# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls

For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

No. 1 2- 13 82

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

Mel lo ny Burl is on , as p aren t an d n ex t fr ie nd of C M an d HM , m in or s; Dou gl as
Bu rli so n, as pa ren t an d n ex t fr ie nd of C M an d HM , m in or s

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff s - Ap pe ll an ts

v.

Sp rin gf ie ld Pu bl ic Sch oo ls ; No rm Rid de r; R on Sn od gr as s; James Arn ot t

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an ts - App el le es

__ __ __ __ __ __

App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t

fo r th e Weste rn Dis tri ct of M is so ur i - Sp rin gf ie ld

__ __ __ __ __ __

Su bm it te d: Jan ua ry

15 , 20 13

Fil ed : M arch 4, 2 01 3

__ __ __ __ __ __

Befo re LOKEN, MURPHY, and COLLOTON, Cir cu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __

MURP HY, Circ ui t J ud ge

.

Mel lo ny an d Dou gl as Bu rli so n br ou gh t th is act io n on be ha lf of th ei r so n C.M.

un de r 42 U.S.C. § 19 83 an d th e Mi ss ou ri Co ns ti tu t i o n
, a l l eg in g th at Sp rin gf ie ld

Pu bl ic Sch oo ls (th e di st ric t), su pe rin te nd en t Nor m Ri dd er, pr in ci pa l Ro n Sn od gr as s,

an d sh eri ff Ja m es Arn ot t vi ol at ed C.M.'s co ns ti tu ti on al rig ht s by br ie fly se pa rat in g

hi m fro m hi s ba ck

pa ck du rin g a dr ug do g ex erci se in hi s hi gh sc ho ol cl as sr oo m

. Thedi st ric t cou rt gr an te d su m m ary jud gm en t to th e di st ric t, it s of fic ia ls

, an d th e sh eri ff 1

aft er co nc lu di ng th at th e po li ci es us ed du rin g th e dr ug do g vi si t "ap p ear[ ed ] to be

reas on ab le an d no t in an y way a de pr iv at io n of a fed eral rig ht ." The Bu rli so ns ap pe al

,

an d we a ffi rm

.

I.

C.M. was a fres hm an at t he di st ric t's Cen tra l Hi gh Sch oo l d ur in g th e 20 09 to

20 10 sc ho ol y ear. In Apr i l 20 10 two de pu ti es fro m th e Green e Co un ty sh eri ff's

de pa rtment arri ve d at th e sc ho ol wit h two dr ug do g s t o c o n d u ct a br ie f su rv ey of

ran do m ly se le ct ed area s in th e bu il di ng

. The su rv ey was co n d u c t e d i n acco rd an ce

wit h sc ho ol po li ce se rv ic es 's st an da rd op erat in g pr oc ed ur e nu m be r 3.4 .1. On th e da y

of th e dr ug de te ct io n act iv it y , C.M. was in fo rm ed th at hi s sc ie nc e cl as sr oo m ha d be en

ch os en to be sn iff

ed by a dr ug do g. The do g wa s h e l d b y a de pu ty sh eri ff th irt y to

fif ty feet fro m C.M.'s cl as sr oo m whi le a sc ho ol po li ce of fic er in st ru ct ed th e st ud en ts

an d te ach er to le av e th e ro om

. All ba ck pa ck s, pu rs es
, an d ot he r pe rs on al it em s were

to be le ft be hi nd

. C.M. le f t h i s ba ck pa ck an d bo ok s in th e ro om an d wen t in to th e

ha ll way wher e h e co ul d no lo ng er see his be lo ng in gs

. He al le ge s th at hi s b ack pa ck

was ful ly zip pe d wh en he lef t t he roo m

.

