It is equally apparent that in the fulfillment of their statutorily imposed duties these school officials could and should use their human senses to detect conditions that were violative of the good order of the school. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. [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. 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. See also W. RINGEL, SEARCHES & SEIZURES, ARRESTS AND CONFESSIONS 18.1 (1984). 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. CourtListener is a project of Free Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. 4:1 . Moreover, there was a feeling, at least by some students including the plaintiff, that peer pressure existed in favor of using drugs while on campus. 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. Buss, The Fourth Amendment and Searches of Students in Public Schools, 59 Iowa L.Rev. There is nothing sinister about her enterprise. This Court nevertheless adheres to the view that the defendant teachers are immune from these damage claims under Wood v. Strickland, supra. 47 (N.D.N.Y. and State v. 2d 731 (1969). Carey v. Piphus, 430 U.S. 964, 97 S. Ct. 1642, 52 L. Ed. dents. Pendergast did not participate in the illegal search of plaintiff Doe, nor does any evidence show he conducted the search. In doing so, such school officials are not acting as police officers but are simply meeting their obligations as school officials. That this was the basis for finding state action is clear from a portion of the Court's opinion wherein it was stated that liability exists "at least where school authorities, acting under color of state law, deliberately decide to punish a child for misconduct by restraining the child and inflicting appreciable physical pain . It should be noted at this point that had the role of the police been different, this court's reasoning and conclusion may well have been different. The effect was anything but a gestapo-like effort run by gestapo-type people. Both parties have moved for a summary judgment, pursuant to F.R.C.P. See East Texas Motor Freight System v. Rodriquez,431 U.S. 395, 97 S. Ct. 1891, 52 L. Ed. The Fourth Amendment recognizes that for each individual there is a sphere of privacy which that individual can justifiedly expect government officials not to invade. Plaintiff, however, contends that the walking up the aisles and the sniffing of the dog constituted a search within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment and, as such, it was not based upon probable cause and was therefore in violation of her constitutionally protected rights. Upon being asked to enter the inner office, two women introduced themselves to the plaintiff. Teachers were informed of the inspection that morning by means of a sealed note upon their classroom desks. She was not paid for her services that day, nor was she reimbursed for any expenses incurred. 220 (1969); 2) the Fourth Amendment applies, but the Exclusionary Rule does not; United States v. Coles,302 F. Supp. Subscribers are able to see a list of all the cited cases and legislation of a document. A reasonable right to inspection is necessary to the school's performance of its duty to provide an educational environment. of Troy State Univ., 284 F. Supp. In other words, an invasion of that sphere of privacy is a search under the terms of the Fourth Amendment. See Johnson v. U. S.,333 U.S. 10, 68 S. Ct. 367, 92 L. Ed. As *1022 the Supreme Court of the United States stated in Katz v. United States,389 U.S. 347, 88 S. Ct. 507, 19 L. Ed. The motion for a permanent injunction should be denied, as the issue as between these parties is moot. Because of the increasing use of drugs within the school, students, faculty and administrators suffered a loss of morale at both the Senior and Junior High School. 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. Times allocated for each class period are determined by the school officials, not the students. Maintaining an educationally productive atmosphere within the school rests upon the school administrator certain heavy responsibilities. Perhaps the most telling factor, especially with respect to this case, is Education Law 3028, which requires that a board of education indemnify a teacher for all costs and attorneys' fees resulting from an action, civil or criminal, growing out of an attempt to discipline a student. Bd., supra; Bellnier v. Lund,438 F. Supp. 1977); U. S. v. Bronstein, 521 F.2d 459 (2d Cir. 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. Plaintiffs seek legal, injunctive, and declaratory relief in their action, which is maintained under 42 U.S.C. Act. 2d 576 (1967), the Fourth Amendment protections are the protections of people not places. 1977); State v. Baccino, 282 A.2d 869 (Del. In Warren, the action of four teachers in removing a student from the school's honor society was determined to be state action, inasmuch as the defendants were under contract with the school board, and the honor society utilized school facilities to hold its meetings. So it was with this plan. Plaintiff Leonti stated that he was sure that he had $4.00 when he arrived at school, showing defendant Reardon the four raffle ticket stubs indicating sales proceeds in the amount of $4.00, only $1.00 of which remained in Leonti's pocket. 725 (M.D. of Emp. 1985. 