Why did the courts decide it was acceptable to use trained dogs to search a school and to conduct a strip search of a student in an Indiana school in Doe v. Renfrow?

Answer 1

You're describing Doe v. Renfrow, 451 US 1022 (1981), an Indiana case on appeal from the US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, but denied certiorari by the US Supreme Court. Since the Supreme Court declined to hear the case, we can't draw direct conclusions about their opinion on the case, other than to say only Justice William Brennan seemed disturbed by the lower court ruling.

From later cases, we know the Supreme Court does not consider the use of dogs to constitute an unreasonable search under the Fourth Amendment if the dog is searching objects from the outside (visible side). It's okay for the dog to sniff the outside of a car and the outside of a school locker or luggage, because none of these places is private. The outside of objects, visible to the public, doesn't create an unreasonable search.

Subjecting Diane "Doe" to a strip search on the basis of the dog alerting to her scent, on the other hand, was an unjustified invasion of privacy that violated the Fourth Amendment right "to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures..." The strip search constituted a unreasonable search.

Justice William Brennan, in his written dissent from the Supreme Court's decision to deny certiorari on the Renfrow case explained why the strip search was unacceptable, despite the school acting in loco parentis, in these words:

"I cannot agree that the Fourth Amendment authorizes local school and police officials to detain every junior and senior high school student present in a town's public schools and then, using drug-detecting, police-trained German shepherds, to conduct a warrantless, student-by-student dragnet inspection "to see if there were any drugs present." While school officials acting in loco parentis may take reasonable steps to maintain a safe and healthful educational environment, their actions must nonetheless be consistent with the Fourth Amendment. The problem of drug abuse in the schools is not to be solved by conducting schoolhouse raids on unsuspecting students absent particularized information regarding drug users or suppliers."

In other words, the only evidence suggesting the girl might have drugs was the dog's reaction. Brennan said searching students without specific information (like a witness or physical evidence) that a student is using or selling drugs is a violation of constitutional rights.

Brennan went on to say:

"In the case of petitioner, the dog repeatedly jabbed its nose into her legs. Petitioner testified that the experience of being sniffed and prodded by trained police dogs in the presence of the police and representatives of the press was degrading and embarrassing. I am astonished that the court did not find that the school's use of the dogs constituted an invasion of petitioner's reasonable expectation of privacy."

His shock was based on the fact that the lower courts dismissed charges against against the school district and the particular officials involved because the actions (the strip search) were so outrageous.

Brennan also explained why the school's status of acting in loco parentis did not permit or excuse the search:

"Once school authorities enlist the aid of police officers to help maintain control over the school's drug problem, they step outside the bounds of any quasi-parental relationship, and their conduct must be judged according to the traditional probable-cause standard."

In other words, asking the police to help the school conduct a school-wide search for drugs fell outside what is allowed under in loco parentis, and places the school under the same obligation as the police, with regard to needing probable cause before acting.

The Supreme Court agreed with some of Justice Brennan's reasoning a few years later in the case New Jersey v. TLO,469 US 425 (1985).

You can access Justice Brennan's entire dissent via Related Links, below.

Summary:

1. The school stopped acting in loco parentis when it enlisted the help of police to search for drugs.
2. The dog alerting on "Diane Doe's" scent was insufficient evidence to create probable cause for a body search.
3. There were no reports or any other evidence that "Diane Doe" used drugs.
4. The strip search was an unconstitutional invasion of privacy and constituted an "unreasonable search and seizure" under the Fourth Amendment.
5. The courts may have held differently if drugs had been found, but should have been consistent in calling the search unconstitutional because the the first four summary items apply whether she actually possessed drugs or not.

Amendment IV

'The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.'

Background Events

"Petitioner Diane Doe is a 13-year-old student at Highland Junior High School in Highland, Ind., a community of approximately 30,000 residents. Highland has one junior high school and one senior high school, located in adjacent buildings. There are 2,780 students enrolled in those schools.

"On the morning of March 23, 1979, petitioner went to her first-period class as usual. Shortly before 9:15, when the class was scheduled to adjourn, petitioner's teacher ordered everyone to remain seated until further notice.

"An assistant principal, accompanied by a police-trained German shepherd, a dog handler, and a uniformed police officer, then entered the classroom as one of six teams conducting simultaneous raids at the Highland schools. For the next 21/2 hours, petitioner and her classmates were required to sit quietly in their seats with their belongings in view and their hands upon their desks. They were forbidden to use the washroom unless accompanied by an escort. Uniformed police officers and school administrators were stationed in the halls. Guards were posted at the schoolhouse doors.

"While no student was allowed to leave the schoolhouse, representatives of the press and other news media, on invitation of the school authorities, were permitted to enter the classrooms to observe the proceedings.

"The dogs were led up and down each aisle of the classroom, from desk to desk, and from student to student. Each student was probed, sniffed, and inspected by at least 1 of the 14 German shepherds detailed to the school. When the search team assigned to petitioner's classroom reached petitioner, the police dog pressed forward, sniffed at her body, and repeatedly pushed its nose and muzzle into her legs. The uniformed officer then ordered petitioner to stand and empty her pockets, apparently because the dog "alerted" to the presence of drugs. However, no drugs were found. After petitioner emptied her pockets, the dog again sniffed her body and again it apparently "alerted." Petitioner was then escorted to the nurse's office for a more thorough physical inspection.

"Petitioner was met at the nurse's office by two adult women, one a uniformed police officer. After denying that she had ever used [marijuana], petitioner was ordered to strip. She did so, removing her clothing in the presence of the two women. The women then looked over petitioner's body, inspected her clothing, and touched and examined the hair on her head. Again, no drugs were found.

"Petitioner was subsequently allowed to dress and was escorted back to her classroom."

For more information, see Related Links, below.