in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri.
- The plaintiffs alleged violations of C.M.'s Fourth Amendment rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Missouri Constitution.
- The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment.
- The district court granted summary judgment to all defendants, concluding their policies and actions were reasonable and did not violate a federal right.
- The Burlisons, as appellants, appealed the district court's judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth 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 a public school violate a student's Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable seizure by requiring the student to leave their backpack in a classroom for approximately five minutes to allow a drug-sniffing dog to survey the room?
Opinions:
Majority - Murphy, J.
No. Assuming the brief separation of C.M. from his belongings constituted a seizure, it was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment. The court must balance the intrusion on the student's rights against the school's legitimate interests. Students in a public school have a lesser expectation of privacy, and the school has a compelling interest in preventing drug use. The five-minute separation was a minimally intrusive procedure that reasonably addressed documented concerns about student drug use while ensuring student safety by avoiding direct interaction with the dogs. This type of minimally intrusive survey does not require individualized suspicion in the school context.
Concurring - Loken, J.
No. While the action was reasonable if it was a seizure, there was no seizure of C.M.'s property under the Fourth Amendment. A seizure requires a 'meaningful interference' with possessory interests, and this brief, five-minute separation was merely an 'inconsequential interference.' In the school context, a student's control over their belongings is already limited for educational and safety reasons, such as for fire drills or moving between labs. As there was no meaningful interference with C.M.'s possessory interest in his backpack, no seizure occurred.
Concurring - Colloton, J.
No. It is unnecessary to decide whether a seizure occurred because any such seizure was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment. The question of whether this action constitutes a 'seizure' is a difficult one, as governmental authorities exerted dominion and control over the property for their own investigative purposes. Given this complexity, it is more prudent to resolve the appeal on the clearer grounds that the school's procedure was reasonable under the circumstances, thus bypassing the more difficult seizure question.
Analysis:
This case solidifies the application of the 'special needs' doctrine to property seizures in public schools, reinforcing that students have a diminished expectation of privacy in that environment. By finding the brief seizure of backpacks for a dog sniff reasonable, the court provides a clear constitutional framework for schools to implement preventative anti-drug measures without needing individualized suspicion. The decision distinguishes between minimally intrusive preventative measures (like this dog sniff) and more invasive, unconstitutional general searches, offering guidance for future school safety policies. The concurrences highlight the ongoing legal debate over what constitutes a 'meaningful interference' sufficient to be deemed a Fourth Amendment 'seizure' of property.