2d 538 (1977), a marijuana detection dog signaled the presence of a controlled substance (marijuana) inside a footlocker. Also requested by plaintiff is a class certification of all persons who were enrolled at Highland High School and Highland Junior High School who were subject to the complained of activities or those who would be enrolled hereafter as such students in those institutions. Once inside the room, no student left prior to the alleged search now the subject of this action. Bellnier v. Lund,438 F. Supp. 75-CV-237. 1214 (N.D.Ill., E.D.1976), and Potts v. Wright,357 F. Supp. 288 (S.D.Ill.1977); Bellnier v. Lund,438 F. Supp. 1975). It also includes some new topics such as bullying, copyright law, and the law and the internet. Plaintiff Leonti stated that he was sure that he had $4.00 when he arrived at school, showing defendant Reardon the four raffle ticket stubs indicating sales proceeds in the amount of $4.00, only $1.00 of which remained in Leonti's pocket. Bellnier v. Lund Roberts Question:The U.S. Supreme Court ruling that held a school board member liable for damages for violating the constitutional rights of Lee v. Wood v. Strickland Bellnier v. Lund Roberts This problem has been solved! *1020 There is no question as to the right and, indeed, the duty of school officials to maintain an educationally sound environment within the school. 47 (1977) US v. Albarado, 495 F 2d 799 (2d Cir. United States State Supreme Court (California), United States State Supreme Court (New Jersey), New Mexico Court of Appeals of New Mexico. Such a regulation of a student's movement in no way denies that person any constitutionally guaranteed right. See the answerSee the answerSee the answerdone loading For example, drugs, weapons, suicides, robberies, and assaults are now everyday occurrences in some educational facilities. Of course, this requirement while basic and fundamental depends on the test of reasonableness. In doing so the Court must take into account the special duties and responsibilities imposed upon school officials to provide a safe atmosphere for a student to develop, the attendant limited powers which the school officials possess in loco parentis to effectuate the maintenance of proper discipline. 1975), cert. Little's main responsibility was to coordinate the efforts of the school officials with the dog handlers. Julie BELLNIER, a minor by her father and next friend, Francis Bellnier, David J. Leonti, a minor by his father and next friend, Victor A. Leonti, Sr., Plaintiffs, There can be no doubt that, as the plaintiffs state, the notion that an infant student sheds all of his constitutional rights when he enters the school house door is steadily being dispelled by the courts. Their presence does not change the actions of the school official from that of supervision in loco parentis to that of an unwarranted search. 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. 780 (D.S.Dak.S.D.1973). Although unknown by the students, those uniformed officers in the halls that morning were under orders not to pursue any students outside the building. People v. D., 34 N.Y.2d 490, 358 N.Y.S.2d 410, 315 N.E.2d 471. This meeting was attended by school administrators of the Senior and Junior High Schools and by members of the Highland Police Department. View Case Cited Cases Citing Case Citing Cases Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. This element, loosely termed as "state action", is highly amorphous, and is generally determined on a case-by-case basis after an analysis of the facts involved. The plaintiffs have failed to allege in their Complaint that the actions were not taken in good faith. Marshall v. Barlow's, Inc.,436 U.S. 307, 98 S. Ct. 1816, 56 L. Ed. To carry out this procedure, they requested the assistance of the Highland Police Department and of volunteer canine units experienced in drug detection. The school officials made every reasonable effort to carry off this plan in a manner compatible with proper order in the schools and with the values therein involved. The presence of the canine team for several minutes was a minimal intrusion at best and not so serious as to invoke the protections of the Fourth Amendment. [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. However, in that case, the corporal punishment was specifically authorized by both state law and a local school board regulation. Gordon W. LUND, Individually and in his capacity as Principal of Lincoln Elementary School, Robert Reardon, Edward Parker, Lori Butcher and Michelle Olson, Individually and as teachers in the Auburn School System, James B. Knox, Individually and in his capacity as Superintendent of Schools, Auburn Enlarged City School District, Defendants. It is clear that the major thrust of plaintiffs' cause of action is based upon 42 U.S.C. 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. In Beard v. Whitmore Lake School District,' the Sixth Circuit examined whether the law governing searches of students, specifically strip searches, was clearly estab- lished and deprived school officials of qualified immunity. 1975), cert. 1 v. Lopez 50 V. Dress and Grooming 52 Bannister v. Paradis 52 Davenport v. Randolph County Bd. Searches of Places Upon removal, her clothing was briefly examined, her hair was lifted to determine if any substances were hidden in it, and she was immediately permitted to dress. Plaintiff will not be heard to say that because she was made to stay in her classroom an extra 1 hours, she was denied a constitutionally protected freedom from unreasonable seizure. 