Onc e th e ro om was cl eare d of st ud en ts

, a de pu ty sh eri ff to ok th e dr ug do g in to

C.M.'s cl as sr oo m

. Vid eo fo ot ag e sh ows th at th e de pu ty sh eri ff an d dr ug do g le ft th e

cl as sr oo m aft er ap pr ox im at el y fiv e m in ut es

. Dur in g th at ti m e th e dr ug d o g di d no t

al ert to an y th in g. Alt ho ug h di st ric t pe rs on ne l an d th e de pu ty sh eri ff who ha nd le d th e

dr ug do g te st ifi ed th at no st ud en t po ss es si on s were se arch ed in th is cl as sr oo m
, C.M.

st at ed th at aft er he wen t ba ck in si de he "fe lt li ke th e po ck et s [o f hi s ba ck pa ck ] ha d

be en un zi pp ed an d s tu ff."

The Hon or ab le Ri ch ard E. Dor r, Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Co ur t fo r th e W es te rn 1

Dis tri ct of M is so ur i.

-2

-The di rect or of th e sc ho ol po li ce s e r v i c e s de pa rtment te st ifi ed th at he ha d

co nt act ed th e Green e Co un ty Sh eri ff's Dep a r t men t i n Octo be r 20 09 to req ue st th at

dr ug de te ct io n do gs vi si t each of th e di st ric t's hi gh sc ho ol s du rin g th e 20 09 to 20 10

sc ho ol y ear. Sh eri ff de pa rtment po li cy 5- 50 -5 au th or iz es th e us e of can in es for th e
"[r ]and om

ex pl or at or y sn iff

in g of lu gg ag e, pa ck ag es or ot he r in an im at e ob jects

. . . in pu bl ic faci li ti es ." Afte r sh eri ff Arn ot t rece iv ed th e in it ia l req ue st fro m th e di rect or
, he as si gn ed a cap ta in to co or di na te th e us e of dr ug do gs in th e di st ric t hi gh sc ho ol s.

Tha t was sh eri ff Arn ot t's so le co nt act wit h th e dr ug de te ct io n pr oc ed ur e, an d he was

no t p res en t at C.M.'s sch oo l d ur in g t he vi si t o f th e d ru g d og s i n Ap ril 20 10

.

The dru g d og vi si t t o C .M.'s hi gh sch oo l was do ne in acco rd an ce wi th Bo ard

of Edu cat io n po li cy JF G an d sc ho ol po li ce se rv ic es 's st an da rd op erat in g pr oc ed ur e

3.4 .1. Pol ic y JF G was en act ed to "b al an ce each st ud en t's rig ht to pr iv acy" wit h "th e

ne ed to m ai nt ai n an app ro pr ia te le arn in g env iro nm en t." It p erm it s s tu de nt pro pe rty

to be "s cree ne d in co nju nc ti on wit h la w en fo rcem en t by us in g an im al s t r a i ne d to

lo cat e an d/ or de te ct weap on s an d pr oh ib it ed dr ug s." The sc ho ol po li ce se rv ic es 's

pr oc ed ur e al lo ws dr

ug do gs to be us ed at th e di st ric t's se co nd ary sc ho ol bu il di ng s "t o

pr ot ect th e sa fet y an d he al th of th e [d ]ist ric t's facu lt y , st aff an d st ud en ts ." It pe rm it s

do gs to sn iff st ud en t lo ck ers
, de sk s, back pa ck s, an d si m il ar it em s whe n th ey are no t

in th e p os se ss io n o f st ud en ts . The p ro ced ur e st at es th at "o nc e a d ru g d et ect io n d og

ha s co m pl et ed sn iff

in g an area
, th e do g ha nd le r an d dr ug d e t e c t i o n do g wil l ret ire

fro m th e area ." The di rect or o f s c ho ol po li ce se rv ic es ha s fu rth er cl ari fie d th at a

st ud en t's po ss es si on s wil l on ly be se arch ed if a dr ug do g ha s twi ce al ert ed on th e

sa m e p ro pe rty.

Dis tri ct pe rs on ne l crea te d pr oc ed ur es fo r dr ug de te ct io n su rv ey s li ke th e Apr il

20 10 vi si t to C.M.'s cl as sr oo m in or de r to ad dr es s a kn own dr u g p r o b l e m i n th e

di st ric t. C.M. te st ifi ed th at he kn ew a lo t of hi gh sc ho ol st ud en ts were us in g dr ug s.

