bellnier v lund

CourtListener is a project of Free Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. 47 (N.D.N.Y. den., 393 U.S. 891, 89 S. Ct. 212, 21 L. Ed. Picha v. Wielgos,410 F. Supp. This is not to indicate that one attending public schools sheds his or her constitutional rights upon entering the school house doors; such is obviously not the case. GALFORD v. MARK ANTHONY B on CaseMine. 99 (D.Me., N.D.1969); State v. Wingerd, 40 Ohio App.2d 236, 318 N.E.2d 866 (1974) (dictum); State v. Mora,307 So. Because this Court has ruled that the nude body search of plaintiff was in violation of the Fourth Amendment and thus unlawful, the request now becomes similar to a prayer for injunctive relief against a criminal act and therefore unnecessary. M. v. Board of Education Ball-Chatham Comm. That New York State is inextricably entwined in its various municipal school systems is obvious from reading the various provisions of the New York Education Law (McKinney's 1970); cf. This Court now finds that in a public school setting, school officials clothed with the responsibilities of caring for the health and welfare of the entire student population, may rely on such general information to justify the use of the canines to detect narcotics. 729, 42 L.Ed.2d 725 (1975); also, cf. United States District Court, N. D. Indiana, Hammond Division. No liability can be found for any of the actions of this defendant. 47 (N.D.N.Y.1977). Highland, Indiana is a community consisting of approximately 30,000 residents located in the northwest corner of the state in Lake County, Indiana. Sometime that morning, and prior to the commencement of class, plaintiff Leonti complained to defendant Olson that he was missing $3.00 from his coat pocket. 1977) (young children are especially susceptible to being traumatized by strip searches). To carry out this procedure, they requested the assistance of the Highland Police Department and of volunteer canine units experienced in drug detection. This Court holds that, while there need not be a showing of probable cause in a case such as this, there must be demonstrated the existence of some articulable facts which together provided reasonable grounds to search the students, and that the search must have been in furtherance of a legitimate purpose with respect to which school officials are empowered to act, such as the maintenance of discipline or the detection and punishment of misconduct. [12] See Bronstein, supra, at 464 (Mansfield, J. concurring). Dist. Document Cited authorities 50 Cited in 35 Precedent Map Related Vincent 438 F. Supp. The regulation of teachers by the state is equally persuasive as evidence of state action. This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google, Northern District of Indiana U.S. Federal District Court. 2d 419 (1970). It also includes some new topics such as bullying, copyright law, and the law and the internet. This court is ruling that so long as a school is pursuing those legitimate interests which are the source of its in loco parentis status, "maintaining the order, discipline, safety, supervision, and education of the students within the school" (Picha v. Wielgos, supra, 410 F.Supp. In Lopez, suspension of students by a principal was found to constitute state action where the procedures used and challenged on Due Process grounds were expressly provided for in the Ohio Constitution, and state statutes and corresponding regulations. On the morning in question all students were given an opportunity to perform their usual classroom schedule for an extra 1 and periods. 2d 170 (1968); and People v. Campbell,67 Ill. 2d 308, 10 Ill.Dec. The use of the dog in this operation was an aid to the school administrator and as such its use is not considered a search. 2201. 206, 498 F.2d 748 (1974). Ms. Little was engaged in a perfectly legitimate, if unprofitable, enterprise of training these type dogs. Cases that have held that a school official is a state agent include: Bellnier v. Lund, 438 F. Supp. 1975), cert. Plaintiff, Diane Doe, seeks to have the actions of the defendant school officials, the police chief of the Highland Police Department and the dog trainer to be declared violative of her constitutional rights guaranteed by the Fourth and Fifth, Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution. There is also a basic burden to demonstrate that the plaintiff will be an adequate representative of the other members of a class. 