Horton ex rel. Horton v. Goose Creek Independent School District
35 Fed. R. Serv. 2d 303, 690 F.2d 470 (1982)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The use of trained dogs to sniff students' persons in a school environment constitutes a search under the Fourth Amendment, which is unconstitutional in the absence of individualized reasonable suspicion. However, the sniffing of inanimate objects like student lockers and cars in public areas of a school is not a search and does not implicate the Fourth Amendment.
Facts:
- The Goose Creek Consolidated Independent School District (GCISD), facing a growing drug and alcohol problem, contracted with a security firm to use trained canines (Doberman pinschers and German shepherds) for a drug detection program.
- On a random and unannounced basis, handlers brought the dogs to various schools in the district.
- The dogs sniffed students' lockers in public hallways and automobiles parked on school property.
- The dogs were also brought into classrooms where they walked up and down the aisles, sniffing each student individually, sometimes putting their noses directly on the students' bodies.
- If a dog alerted on a student, a school official would conduct a search of the student's pockets, purse, and outer garments in an administrator's office.
- Plaintiff Sandra Sanchez triggered an alert, and a search of her purse revealed only a small bottle of perfume.
- Plaintiff Robby Horton also triggered an alert, and a search of his pockets, socks, and lower pants legs revealed no contraband.
Procedural Posture:
- Robby Horton, Heather Horton, and Sandra Sanchez filed a class action lawsuit against the Goose Creek Consolidated Independent School District (GCISD) in the U.S. District Court.
- The plaintiffs challenged the school's canine drug detection program, alleging it violated their Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights.
- The district court denied the plaintiffs' motion for class certification.
- On cross-motions for summary judgment, the district court ruled in favor of the school district, holding that the dog sniffing, while a search, was reasonable and that a dog's alert provided reasonable cause for further searches.
- The plaintiffs appealed the district court's summary judgment ruling and its denial of class certification to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth 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 district's use of trained dogs to conduct suspicionless, exploratory sniffing of students' persons, lockers, and automobiles for contraband constitute an unconstitutional search under the Fourth Amendment?
Opinions:
Majority - Per Curiam
No, as to the lockers and automobiles; Yes, as to the students' persons. The sniffing of lockers and cars is not a search under the Fourth Amendment, but the sniffing of students' persons is a search that is unconstitutional without individualized reasonable suspicion. The court reasoned that there is no reasonable expectation of privacy in the airspace surrounding inanimate objects like lockers and cars left in public view, analogizing it to a "public smell" doctrine. Therefore, using a dog's superior sense of smell to detect odors from these objects is not a search. In contrast, the Fourth Amendment's protection of "people, not places" applies with its fullest vigor to the integrity of the human body. The act of having large dogs conduct close-proximity sniffing of young students is an intrusive, embarrassing, and demeaning invasion of personal security that qualifies as a search. While school officials have a duty to maintain a safe environment and operate under a lower standard of "reasonable cause" rather than probable cause, a dragnet, suspicionless search of every student's person is not objectively reasonable and requires individualized suspicion to be constitutional.
Analysis:
This case establishes a critical two-tiered analysis for Fourth Amendment challenges to canine sniffs in public schools. By bifurcating the holding, the court gives school administrators broad authority to conduct suspicionless, exploratory sniffs of student property like lockers and cars, deeming it a non-search activity outside constitutional scrutiny. Conversely, it creates a strong protection for students' bodily integrity by defining the sniffing of a person as a search that requires individualized reasonable suspicion. This decision provides a framework that balances the school's need for safety against students' privacy rights, significantly influencing subsequent case law on school searches by creating a clear distinction between searches of persons and property.
