Proposal For Drug-Sniffing Dog At School Draws Blumenthal’s Attention

By John Voket

Connecticut’s Attorney General is interested in seeing whether Newtown’s Board of Education will support bringing drug-sniffing dogs into some local schools as a deterrent to illegal drug use.

Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal said Wednesday afternoon he would keep tabs on the school board’s discussions on the matter, to see if any eventual policy might serve as a precedent for other school districts throughout the state.

The Board of Education was scheduled to introduce the topic Thursday, July 6, at a meeting at the Reed Intermediate School media center at 7 pm.

“We would have to see how the dogs are used,” Mr Blumenthal said. “Those facts are crucial to evaluate the constitutionality [of any policy].”

Mr Blumenthal said he was unaware of any other school districts that had a permanent policy involving the use of drug-sniffing canine patrols, but an Internet search revealed numerous schools and districts across the country that have either adopted permanent policies on the practice or use the measure as an interim strategic tactic for discouraging students from bringing any type of illegal drugs onto school grounds.

In canvassing numerous web resources on the subject, it was found that Supreme Court rulings do give authorities the discretion to conduct searches for drugs and weapons on school property without violating Fourth Amendment protections against illegal search and seizure. Warrantless searches of student property are legal so long as there is a “reasonable suspicion” of illegality. For example, schools may administer random drug tests to student athletes without the students’ consent.

In addition, case law has favored the interpretation that students, by attending school, give “implied consent” for warrantless searches, similar to travelers at airports who must submit to X-ray machines and metal detectors.

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), however, has long argued such searches violate the Fourth Amendment, which protects against unreasonable searches and seizures.

The US Supreme Court has not ruled specifically on locker searches, but in 1985 the high court took on a case involving the search for cigarettes in a student’s purse. In that case, the court said schools act in loco parentis (in place of parents), and that for public school students neither the warrant requirement nor the probable cause standard apply.

On the issue of school searches, the United States Supreme Court has held that the standard for school authorities searches is reasonable suspicion (see New Jersey v. T.L.O., 469 US 325 (1985)). Courts are not consistent about the standard required when police officers conduct the search. Some have held that a higher standard is required while others have not.

Newtown Police Chief Michael Kehoe said that his department has a legal right to institute drug dog canvassing of school property if there is a reasonable suspicion that drugs might be present. But he is loathe to pursue the initiative if the Board of Education will not endorse or cooperate with such a program.

“Generally the police department is willing to work with the Board of Education. We want to be partners, because we certainly have the same interests, to provide a safe and secure school environment,” Chief Kehoe said.

Newtown’s top cop said the practice of bringing drug-sniffing dogs into schools to conduct general sweeps of lockers and vehicles in parking lots has worked in other communities, and suggested that even a policy suggesting the occasional unannounced arrival of a drug sniffing police dog, “could certainly serve as a deterrent.”

But Chief Kehoe said it would be up to the board to fashion a policy determining whether the use of drug-sniffing dogs would be a permanent regular option, or a one-time or pilot program to test its effectiveness.

Sarah Beier, president of the townwide PTA Council, said she supports the idea, and that leaders of the middle school and high school PTAs, the likely locations where the dogs might be employed, would endorse the program if the school board agrees to it.

In an email that was circulated widely to PTA members and others in the community, as well as to The Bee, former middle school PTA president Anna Wiedemann wrote: “Some of the board members feel it is a violation of the rights of the students to bring in a dog. I disagree — I think it’s a violation not to allow the dogs to come in. It’s a violation of my son’s rights as well as all the students to not feel safe coming to school. I think that they are all entitled to come to a school that is drug free. I also look at it as a way to keep everyone safe.”

The attorney general said the issue is complicated both in terms of legal and practical applications, but said the Fourth Amendment rights regarding searches is based on very specific facts. Mr Blumenthal said if those specifics are taken into consideration when crafting a policy on the matter, Newtown officials would find that even in certain cases, utilizing drug-sniffing dogs to determine probable cause to search individual students and their possessions including book bags and back packs might be appropriate.

“If there is what is termed as ‘an individualized reasonable suspicion, a search of a person [or their possessions] would be constitutional,” Mr Blumenthal said. “I think the Newtown school board probably has a very good lawyer working with them, but my office would certainly be available to them to help [in developing a policy]. We are also interested in seeing how this develops because it could be a precedent-setting policy that we could apply to other schools in Connecticut that are interested in using the practice.”

Reached at his home Thursday morning, school board member Paul Mangiafico said he was surprised an official in such a high public office was interested in the outcome of local discussions on the subject, and that he was expecting some lively discussion.

“It’s premature to say where I fall on the position,” Mr Mangiafico said. “I’m sure legitimate concerns will be expressed to use and not use the dog. But I’m reserving any further comment until I hear the pros and cons.”

Legislative Council Education Subcommittee Chair Patricia Llodra said that drugs don’t belong in the school setting.

“First and foremost, schools must be safe places where all students can learn and thrive in an environment that is conducive to good choice making and free — as much as is possible — from conditions and situations that interfere with learning and healthy development,” she said. “Achieving that state is very difficult and I believe that our school leaders in Newtown have exercised excellent judgment and caution. The overarching responsibility to ensure that students are safe in our school might justify further action, including the use of dogs.”

Ms Llodra concluded that certain privacy rights of persons in the school setting are not more important or compelling than the need to ensure a safe environment.

“So, I say, good for our BOE and administration to be forthright, honest, and open in this discussion,” Ms Llodra added.

Several email requests made to other school board members including Chairperson Elaine McClure seeking comment on the subject were not answered as the newspaper went to press Thursday morning. Several attempts to reach Ms McClure by phone were also unsuccessful.