Dis tri ct reco rd s sh ow th at th e n um be r of dru g in ci de nt s in th e di st ric t fro m 20 00 to

20 11 ran ge d fro m 89 to 20 5 pe r y ear. A sc ho ol po li ce of fic er fro m C.M.'s hi gh

-3

-sc ho ol te st ifi e d t h a t he "fr eq ue nt ly rece iv ed rep or ts fro m st ud en ts

, pa ren ts

, an d

te ach ers ab ou t th e us e of il le ga l an d pr es cri pt io n dr ug s in th e sc ho ol ." He ha nd le d

dr ug rel at ed i n c i d e n t s o n av erag e th ree or m or e ti m es pe r week

, le ad in g hi m to

be li ev e th at "t he re was an d i s a d ru g p ro bl em " at th e h ig h s ch oo l.

The Bu rli so ns fil ed th is act io n ag ai ns t th e di st ric t on be ha lf of th ei r so n C.M. 2

u n d e r 42 U.S.C. § 19 83 an d art ic le I, se ct io n 15 of th e Mi ss ou ri Co ns ti tu t i o n

. Su pe rin te nd en t Nor m Ri dd er, pr in ci pa l Ro n Sn od gr as s, an d she ri ff Ja m es A rn ott were

al so na m ed as de fen da nt s in th ei r in di vi du al an d of fic ia l cap aci ti es

. The B u r l i so ns

so ug ht a de cl arat io n th at C.M.'s co ns ti tu ti on al rig ht s ha d be en vi ol at ed by th e se arch

an d se iz ur e of hi s pr op ert y , a pe rm an en t in jun ct io n, act ua l a nd no m in al da m ag es
,

at to rn ey fees , and ot he r ap pr op ria te rel ie f.

On cro ss mo t i o n s fo r su m m ary jud gm en t, th e di st ric t co ur t gr an te d it to th e

di st ri c t a n d t he of

fic ia ls

, co nc lu di ng th at th e "wri tt en po li ci es an d pr oc ed ur es

. . .

ap pe ar t o b e reas on ab le an d no t in an y way a de pr iv at io n o f a fed eral rig ht ." W hi le

th ere "m ay [h av e be en ] an is su e as to whe th er C.M.'s be lo ng in gs were s e arch ed "

be cau se C.M. ha d al le ge d th at hi s ba ck pa ck ha d be en un zi pp ed whe n he ret ur ne d to

th e cl as sr oo m
, no ne of th e na m ed de fen da nt s co ul d be li ab le be cau se t he y ha d no t

p e r f o r med th e al le ge d se arch an d ne it he r C.M. no r hi s ba ck pa ck ha d be en se iz ed

. Ri dd er, Sn od gr as s, an d Arn ot t were no t in di vi du al ly li ab le be cau se th e y h a d no t

pa rti ci pa te d in an y al le ge d c on st it ut io na l vi ol at io n or fai le d to pr op erl y su pe rv is e

su bo rd in a t e s

. The cl ai m s ag ai ns t Ri dd er an d Sn od gr as s in th ei r of fic ia l cap aci ti es

were di sm is se d as "re du nd an t to th e cl ai m s ag ai ns t th e [d ]ist ric t," an d Arn ot t was no t

li a b l e in hi s of

fic ia l cap aci ty be cau se no th in g su gg es te d th at he ha d no ti ce of an

un co ns ti tu ti on al po li cy

.

The Bu rli so ns al so fil ed on be ha lf of t he ir d au gh te r H.M., bu t th ey st at e th at 2

he r cl ai m s are m oo t "b ecau se sh e is no lo ng er a st ud en t an d

. . . [h er] on ly cl ai m s were fo r de cl arat or y an d in

jun ct iv e rel ie f." A su it by an ot he r pa ren t was di sm is se d fo r fai lu re t o p ro se cu te

.

