NCJ Number
66362
Journal
Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology Volume: 71 Issue: 1 Dated: (SPRING 1980) Pages: 39-45
Date Published
1980
Length
7 pages
Annotation
THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF USING DOGS TO DETECT MARIJUANA ON STUDENTS IN SEARCHES OF PUBLIC SCHOOL CLASSROOMS IS DISCUSSED.
Abstract
THE DISCUSSION CENTERS ON DOE V. RENFROW, IN WHICH THE U.S. DISTRICT COURT FOR NORTHERN INDIANA CONSIDERED THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF CLASSROOM SEARCHES IN WHICH POLICE DOGS SNIFFED STUDENTS TO DETECT MARIJUANA. THE COURT UPHELD BOTH THE USE OF THE DOGS, AND THE POCKET SEARCHES OF STUDENTS TO WHOM THE DOGS REACTED. HOWEVER, THE COURT INVALIDATED A 'NUDE SEARCH' OF A STUDENT TO WHOM A DOG CONTINUED TO REACT AFTER A POCKET SEARCH REVEALED NO MARIJUANA. THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE REVIEWED IN DETAIL, TOGETHER WITH THE REASONING OF THE COURT. QUESTIONS ARE RAISED ABOUT THE COURT'S HOLDING THAT NEITHER THE MASS INSPECTION INSTIGATED BY SCHOOL OFFICIALS NOR THE USE OF DRUG-DETECTING DOGS IN THE CLASSROOM CONSTITUTES A SEARCH WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE FOURTH AMENDMENT. THE COURT'S APPROACH IN RECONCILING THE VALIDITY OF THE WARRANTLESS POCKET SEARCH WITH THE INVALIDITY OF THE NUDE SEARCH IS ALSO QUESTIONED. THE COURTS ARE URGED TO DELINEATE THE SCOPE OF FOURTH AMENDMENT PROTECTION IN THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS SO THAT SCHOOL OFFICIALS CAN DEAL WITH DRUG PROBLEMS WITHOUT INFRINGING UPON STUDENTS' RIGHTS. FOOTNOTES ARE INCLUDED.