Doe Ex Rel. Doe v. Renfrow
1979 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10106, 475 F. Supp. 1012 (1979)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under the Fourth Amendment, a drug-sniffing dog's alert provides school officials with reasonable cause to conduct a limited search of a student's pockets or purse, but it does not, by itself, provide the reasonable cause necessary to justify a highly intrusive nude search.
Facts:
- In early 1979, officials at Highland Junior and Senior High Schools grew increasingly concerned about a significant drug use problem, recording 13 incidents in a 20-day period.
- In response, Superintendent Omer Renfrow and other administrators planned a school-wide drug inspection using trained canines.
- School officials secured the assistance of the Highland Police Department and a dog trainer, Patricia Little, with the explicit agreement that the operation was for school disciplinary purposes only and no criminal arrests would be made.
- On March 23, 1979, teams consisting of a school official, a police officer, a dog, and a handler entered classrooms while students were instructed to remain seated with hands and purses on their desks.
- A trained canine alerted to plaintiff Diane Doe, indicating the scent of drugs.
- After Doe emptied her pockets at the request of an official and the dog continued to alert, she was escorted to the nurse's office.
- In the nurse's office, two female staff members conducted a nude search of Doe.
- No drugs were found on Doe's person or in her clothing; it was later theorized the dog may have alerted because Doe had played with her own dog, which was in heat, that morning.
Procedural Posture:
- Diane Doe, along with other initial plaintiffs, filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Indiana against school officials, the police chief, and a dog trainer.
- The lawsuit sought a declaratory judgment that the defendants' search procedures violated the students' constitutional rights, and it requested a permanent injunction.
- Plaintiffs' counsel moved to dismiss all plaintiffs except for Diane Doe and her parents, which the court granted.
- The court dismissed all defendants except for the school officials, the police chief, and the dog trainer.
- Plaintiff Doe requested class certification for all students subjected to the search procedures.
- The court held extensive oral arguments and an evidentiary hearing before rendering this memorandum and order.
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 nude search of a student by school officials, based solely on a drug-sniffing dog's continued alert after a pocket search revealed nothing, violate the student's Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable searches and seizures?
Opinions:
Majority - Sharp, J.
Yes, a nude search of a student by school officials based solely on a drug-sniffing dog's alert violates the Fourth Amendment. While students have a diminished expectation of privacy in school, and officials may conduct searches based on a lesser standard of "reasonable cause to believe" due to their in loco parentis responsibilities, the scope of the search must be reasonable in relation to the facts justifying it. The initial use of dogs to sniff students in the classroom was not a search, and a dog's positive alert did create reasonable cause for a limited search of Doe's pockets. However, a nude search is a profoundly intrusive invasion of privacy. A dog's alert, which detects only the residual odor of narcotics and not its physical presence, is insufficient by itself to justify such a significant intrusion, as the odor could be present for innocent reasons.
Analysis:
This case establishes a critical sliding-scale framework for analyzing the reasonableness of student searches under the Fourth Amendment. It affirms the lower "reasonable cause" standard for school officials acting in loco parentis but clarifies that the intrusiveness of the search must be proportional to the level of suspicion. The court's distinction between a pocket search and a nude search sets a boundary, holding that a generalized, non-particularized fact like a dog's alert cannot justify the most invasive types of searches. This decision has guided subsequent cases by requiring school officials to possess more specific, articulable facts before escalating to highly intrusive measures, thereby balancing the school's need for safety with the student's fundamental right to privacy.
