## Facts

- A public school district implemented a random, unannounced canine detection program in response to drug and alcohol problems in its schools.
- The district used trained dogs to sniff for numerous substances, including alcohol and drugs.
- Dogs were brought onto campus and sniffed students’ lockers and automobiles parked on school property.
- Dogs were also taken into classrooms and sniffed students’ bodies while students remained at their desks; the dogs sometimes made physical contact while sniffing.
- When a dog alerted on a student, the student was escorted to an office and searched (pockets, purse, and outer garments).
- In incidents involving the named student plaintiffs, dog alerts led to searches, but no contraband was found.
- Students sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging violations of the Fourth Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment due process.

## Issues

1. Whether canine sniffs of students’ lockers and automobiles on school property constitute “searches” under the Fourth Amendment.
2. Whether canine sniffs of students’ persons constitute “searches” under the Fourth Amendment.
3. If sniffing students’ persons is a search, what level of justification is required in the public school context.
4. Whether the program violated procedural or substantive due process under the Fourteenth Amendment.
5. Whether denial of class certification was proper.

## Decision

- The court held canine sniffs of lockers and automobiles on school property are not Fourth Amendment searches.
- The court held canine sniffs of students’ persons are Fourth Amendment searches.
- The court held that, in schools, sniffing a particular student’s person requires individualized reasonable suspicion.
- The court remanded for further proceedings, including evaluation of the dogs’ reliability to determine whether an alert can supply reasonable suspicion that contraband is currently present.
- The court rejected the due process challenge and left the denial of class certification undisturbed.

## Legal Principles

- A dog sniff directed at inanimate property with reduced expectations of privacy (school lockers and cars on school grounds) may be treated as a non-search when it is limited in scope and minimally intrusive.
- A dog sniff directed at a student’s body implicates bodily privacy and dignity and constitutes a search under the Fourth Amendment.
- In the public school setting, searches of a student’s person require individualized reasonable suspicion rather than probable cause.
- A dog’s alert supports reasonable suspicion only if the dog’s demonstrated reliability is sufficient; reliability need not reach probable cause or “reasonable certainty,” but it must make suspicion objectively reasonable.

## Conclusion

The Fifth Circuit permitted suspicionless canine sniffs of lockers and cars at school as non-searches, but required individualized reasonable suspicion for canine sniffs of students’ persons, with the reasonableness of reliance on a dog alert turning on proof of the dog’s reliability.


Horton v. Goose Creek Indep. Sch. Dist., 690 F.2d 470 (5th Cir. 1982)