Hearn v. Board of Public Education
191 F.3d 1329 (1999)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A drug-sniffing dog's alert on a vehicle in a public place provides probable cause for a warrantless search of that vehicle under the automobile exception to the Fourth Amendment. An employer's internal policy does not override the constitutional authority of law enforcement, and evidence legally obtained by police can form the basis for reasonable suspicion to compel an employee drug test.
Facts:
- Sherry Hearn was a high school teacher whose employment contract required her to abide by the policies of the Board of Public Education.
- The Board's Drug-Free Workplace Policy (DFWP) authorized drug testing of an employee when there was 'reasonable suspicion' of a policy violation and stipulated that refusal to test was grounds for termination.
- In April 1996, campus police and Chatham County police conducted a 'drug lockdown' and random drug search in the high school's parking lot.
- A county deputy's drug-sniffing dog alerted at Hearn's car, which was unlocked with its passenger window down.
- The dog entered the car through the open window and alerted on the closed ashtray.
- A campus officer opened the ashtray and found a partially burned, hand-rolled cigarette, which a field test indicated was marijuana.
- The school principal, Linda Herman, informed Hearn of the finding and directed her to submit to a urinalysis drug test within two hours, per Board policy.
- Hearn refused to take the drug test within the prescribed time.
Procedural Posture:
- Sherry Hearn sued The Board of Public Education in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Georgia.
- Hearn alleged, among other things, violations of her Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights.
- The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendant, The Board of Public Education.
- Hearn, as plaintiff-appellant, appealed the district court's decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh 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 warrantless search of a teacher's car in a school parking lot, prompted by a drug-sniffing dog's alert during a police sweep, violate the Fourth Amendment, thereby invalidating the 'reasonable suspicion' required by school policy to compel a drug test and making the teacher's termination for refusing the test improper?
Opinions:
Majority - Hill, Senior Circuit Judge
No. The warrantless search of the teacher's car did not violate the Fourth Amendment, and therefore the termination for refusing the subsequent drug test was proper. The court reasoned that the drug sweep was a law enforcement event, not an intra-school matter governed by the Board's internal policies. Under established Fourth Amendment precedent, a dog sniff of the exterior of a car in a public place is not a search. The dog's alert supplied the police with probable cause, and the automobile exception to the warrant requirement permitted an immediate search of the vehicle. Because the search was constitutional, the discovery of marijuana provided the 'reasonable suspicion' necessary under the Board's policy to demand a drug test. Hearn's refusal to comply was insubordination and valid grounds for termination. Furthermore, the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination does not apply, as the production of bodily fluids like urine is non-testimonial.
Dissenting - Ferguson, District Judge
Yes. The termination was improper because the reasonable suspicion used to justify the drug test demand was obtained in violation of Hearn's employment agreement. The dissent argues that the majority's focus on criminal law probable cause is misplaced, as this is a civil case concerning an administrative action governed by a contract. The search was an intra-school event to enforce the Board's anti-drug policy. That policy explicitly required an employee's consent for the Administration to search a personal vehicle. By searching Hearn's car without her consent, the Board breached its own contract, rendering the subsequent demand for a drug test illegitimate. Hearn was not obligated to comply with an order that stemmed from her employer's own policy violation.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies that a public employer's internal policies granting employees enhanced privacy rights do not bind external law enforcement agencies conducting a constitutional search on the employer's property. The ruling reinforces the legal power of a drug-sniffing dog's alert to create probable cause, solidifying the application of the automobile exception in settings like a school parking lot. It establishes a clear precedent that evidence legally obtained by police, even if obtained in a manner that would violate an employment contract, can be used by the employer to establish reasonable suspicion for administrative actions like compelling a drug test. This case significantly limits the ability of public employees to use employment policies as a shield against the consequences of a lawful police search.