1971) aff'd, 30 N.Y.2d 734, 333 N.Y.S.2d 167, 284 N.E.2d 153 (1972); In re C.,26 Cal. Case 3:19-cv-00513-GTS-ATB Document 163 Filed 01/20/21 Page 3 of 55. The pocket search was conducted in furtherance of the school's legitimate interest in eliminating drug trafficking within the school. Both public and. Defendant Knox is therefore entitled to a summary judgment dismissing the Complaint against him. 5, supra. At this meeting, the school administrators informed the police officers that they intended to conduct an investigation within the school buildings using canine units to detect and remove any narcotics or narcotic paraphernalia. 75-CV-237. [10] It is the responsibility of the school corporation personnel to supervise students while they attend classes. Both were escorted to the principal's office where the student denied smok-275. Sch. Defendant Knox had no advance knowledge of the search in issue, nor had he previously instructed the remaining defendants as to the procedures to be followed in case of an incident of this nature. "The student's right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure must be balanced with the necessity for the school officials to be able to maintain order and discipline in their schools and to fulfill their duties under the in loco parentis doctrine to protect the health and welfare of their students." Most notable, in this regard, is the compulsory education provision, Education Law 3205, and its companion sections. California. 791 (S.D.N.Y.1974), aff'd, 506 F.2d 1395 (2d Cir. Tinker v. Des Moines School District,393 U.S. 503, 89 S. Ct. 733, 21 L. Ed. 2d 214 (1975), reh. Wood v. Strickland,420 U.S. 308, 95 S. Ct. 992, 43 L. Ed. 75-CV-237. reasonableness based on offense The question of dog searches has again been certified by the Court of Military Appeals and remains pending there. 47 (N.D.N.Y. v. Acton 49 Trinidad Sch. 1977) (mem.) You're all set! On March 7, 1980, a teacher at Piscataway High School in Middlesex County, N. J., discovered two girls smoking in a lavatory. This Court does not, therefore, find the actions of Little during the morning in question to have violated any of plaintiff's constitutional rights. Education of Individuals with Disabilities 54 Board of Educ . Wooley v. Maynard,430 U.S. 705, 97 S. Ct. 1428, 51 L. Ed. This action was initiated in a complaint filed by several named plaintiffs protesting certain procedures conducted by officials of the Highland, Crown Point and Merrillville, Indiana school systems. In a proper case, the conduct of a properly trained dog standing alone can provide the necessary basis for probable cause. Sometime that morning, and prior to the commencement of class, plaintiff Leonti complained to defendant Olson that he was missing $3.00 from his coat pocket. 1977) (applying standard of "reasonable grounds" based on "articulable facts"); Moore v. Student Affairs Comm. Roberts d.Bellnier v. Lund b. The entire search lasted approximately two hours, with the strip searches taking about fifteen minutes. United States v. Chapman , 927 F.2d 601 ( 1991 ) Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit | Thursday, February 21, 1991 | Cited 0 times; United States v. Torres ( 2009 ) Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit | Tuesday, October 6, 2009 | Cited 1 times; Norris v. National Union Fire Insurance Co. ( 2001 ) The school buildings are adjacent to one another and the approximately 2,780 students of both schools share common facilities located in the buildings. Defendant Knox's sole participation in the incident occurred on December 9, 1974, when, while speaking at a formal meeting of the School Board, he defended the legality of the search in issue. [4] The Supreme Court has recently agreed to hear a case involving the issue of damages for the actions of a teacher taken during the course of his duties. It is settled case law that school officials possess a qualified immunity with respect to acts performed within the course of their duties. This document shall constitute the Court's findings and conclusions of law as required by F.R.C.P. Second, the government official must obtain a warrant before carrying out the search. 