TRI In The News

SPS Didn't Violate Students' Rights with Drug Dog Search, Court Rules

January 31, 2012

From News Leader

The Springfield school district didn’t violate students’ Fourth Amendment rights by using a trained dog to sniff for drugs at Central High School, according to a U.S. District court decision.

Alleging an April 22, 2010 search at Central High was an “unreasonable search and seizure,” Councilman Doug Burlison and his wife Mellony brought a lawsuit against Springfield Public Schools and the Greene County Sheriff’s Department. It also named Superintendent Norm Ridder, Central High Principal Ron Snodgrass and Sheriff Jim Arnott.

U.S. District Judge Richard E. Dorr found in favor of the school district and sheriff’s office.

“The long and short of all of this is that the written policies and procedures of the Greene County Sheriff and the Springfield Public Schools involved in this case appear to be reasonable and not in any way a deprivation of a federal right,” Dorr wrote in the judgment. “There is no allegation of any past activity contrary to these policies which would support a claim of custom or practice.”

Officials with the district and sheriff’s office said they’re happy with the decision but will explore ways to recoup hefty legal expenses associated with the case.

“The district will attempt to recover some court costs in this matter,” said Board President Tom Prater. “A lot of tax dollars were spent with what we thought was a frivolous lawsuit.”

In late 2009, the district asked the sheriff’s office to provide canine units to assist with drug detection exercises at the high schools. At the time of the Central search, the canine unit had already been used at Glendale, Kickapoo and Parkview.

“The court’s decision affirms that Springfield Public Schools’ policies concerning the use of drug detection dogs in its schools are constitutional,” said Ransom Ellis, III, the district’s attorney, in a written response. “This makes it clear that a canine sniff of student possessions in a school setting does not violate a student’s Fourth Amendment rights.”

Deputies James Inlow and Danny Fillmore performed the search April 22, under the supervision of district officials. The canine, Dar, conducted an “open air” search in four classrooms and a locker area. The Burlisons’ son, Connor Mizer, was in one of those Central classrooms.

Students were asked to leave the third-floor classroom – and their belongings – before the deputies, school officials and Dar entered. The dog was commanded to walk down the aisles between the desks.

Arnott said if the dog had alerted deputies to the presence of drugs – through aggressive scratching – he would have been commanded to sniff the entire room a second time.

According to court documents, “It is undisputed that canine Dar did not alert on anything in (Mizer’s) classroom. There is no specific evidence that Deputy Inlow or Deputy Fillmore opened or touched any backpack, purse, or any other object belonging to any students.”

Mizer testified that before he left the classroom for the search, he zipped the pockets on his backpack and when he returned, “some of the zippers on his backpack were unzipped,” according to the court document.

Despite an initial allegation that the canine was used to sniff students, video showed students were removed prior to the search and specifically that the closest canine Dar and Mizer came to each other was 34 feet.

Arnott said deputies followed the established procedures for such searches.

“All of our searches are open air searches,” he said. “We don’t search people, we search objects. Our policy is students have to be removed from the room so there’s no contact.”

Contacted Monday, Doug Burlison referred questions to local attorney Jason Umbarger and the Rutherford Institute, a non-profit civil liberties organization based in Virginia.

“Until we get a little clearer idea of what we’re going to do, I’d better let the lawyer answer,” he said.

John Whitehead, a constitutional attorney who founded the Rutherford Institute, said attorneys have a 30-day window to file an appeal the decision, arguing that the alleged unzipping of Mizer’s backpack was unlawful. The appeal window started with the judge’s decision on Jan. 25.

“The big issue I’m really concerned with is the seizure of the backpack,” Whitehead said Monday. “These cases are important because there are a number of things involved, including what these kids are being taught by these searches …If you allow this to happen in schools, you’re teaching kids when they grow up, they don’t have any rights.”

It wasn’t immediately clear Monday when and if searches might resume in the district. Arnott said the district didn’t request any searches during the course of the lawsuit.

“If they request it, I’ll be there,” he said.

Superintendent Norm Ridder said while citizens have the right to ask questions and challenge the decisions of the district, he’s happy about the outcome.

“It assured us that we are taking the right approach to use the dogs to check for drugs,” Ridder said. “I knew we were doing things the right way.”