TRI In The News
Doug Burlison Loses Appeal on Drug-Dog Searches
From News-Leader
Original article available here
On the use of drug-detection dogs, a federal court has once again sided with Springfield Public Schools.
A panel of three U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit judges affirmed an earlier judgment that dismissed a lawsuit filed by City Councilman Doug Burlison and his wife Mellony. It alleged that the district — and others — violated students’ Fourth Amendment rights by using trained dogs to sniff for drugs at Central High School.
The judgment was announced this week.
“Certainly the district is extremely happy,” said attorney Ransom Ellis III, the district’s legal counsel. He said the rulings show the practice “was constitutionally appropriate.”
The original lawsuit, which stemmed from a search during the 2009-10 school year, and the subsequent appeal was also filed against the Greene County Sheriff's Office and named Superintendent Norm Ridder, Central Principal Ron Snodgrass and Sheriff Jim Arnott.
Initially, the Burlisons alleged the privacy of their son, Connor Mizer, was invaded when the teen was removed from his classroom so a drug detection dog provided by the sheriff's office could sniff the classroom — and students' belongings — for illegal drugs such as marijuana, cocaine and methamphetamine.
Nothing illegal was found during the search.
Doug Burlison said he’s disappointed with the judgment and is evaluating whether there is another appeal to file.
“I’m still of the opinion that what happened at the school is not constitutional and I’m not backing off that,” he said.
The Burlisons, who have since divorced, are represented by local attorney Jason Umbarger and the Rutherford Institute, a nonprofit civil liberties organization based in Virginia.
“As far as what to do next, I do not know just yet,” he said. “I need to talk to my folks at the Rutherford Institute to see what are their thoughts about whether to proceed or not to proceed.”
The practice of using drug-detection dogs was suspended while the lawsuit played out in court. It’s unclear if the practice will resume but Ellis said he believes there isn’t a legal issue with it starting again.
Ellis, who represented the district, said the case may have larger ramifications in the legal world because — prior to this decision — there was no other case that was “directly on point.”
The panel upheld the January 2012 ruling by U.S. District Judge Richard E. Dorr and concluded that the use of trained drug-detection dogs appeared to be “reasonable and not in any way a deprivation of a federal right.”