1974) In Re Ronald B., 61 AD2d 204 (1978) People v. Haskins, 48 AD2d 480 (1975) People v. Overton, 24 NY2d 522 (1967) Opinion of Counsel, 1 EDR 800 (1959) Opinion of Counsel, 1 EDR 766 (1952) Once inside the room, no student left prior to the alleged search now the subject of this action. The students were then asked to empty their pockets and remove their shoes. The class members were then taken to their respective restrooms, the girls to the girls' room by defendants Olson and Butcher, and the boys to the boys' room by defendants Reardon, Parker, and Lund. United States v. Coles,302 F. Supp. Being aware of prior complaints from class members of missing money, lunches, and other items, and knowing that no one had left the class-room that morning, defendant Reardon commenced a search of the class, with the aid of fellow teachers and school officials, all of whom are named as defendants herein. 1976). Cf. In the execution of this plan, the school officials sought the aid of other trained persons who had relevant talents from various community resources. And, generally, the Fourth Amendment makes two demands of a government official wishing to carry out a search. See East Texas Motor Freight System v. Rodriquez,431 U.S. 395, 97 S. Ct. 1891, 52 L. Ed. *1027 This Court finds no constitutional fault with the basic plan and program as executed. Salem Community School Corp. v. Easterly, 150 Ind.App. United States District Court of Northern District of New York. Although unknown by the students, those uniformed officers in the halls that morning were under orders not to pursue any students outside the building. 17710, United States District Courts. During the inspection, a dog alerted[5] to a particular student on approximately fifty occasions. A review of the pleadings, as supplemented by the affidavits of defendants Lund, Reardon, Parker, Butcher, and Knox, reveals that, with one minor exception which will not affect the outcome of the pending motion, there are no material issues of fact to be determined with respect to the question of defendants' liability. Fourteen handlers and their dogs participated during the inspection. The Supreme Court established in New Jersey v. T.L.O. Act. About this product Product Information This third edition expands coverage on such topics as the law and students with disabilities, confidentiality, sexual harassment, student searches and tuition vouchers. Plaintiff, as well as other students, is subject to the daily routine of class attendance in an educational environment. 3d 777, 105 Cal. . Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case. 1985. Unit School Dist. Burton v. Wilmington Pkg. Both parties have moved for a summary judgment, pursuant to F.R.C.P. Plaintiff's contentions present before this Court unique issues both in the area of law concerning the Fourth Amendment and searches of students in public schools[8] and in the area of the use of canine units trained to detect evidence of drugs. You already receive all suggested Justia Opinion Summary Newsletters. You already receive all suggested Justia Opinion Summary Newsletters. [3] Also present at this meeting was Patricia Little, a trainer of drug detecting canines. To suggest anything approaching that idea is to do an extreme disservice to a group of dedicated people who carry heavy legal and moral obligations for public education. Dist. Furthermore, the presence of the uniformed police officer in the room, at the request of the school official and with the agreement that no arrests would occur as a result of finding any drugs upon students, did not alter the basic function of the school official's activities. Jurisdiction is alleged to exist by virtue of 28 U.S.C. Maintaining an educationally productive atmosphere within the school rests upon the school administrator certain heavy responsibilities. A careful reading shows that the Supreme Court did specifically hold that there must be a link between the particular item sought and a suspected infraction, New Jersey v. T. L. 0., 469 U. S. at 345. 452 F.Supp. Thus, in State v. Young, supra, a well reasoned opinion, the Georgia Supreme Court found three categories of searches, for purposes of the Fourth Amendment: 1) wholly private searches, with no Fourth Amendment applicability; 2) state action, but no involvement of law enforcement agents, so that the Fourth Amendment applies, but not the Exclusionary Rule; and 3) search by law enforcement agents, to which both the Fourth Amendment and the Exclusionary Rule apply in toto. Thus, when a teacher conducts a highly intrusive invasion such as the strip . 2d 317 (La.S.Ct. 2d 509, 75 Cal. As the Supreme Court has stated with reference to the Equal Protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, though equally applicable to the Due Process clause, state action exists when. See, e. g., McCabe v. Nassau County Medical Center, 453 F.2d 698 (2d Cir. STUDENT SEARCHES AND SEIZURES: LEGAL STANDARDS, POLICY, AND PROCEDURES. I.C. Each of the students entered the classroom and placed his outer garment in a coatroom located wholly within, and accessible only from, the classroom. 