-4

-The Bu rli so ns ap pe al

, arg ui ng th at th e di st ric t co ur t erre d in c o nc lu di ng th at

C.M.'s be lo ng in gs ha d no t be en se iz ed

, th at su pe rin te nd en t R i d d e r a nd pr in ci pa l

Sn od gr as s were no t li ab le in th ei r of fic ia l cap aci ti es
, an d th at sh eri ff Arn ot t was no t

li ab le in hi s in di vi du al or of fic ia l cap aci ti es

. The Bu rli so ns po in t ou t ho wev er th at

th ey "h av e no t pu rs ue d a cl ai m th at an un co ns ti tu ti on al se arch of C.M.'s be lo ng in gs "

oc cu rred si nc e "t he pr op er pa rti es are no t in th is act io n." The y al so do no t ap pe al th e

di st ric t co ur t's de te rm in at io n th at Sn od gr as s an d Ri dd er are no t li ab le in th ei r

in di vi du al cap aci ti es

. See Ahl be rg v. Ch ry sl er C o r p

. , 48 1 F.3 d 63 0, 63 4 (8 th Ci r.

20 07 ).

II.

The Bu rli so ns fir st arg ue th at th e di st ric t co ur t erre d in gr a n t i n g su m m ary
jud gm en t to th e di st ric t as well as to Ri dd er an d Sn od gr as s in th ei r of fic ia l cap aci ti es

. The y co nt en d th at C.M.'s pr op ert y was se iz ed in vi ol at io n of th e Fo ur th Am en dm en t

an d art ic le I, se ct io n 15 of th e Mi ss ou ri Co ns ti tu ti on
, reg ard le ss o f w h et he r th e

s e i zu re was co m

pl et ed in acco rd an ce wit h sc ho ol po li ce se rv ic es pr oc ed ur e 3.4

. 1

. The di st ric t co ur t's gr an t of su m m ary jud gm en t to th e di st ric t an d t h e of fic ia ls is

rev ie wed de no vo

. Avi dAi r Heli co pt er Su pp ly, In c. v. Ro ll s- Ro y ce Co rp
., 66 3 F.3 d

96 6, 97 1 (8 th Ci r. 20 11 ). Su m m ary jud gm en t is ap pr op ria te whe n th ere is no ge nu in e

is su e of m at eri al fact an d th e m ov in g pa rty is en ti tl ed to jud gm en t as a m at te r of la w.

Id

.

The Bu rli so ns ' cl ai m s ag ai ns t Ri dd er an d Sn od gr as s in th ei r of fic ia l cap aci ti es

are in real it y cl ai m s ag ai ns t th e di st ric t. See Jo hn so n v. Out bo ard Mar in e Co rp
., 17 2

F.3 d 53 1, 53 5 (8 th Ci r. 19 99 ). To su ccee d on th ei r § 19 83 cl ai m ag ai ns t th e di st ric t

th e Bu rli so ns m

us t pro ve th at th e d is tri ct act ed un de r co lo r of st at e la w in a m an ne r

th at de pr iv ed C.M. of a co ns ti tu ti on al ly pr ot ect ed fed eral rig ht

. Van Zee v. Han so n,

63 0 F.3 d 11 26

, 11 28 (8 th Ci r. 20 11 ). The Bu rli so ns al so rai se a st at e co ns ti tu ti on al

cl ai m un de r art ic le I, se ct io n 15 of th e Mi ss ou ri Co ns ti tu ti on whi ch "i s pa ral le l to an d

-5

-co -ex te ns iv e wit h th e Fo ur th Am en dm en t." St at e v. Jo hn so n, 31 6 S.W .3d 39 0, 39 5

(Mo . Ct. Ap p. 2 01 0)

.