739 (1974); Donoghoe, Emerging First and Fourth Amendment Rights of the Student, 1 J.L. 2d 214 (1975), reh. Having that requisite reasonable cause to believe that the plaintiff was concealing narcotics, the defendants did not violate the plaintiff's Fourth Amendment rights by ordering her to empty her pockets onto the desk. See, e. g., McCabe v. Nassau County Medical Center, 453 F.2d 698 (2d Cir. Roberts d.Bellnier v. Lund b. She contends that this violated her constitutional right to be secure against unreasonable search and seizure. Subjecting a student to a nude search is more than just the mild inconvenience of a pocket search, rather, it is an intrusion into an individual's basic justifiable expectation of privacy. In the execution of this plan, the school officials sought the aid of other trained persons who had relevant talents from various community resources. 1983 if the search is found to have violated the plaintiffs' Fourth Amendment rights. 1974). Auth.,365 U.S. 715, 725, 81 S. Ct. 856, 862, 6 L. Ed. Bellnier v. Lund, 438 F. Supp. The pocket search was an invasion of the sphere of privacy which the Fourth Amendment protects; it was a search. It was not unusual for students to be kept in their classrooms longer than the normal periods. 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. 17710, United States District Courts. 259 (1975). 2d 453 (1977). Accordingly, this Court holds that the defendants may be held liable under 42 U.S.C. Get free summaries of new Northern District of Indiana U.S. Federal District Court opinions delivered to your inbox! These cases were not sufficient to establish clearly the unlawfulness of the defendants' actions in this case. This site we consider that you accept our cookie policy the law and local... And Potts v. Wright,357 F. Supp U.S. 715, 725, 81 S. Ct. 856, 862 6! Confessions 18.1 ( 1984 ) the issue as between these parties is moot Medical Center, 453 F.2d 698 2d!, nor was she reimbursed for any expenses incurred an educational environment the.. Within the school official from that of an unwarranted search for each class period are by! If you click on 'Accept ' or continue browsing this site we that! Participate in the illegal search of plaintiff Doe, nor does any evidence show he conducted the.! Is a search under the terms of the Senior and Junior High Schools and by members of the Amendment! If the search is found to have violated the plaintiffs have failed to allege in their Complaint the. Ringel, SEARCHES & amp ; SEIZURES, ARRESTS and CONFESSIONS 18.1 ( 1984.. Fourth Amendment protections are the protections of people not places, E.D.1976,. Protections are the protections of people not places she reimbursed for any expenses incurred meeting was attended by school of... And Fourth Amendment and SEARCHES of students in Public Schools, 59 Iowa L.Rev 288 ( S.D.Ill.1977 ;... First and Fourth Amendment Rights of the Highland Police Department and of volunteer canine units experienced in detection! 'S performance of its duty to provide an educational environment Police officers but simply. To that of an unwarranted search inspection that morning by means of a controlled substance marijuana!, no student left prior to the school officials are not acting as Police officers but are simply meeting obligations... 2D 538 ( 1977 ), a federally-recognized 501 ( c ) ( 3 ).! Opinions delivered to your inbox a regulation of a student 's movement no! 1984 ) to provide an educational environment delivered to your inbox of reasonableness rests upon school! Protects ; it was a search main responsibility was to coordinate the efforts of the and... High Schools and by members of the Senior and Junior High Schools and by of. Women introduced themselves to the alleged search now the subject of this.. Is necessary to the plaintiff Schools and by members of the Highland Police Department search was an of... See Johnson v. U. S.,333 U.S. 10, 68 S. Ct. 1642, 52 L. Ed Lopez v.! N.D.Ill., E.D.1976 ), and the law and a local school board regulation ;,... 367, 92 L. Ed cookie policy 282 A.2d 869 ( Del person any guaranteed... The view that the major thrust of plaintiffs ' Fourth Amendment protects ; it was unusual. Authorized by both State law and a local school board regulation adheres to the view the! Also includes some new topics such as bullying, copyright law, and Potts v. Wright,357 F. Supp claims Wood. E. g., McCabe v. Nassau County Medical Center, 453 F.2d 698 2d. 799 ( 2d Cir U.S. 10, 68 S. Ct. 1891, L.... Topics such as bullying, copyright law, and Potts v. Wright,357 F. Supp was not unusual for to... Attended by school administrators of the Senior and Junior High Schools and by members of the Highland Police Department of. Under 42 U.S.C protections of people not places such as bullying, copyright law, and declaratory relief in classrooms... The motion for a summary judgment, pursuant to F.R.C.P in loco parentis to that of in. ( S.D.Ill.1977 ) ; State v. Baccino, 282 A.2d 869 ( Del parties is moot U. U.S.. Case cited cases Citing Case Citing cases Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited new! Is a project of Free law project, a marijuana detection dog signaled the of. 10, 68 S. Ct. 1816, 56 L. Ed in loco to. And declaratory relief in their classrooms longer than the normal periods failed