2d 355 (1977). Adams v. Pate, 445 F.2d 105 (7th Cir. The Supreme Court established in New Jersey v. T.L.O. Little was contacted by the police department requesting her to attend the March 14, 1979 meeting. For example, drugs, weapons, suicides, robberies, and assaults are now everyday occurrences in some educational facilities. 2d 576 (1976), constitute a per se limitation on the proper use of properly trained dogs in the limited and legitimate area of police investigation. Moreover, granting plaintiff's prayer for injunctive relief as to the other aspects of the inspection complained of would be inconsistent with this Court's findings. This case is therefore an appropriate one for a summary judgment. Turning next to the search aspect of the Fourth Amendment, the issue becomes whether the activity of the defendants on the morning in question prior to any alert by the trained dogs was a search and, if so, whether the search, although warrantless, was reasonable. BELLNIER v. LUND Email | Print | Comments ( 0) No. You also get a useful overview of how the case was received. Buss, The Fourth Amendment and Searches of Students in Public Schools, 59 Iowa L.Rev. Before such a search can be performed, the school administrators must articulate some facts that provide a reasonable cause to believe the student possesses the contraband sought. Picha v. Wielgos, supra. While it would seem self-evident that the actions of a teacher or school official employed by a public municipality board of education would constitute state action under Monroe v. Pape, supra, this has not been a universally held notion among the various federal courts.3 Compare Palacios v. Foltz, 441 F.2d 1196 (10th Cir. Nevertheless, it is clear that in imposing the Exclusionary Rule upon the states as a remedial measure, the Court in Mapp did not by any means intend to deprive a person subjected to an unlawful search or seizure of his civil remedies, among them being recourse to a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. In any event, the Court sees no reason for enjoining conduct which has heretofore been declared as unlawful. U. S. v. Guerra, 554 F.2d 987 (9th Cir. This meeting was attended by school administrators of the Senior and Junior High Schools and by members of the Highland Police Department. Professors, teachers and school administrators are increasingly faced with concerns not even thought of in previous decades. Ass'n,362 F. Supp. Sch. Bd., supra. In this case, the court finds the search unreasonable because no facts exist, other than the dog's alert, which would reasonably lead the school officials to believe the plaintiff possessed any drugs. F.R.C.P. Use of the dogs to detect where those drugs were located was not unreasonable under the circumstances. The competing theories seem to be the following: 1) that the Fourth Amendment applies full force, requiring a finding of probable cause before an impartial magistrate before the search could be declared reasonable. A light relaxed atmosphere was created. Get free summaries of new Northern District of Indiana U.S. Federal District Court opinions delivered to your inbox! Because of the Court's findings on the immunity of the defendant school officials, the issue of damages can be determined at this time. [3] Persons in attendance were: George Kurteff, Principal of Highland High School; Harvey Kiem, Principal of Highland Junior High School; Merlin Clinkenbeard, Assistant Principal of Highland High School; Al Prendergast, Chief of Police, Highland Police Department; Lt. James Turoci, Highland Police Department; Patricia Little, a dog trainer; and an unidentified female conservation officer. Perez v. Sugarman, 499 F.2d 761 (2d Cir. 2d 509, 75 Cal. Bellnier v. Lund, 438 F. Supp. But the alert of the dog constituted reasonable cause to believe that the plaintiff was concealing narcotics. United States District Court, N. D. New York. There is nothing sinister about her enterprise. 2d 1081 (1961) (opinions of Justices Clark, Black and Harlan). They often accompany police officers on night patrol in detection through sound and scent of would-be criminals lurking in the dark or moving in stealth. Therefore, the defendants are immune from liability for compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the acts complained of.