## Facts

- In May 1996, Quincy High School arranged for a deputy sheriff and a drug-detection dog to conduct a drug detection operation at the school.
- The operation was preventive; the record reflected no drug crisis and no individualized suspicion as to B.C. or any particular student.
- In B.C.’s class, students were ordered out and directed to walk single-file past the dog and deputy stationed at the classroom door, close enough for the dog to sniff their persons.
- The dog alerted to another student; that student was searched, and no drugs were found.
- Students, including B.C., were directed to wait for about five to ten minutes in a covered snack-bar area while the dog and officers sniffed the classroom and certain items.
- When students returned, the dog again alerted to the same student; no drugs were recovered during the operation.
- B.C. sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for alleged Fourth Amendment violations and asserted related state-law claims; he also sought injunctive relief and class certification.

## Issues

1. Whether a drug-detection dog sniff of students’ persons at a classroom door is a Fourth Amendment search.
2. If so, whether the suspicionless sniff was reasonable in the public-school setting.
3. Whether the brief detention of students during the operation constituted a Fourth Amendment seizure.
4. Whether school and law-enforcement officials were entitled to qualified immunity from damages.
5. Whether B.C. had standing to obtain injunctive relief against future similar practices.

## Decision

- The Ninth Circuit held that a dog sniff directed at students’ persons in this setting constituted a Fourth Amendment search.
- The court affirmed summary judgment for defendants on damages because the relevant law was not clearly established in 1996 and officials were entitled to qualified immunity.
- The court rejected B.C.’s seizure theory based on the short, school-directed waiting period during the operation.
- The court left in place the denial of injunctive relief based on the lack of a sufficient showing of a real and immediate threat of recurrence.
- The court did not disturb the district court’s refusal to retain supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims.

## Legal Principles

- A dog sniff aimed at a person, including a student in a school setting, can constitute a Fourth Amendment search because individuals retain a privacy interest in their bodies.
- Fourth Amendment reasonableness in schools is assessed under a relaxed standard recognizing administrators’ authority to maintain order, but suspicionless measures directed at students’ persons are more intrusive than measures aimed at property.
- A short, school-controlled restraint of students’ movement for routine supervision purposes may not amount to an unreasonable seizure.
- Qualified immunity bars damages unless the constitutional rule allegedly violated was clearly established at the time, such that reasonable officials would have understood their conduct to be unlawful.
- Forward-looking injunctive relief requires standing based on a real and immediate threat of future injury, not past exposure alone.

## Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit recognized that using a drug dog to sniff students’ bodies is a Fourth Amendment search, but affirmed judgment for the defendants because unsettled law entitled officials to qualified immunity from damages, and B.C. did not establish a sufficient basis for injunctive relief.


B.C. v. Plumas Unified Sch. Dist., 192 F.3d 1260 (9th Cir. 1999)