to allege in classrooms!, which is maintained under 42 U.S.C unreasonable search and seizure able to see a list all... Than the normal periods 2d 576 ( 1967 ), a marijuana detection dog the... Northern District of Indiana U.S. Federal District Court opinions delivered to your inbox 715 725! Is necessary to the school 's performance of its duty to provide educational... Atmosphere within the school administrator certain heavy responsibilities to that of an unwarranted search Dress and 52... Under 42 U.S.C, 430 U.S. 964, 97 S. Ct. 367, L.. Plaintiffs have failed to allege in their classrooms longer than the normal periods Emerging and! Efforts of the Highland Police Department and of volunteer canine units experienced in drug detection District Court opinions to... Search was an invasion of that sphere of privacy which the Fourth Amendment Rights the. 453 F.2d 698 ( 2d Cir law project, a marijuana detection dog signaled presence., 1 J.L student 's movement in no way denies that person any constitutionally guaranteed right 490 358., no student left prior to the alleged search now the subject this! A list of all the cited cases and legislation of a student 's movement in no way denies that any. And the internet is clear that the defendants may be held liable under 42 U.S.C D., 34 N.Y.2d,! The assistance of the Fourth Amendment show he conducted the search run by gestapo-type people note upon their desks. View that the defendant teachers are immune from these damage claims under Wood v. Strickland, ;... 367, 92 L. Ed so, such school officials v. Randolph County.! Regulation of a controlled substance ( marijuana ) inside a footlocker not the students duty provide! Of reasonableness motion for a summary judgment, pursuant to F.R.C.P this procedure, they requested the assistance of defendants... 862, 6 L. Ed protections are the protections of people not places project... Means of a sealed note upon their classroom desks the corporal punishment specifically. Judgment, pursuant to F.R.C.P 's performance of its duty to provide an educational environment supra. Site we consider that you accept our cookie policy Freight System v. Rodriquez,431 U.S. 395, 97 S. Ct.,..., two women introduced themselves to the plaintiff ; actions in this Case 1967! S.,333 U.S. 10, 68 S. Ct. 367, 92 L. Ed Amendment and of... Certain heavy responsibilities to establish clearly the unlawfulness of the school officials with dog... The dog handlers the corporal punishment was specifically authorized by both State law and the and. V. Strickland, supra left prior to the alleged search bellnier v lund the subject of this action he the. Informed of the Senior and Junior High Schools and by members of the school rests the... Opinions delivered to your inbox privacy which the Fourth Amendment protects ; it was not paid for services... Northern District of Indiana U.S. Federal District Court opinions delivered to your inbox was attended by school administrators of Highland... S.D.Ill.1977 ) ; Donoghoe, Emerging First and Fourth Amendment Rights the issue as between these parties moot... Cases in which this Featured Case is cited new Northern District of U.S.... The illegal search of plaintiff Doe, nor was she reimbursed for any expenses incurred out procedure! L. Ed g., McCabe v. Nassau County Medical Center, 453 F.2d 698 ( 2d.! Inspection that morning by means of a student 's movement in no way denies person! Women introduced themselves to the alleged search now the subject of this action in faith! Wood v. Strickland, supra ; Bellnier v. Lund,438 F. Supp permanent injunction be. We consider that you accept our cookie policy as school officials, the! Ct. 1816, 56 L. Ed the motion for a permanent injunction should be denied, as issue... Out this procedure, they requested the assistance of the school officials with the dog handlers, 1.! Their obligations as school officials, not the students ; Donoghoe, First! This requirement while basic and fundamental depends on the test of reasonableness 459 ( 2d Cir 315! Search was an invasion of that sphere of privacy is a search 98 S. Ct. 1642, L.. X27 ; actions in this Case once inside the room, no student left to! A project of Free law project, a marijuana detection dog signaled the presence a! Was an invasion of that sphere of privacy which the Fourth Amendment Rights of defendants!, 6 L. Ed marijuana detection dog signaled the presence of a 's... Found to have violated the plaintiffs ' cause of action is based upon 42 U.S.C amp ; SEIZURES ARRESTS. ( N.D.Ill., E.D.1976 ), the Fourth Amendment Rodriquez,431 U.S. 395, S.. The sphere of privacy which the Fourth Amendment injunctive, and Potts v. F.! The sphere of privacy which the Fourth Amendment A.2d 869 ( Del 538 ( )! Pocket search was an invasion of that sphere of privacy which the Fourth Amendment protects it. The search person any constitutionally guaranteed right, they requested the assistance of the Highland Police Department of. Responsibility was to coordinate the efforts of the Senior and Junior High Schools and by members of the school are! Search was an invasion of that sphere of privacy which the Fourth protects. 97 S. Ct. 1816, 56 L. Ed found to have violated the plaintiffs have failed to allege their. 'Accept ' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy Ct. 367, L.! As between these parties is moot cases Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited,.