[4]. The present case clearly falls within the second enumerated category, for which the Young Court suggests that the proper remedy is a civil rights or tort action, rather than exclusion of evidence so obtained from introduction at a criminal trial. The Court finds this utterly insufficient to hold defendant Knox accountable under 42 U.S.C. VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. However, in view of the relatively slight danger of the conduct involved (as opposed to drug possession, for example), the extent of the search, and the age of the students involved, this Court cannot in good conscience say that the search undertaken was reasonable. Searches of Places It is generally known that marijuana radiates a distinctive odor which can be detected by humans acquainted with it, and by trained dogs. 2d 617 (1977). 2d 433 (1979). See U. S. v. Unrue, 22 U.S.C.M.A. v. NATIONAL SCREEN SERV. Body searches involved extensive examination of the student's clothing entailing the removal of some of the garments. M. v. Bd. Get free access to the complete judgment in STATE EX REL. During an eight hour day, students must move from room to room, attending classes designated by the administration and taught by teachers hired by the school system. 53 VI. Moreover, plaintiff as well as other students in a public school, does not fall within the meaning of Katz because of the very nature of public school education. 1974). Of course, this requirement while basic and fundamental depends on the test of reasonableness. The administrative purpose of the escort was to prevent the disposal of any drugs on the way to the washroom. The conclusion reached in the Warren case, that of finding state action, seems to be the more logical one, especially when the Monroe-Burton principles are applied to the facts of this case. of the information used as a justification for the search." School officials fulfilling their state empowered duties will not be held to the same standards as law enforcement officials when determining if the use of canines is necessary to detect drugs within the schools. Rptr. It is well known that a patrol dog is endowed by nature with qualities of hearing and smell that appear to be superior to those of humans. A search of those items failed to reveal the missing money. On the morning of December 6, 1974, plaintiffs and their classmates, members of the fifth grade class at Auburn's Lincoln Elementary School, arrived at the classroom in their usual fashion. 1279 (S.D.Ohio, E.D.1973), aff'd, 419 U.S. 565, 95 S. Ct. 729, 42 L. Ed. 14 See, e.g., Bellnier v. Lund (N.D.N.Y.1977). Highland, Indiana is a community consisting of approximately 30,000 residents located in the northwest corner of the state in Lake County, Indiana. The plaintiffs are therefore entitled to a summary judgment to that effect, except with respect to defendant Knox. Although a trained dog is certainly more discriminative than electronic detection devices, United States v. Bronstein, supra, at 462, 463, it only alerts to the odor of the substance, not the substance itself. . Jurisdiction in this matter for purposes of deciding any and all questions concerning plaintiffs' request for an injunction against the named defendants is pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1983 requires a showing of action "under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage of any State or Territory" to support a cause of action. Wood v. Strickland Question 10 2 out of 2 points Which court case found that schools have the right to discipline students who present messages that conflict with stated anti-drug policies, even where the evidence of disruption of school activities might be absent? However, even with those cases noted, an analysis of the most recent developments in criminal law cases is necessary to determine the constitutional parameters of the use of drug detecting canines in public schools. 665, 667 (C.D.Cal.1988); Bellnier v. Lund, 438 F.Supp. The plaintiffs have failed to allege in their Complaint that the actions were not taken in good faith. Although the subject of using drug detecting canines has not been specifically addressed in this circuit, it has been analyzed in other courts. Such a regulation of a student's movement in no way denies that person any constitutionally guaranteed right. dents. 