Topic: Unconstitutional School Search
I was able to get the high school of director Max Harmony to stop an unconstitutional policy of searching the property of students who wanted to use computers (because of vandalism), with a confirmation that it had been dismantled issued by the principal shortly after she received my letter. I've sent a similar letter about searches to director Ryan Luchs's school:
[Ryan's Principal]
[Ryan's School]
Dear Ms. [Principal]
I represent a youth rights organization called Americans for Society Free from Age Restrictions (ASFAR), and we regret to inform you that we have received several reports of a number of random drug searches with canine units recently having been conducted at Newbury Park High School. If these searches were indeed conducted, we have reason to believe that they may be in violation of the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution. That public school students possess some degree of constitutional rights was established in the Supreme Court Case Tinker v. Des Moines, 393 U.S. 503, 506 (1969).
As to this specific Fourth Amendment issue, school officials are required to possess reasonable suspicion of illegal contraband or criminal activity in order to conduct searches of students, as established by the Supreme Court case New Jersey v. T.L.O, 105 S. Ct. 733, 469 U.S. 325 (1985). It has traditionally been interpreted that reasonable suspicion must be individualized; hence, mass, random searches would violate the Fourth Amendment. It was confirmed in the court case Horton v. Goose Creek, 690 F.2d 470 (CA5 1982), that a dog sniff constituted a search, with a parallel confirmation in the court case B.C. v. Plumas, 192 F.3d 1260 (9th Cir. 1999), that a random, mass search of students by dogs was unconstitutional.
Accordingly, it was the opinion of then California Attorney General Bill Lockyer ("Opinion of the California Attorney General 99-1103"), written in 2000 regarding this issue that “[s]chool administrators at a public high school may not [boldface mine] implement a policy requiring on an unannounced, random, and neutral basis that (1) pupils be directed to vacate their classrooms and leave behind their personal belongings, including backpacks, purses, jackets, and outer garments, for sniffing by canines trained in the detection of drugs, (2) the pupils would proceed to a location not within the immediate vicinity of the canines and would remain away from the canines at all times, and (3) if a canine’s behavior indicated the presence of drugs, the pupil’s personal belongings would be searches by the school administrators without the pupil’s consent.”
As such, it is necessary to inform you of our strong opposition to this policy of random mass drug searches of students’ belongings, and our doubts as to its constitutionality, considering the confirmed unconstitutionality of such searches of students themselves. Please ensure that this policy is dismantled, bearing in mind that students subject to violations of their constitutional rights may reasonably seek injunctive relief against your school or district, as well as compensatory and/or punitive damages pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Sincerely,
______________________________
Julian E. Gutierrez
President
Americans for a Society Free from Age Restrictions
Now, our problem is that dog searches are conducted relatively infrequently and with no set pattern (which is the point; they're supposed to be random). So, we won't know if the policy's actually been dismantled unless there's an announcement. The other problem is that at Max's school, there was a relatively informal pattern of searches being conducted by order of a single teacher; dog searches are arranged for beforehand and are conducted with law enforcement. So I'll probably need to email the principal to ask her about the status of the issue. Updates to come soon.
