Doran v. Contoocook Valley School District
616 F. Supp. 2d 184, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23989, 2009 DNH 032 (2009)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The use of a trained drug-sniffing dog to examine students' unattended personal property within a school does not constitute a search under the Fourth Amendment. Furthermore, temporarily confining students to a designated area to facilitate such a sniff does not qualify as an unconstitutional seizure, as it does not significantly exceed the limitations on freedom of movement inherent in the public school environment.
Facts:
- Officials at Contoocook Valley Regional High School (ConVal High), including Principal Susan Dell, perceived a serious drug problem based on student surveys, discipline records, an on-campus overdose, and anonymous tips.
- A 2005 survey indicated that 32% of ConVal High students reported being offered, sold, or given an illegal drug on school property in the past year.
- In response, Principal Dell coordinated with the school board and local police to conduct a school-wide drug sweep using canine units.
- On the morning of June 7, 2007, Dell announced a 'drill' and instructed all students and staff to evacuate the building, leaving all personal belongings, such as purses and backpacks, inside the classrooms.
- Students, including Kasey Doran, Kerri Doran, and Silas Fischer, were confined to the school's football field under staff supervision and were not free to leave for approximately 90 minutes.
- While students were on the field, two police troopers with police dogs, accompanied by school administrators, went through the empty classrooms and had the dogs sniff the students' unattended belongings.
- The dogs alerted on eight different items, but a subsequent search by school administrators uncovered no illegal drugs or contraband.
Procedural Posture:
- Donna Doran and Gary Fischer, on behalf of their children, filed a petition in New Hampshire state court.
- The case was subsequently moved to the United States District Court for the District of New Hampshire.
- The plaintiffs alleged that the drug sweep violated their children's rights under the U.S. and New Hampshire Constitutions.
- Both the plaintiffs and the defendants filed cross-motions for summary judgment with the U.S. District Court.
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 school-wide drug sweep, wherein students are required to leave their belongings in classrooms and assemble on a football field for approximately 90 minutes while drug-sniffing dogs inspect their unattended property, violate the students' Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable searches and seizures?
Opinions:
Majority - Paul Barbádoro, District Judge
No, the school-wide drug sweep did not violate the students' Fourth Amendment rights. The court held that the canine sniff of unattended student belongings does not constitute a search, and confining the students to the football field during the sweep was not an unconstitutional seizure. The court reasoned that a dog sniff is not a search under Supreme Court precedent because it is uniquely non-intrusive and discloses only the presence of contraband, in which there is no legitimate expectation of privacy. Regarding the seizure claim, the court determined that the standard 'free to leave' test is inapplicable in the school context, where students' movements are already highly restricted. The proper test is whether the limitation on movement 'significantly exceed[s] that inherent in every-day, compulsory attendance.' Here, the 90-minute evacuation was comparable to other required school drills and was conducted for a lawful purpose, so it did not rise to the level of an unconstitutional seizure.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the doctrine of diminished Fourth Amendment protections for students in a public school setting. It extends the Supreme Court's ruling that a canine sniff for contraband is not a 'search' to the specific context of students' unattended belongings in a classroom. The court's analysis of the seizure claim is particularly significant, as it solidifies a school-specific standard that moves away from the traditional 'free to leave' test, granting school officials considerable latitude to control student movement for administrative and safety purposes so long as the restrictions do not substantially deviate from the norms of compulsory education.