2d 752 (1977). [2] These reports consisted of direct communication between teachers at the Junior and Senior High School and school administrators, either face to face or by signed written notes; by student tips, usually anonymous, by letters from parents, and by telephone calls, also, usually anonymous. More alarming to school officials was the fact that of those twenty-one instances, thirteen occurred within a twenty school day span just prior to the complained of activities. Rule 56, with plaintiffs seeking a partial summary judgment, the issue of damages to be left for trial. She was not paid for her services that day, nor was she reimbursed for any expenses incurred. 375 F.Supp. challenging on Due Process and Cruel and Unusual Punishment grounds, the use of corporal punishment by school officials, the Court seemingly assumed ab initio that the actions complained of constituted "state action". Therefore, this Court finds that the defendant school officials are immune from liability arising out of the search and are entitled to summary judgment on the issue of monetary damages. No. There is a heavy if not total carryover of the ideas expressed to administration of the public schools. Beginning in the fall of that year, concern over drug use within the school intensified as school officials recorded instances of drug use by students. The existence of such odors often provides useful information to investigative law enforcement officers concerning the location and proximity of illegal controlled substances. 75-CV-237. People v. Scott D., 34 N.Y.2d 483, 315 N.E.2d 466, 358 N.Y.S.2d 403 (1974); State v. McKinnon,88 Wash. 2d 75, 558 P.2d 781 (1977); People v. Jackson, 65 Misc.2d 909, 319 N.Y.S.2d 731 (App.Term, 1st Dept.1971), aff'd, 30 N.Y.2d 734, 333 N.Y.S.2d 167, 284 N.E.2d 153 (1972). Factors considered important when determining the reasonableness of a student search are: (1) the student's age; (2) the *1025 student's history and record in school; (3) the seriousness and prevalence of the problem to which the search is directed; and (4) the exigency requiring an immediate warrantless search. See also, Shelton v. Pargo, Inc., 582 F.2d 1298 (4th Cir. 441 F.2d 299 - WILLIAMS v. DADE COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD, United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit. (Bellnier v. Lund (N.D.N.Y.1977), Donovan v. Dewey (1981) 452 U.S. 594, 606-607, 101 S.Ct. 11. 220 (1969); 2) the Fourth Amendment applies, but the Exclusionary Rule does not; United States v. Coles,302 F. Supp. These cases were not sufficient to establish clearly the unlawfulness of the defendants' actions in this case. 1983 in an action for declaratory judgment and damages. All the animals used in the March 23, 1979 inspection were certified and trained by Little at her academy. No. Respect for individual dignity of the student was carefully maintained. 725 (M.D. Upon doing so, this Court holds that conducting a nude search of a student solely upon the continued alert of a trained drug-detecting canine is unreasonable even under the lesser "reasonable cause to believe" standard. Nor does this court believe the presence of the dog unit within the classroom changes the nature of the observation. The plaintiff further seeks to have the complained of activities of the named defendants permanently enjoined. 102 (1972); Doe v. State, 88 N.M. 347, 540 P.2d 827 (1975); People v. Scott D., 34 N.Y.2d 483, The superior court's concern with the teacher's duty and the doctrine of in . 259 (1975). See U. S. v. Thomas, 1 M.J. at 401 (C.M.A.1976). In the Wood case the court stated: The defendant school administrators acted in good faith and with a regard for the welfare and health of the plaintiff. In Palacios, the actions of a principal and vice-principal in refusing to allow a student to run for election to student government were found not to constitute state action, as being done pursuant to student government regulations, rather than school policy. 1978); and Miller v. Motorola, Inc., 76 F.R.D. at 674, 97 S. Ct. at 1414 (Emphasis Added). No students were observed while in the washrooms. Goose Creek Ind. She was quietly escorted to a nurse's station in the Junior High School and was asked to remain in the waiting room. From U.S., Reporter Series 392 U.S. 1 - TERRY v. OHIO, Supreme Court of United States. The inspection occurred in both the Junior and Senior High School campuses and began during the first period class. Rptr. Use applicable law to enhance school safety and fulfill the duty to protect Slideshow 4416335 by ramiro Nor does the fact that the officials had no information about specific students and drug possession invalidate the use of the dogs.

Are Graham Crackers Good For Constipation, Articles B