The Fo ur th Am en dm en t pro te ct s th e "ri gh t of t he pe op le to be sec ur e in th ei r

pe rs on s, ho us es
, pa

pe rs
, an d ef

fe ct s, ag ai ns t un reas on ab le se arch es an d se iz ur es ." The

Fo ur te en th A m en dm en t ex te nd s th is co ns ti tu ti on al gu aran te e to se arch es an d se iz ur es

b y s t a t e of

fic ers
, Vern on ia Sch

. Dis t. 47 J v. Acto n, 51 5 U.S. 64 6, 65 2 (1 9 9 5 )

, in cl ud in g pu bl ic s c ho ol of fic ia ls

, Doe v. Lit tl e Ro ck Sch

. Dis t., 38 0 F.3 d 34 9, 35 2

(8 th Ci r. 20 04 ). A se iz ur e o f p r o p ert y un de r th e Fo ur th Am en dm en t oc cu rs whe n

th ere is "s om e m ean in gf

ul i n t e r f e ren ce wit h an in di vi du al 's po ss es so ry in te res ts in

th at pr op ert y ." Dix on v. Lower y , 30 2 F.3 d 85 7, 86 2 (8 th Ci r. 20 02 ) (q uo ta ti on m ark s

an d ci ta ti on om it te d)

. Not "ev ery go ve rn m en ta l in te rfer en ce wit h a pe rs on 's pr op ert y

co n s t i t u t e s a se iz ur e of th at pr op ert y un de r th e Co ns ti tu ti on ." Uni te d St at es v. Va

Leri e, 42 4 F .3d 69 4, 7 02 (8t h C ir. 2 00 5) (en ba nc ). W e co nc lu de d, fo r ex am pl e, in

Va Leri e th at th e rem ov al of ch eck ed lu gg ag e fro m a bu s by a go ve rn m en t ag en t was

no t a se iz ur e be cau se it di d no t de la y th e pe rs on 's tra ve l o r i mp a c t hi s free do m of

m ov em en t, affe ct th e ti m el y de li ve ry of lu gg ag e, or de pr iv e th e carr ie r of cu st od y of

th e ch eck ed ba g. Id . at 7 08

.

The Fo ur th Am en dm en t de man ds th at se iz ur e of pr op ert y be reas on ab le

, bu t

"wh at is reas on ab le de pe nd s on t h e co nt ex t." New Je rs ey v. T.L.O.

, 46 9 U.S. 32 5,

33 7 (1 98 5)

. A s tu de nt 's pr iv acy in te res t "i s li m it ed in a pu bl ic sc ho ol en vi ro nm en t

whe re th e St at e is res po ns ib le fo r m ai nt ai ni ng di sc ip li ne
, he al th

, an d sa fet y ." Bd

. of

Edu c. of In de p. Sch

. Dis t. No. 92 of Po tt awat om ie Cn ty. v. Earl s, 53 6 U.S. 82 2, 83 0

(2 00 2) . Stu de nt s d o re ta in Fo ur th Am en dm en t rig ht s at sch oo l, T.L.O., 469 U.S. at

33 8, bu t th os e rig ht s "ar e di ffer en t in pu bl ic sc ho ol s th an el se whe re," Acto n, 51 5 U.S.

at 65 6. Tha t is be cau se sc ho ol s ha ve a "l eg it im at e ne ed to m ai nt ai n an en vi ro nm en t

in whi ch le arn in g can ta ke pl ace." T.L.O.

, 46 9 U.S. at 34 0. Thu s, a reas on ab le ne ss

in qu iry m us t co ns id er sc ho ol s' "cu st od ia l an d tu te la ry res po ns ib il it y fo r ch il dr en " an d

-6

-th e fact th at st ud en ts ha ve a " l e ss er ex pe ct at io n of pr iv acy th an m em be rs of th e

po pu la ti on ge ne ral ly." Acto n, 5 15 U.S. at 6 56 –5 7 (c it at io n o m it te d)

.

To det erm in e whe th er a sc ho ol 's act io ns vi ol at ed th e Fo ur th Am en dm en t, the

Su pr em e Co ur t ha s "co nd uc te d a fact -s pe ci fic b a l a n ci ng of th e in tru si on on th e

ch il dr en ' s Fo ur

th A m en dm en t ri ght s ag ai nst the pr om oti on of le gi ti m at e go ve rn m en ta l

in te res ts ." Earl s, 53 6 U.S. at 83 0. In c on si de rin g th e co ns ti tu ti on al it y of a sc ho ol

po li cy req ui rin g su sp ic io nl es s dr ug te st in g of st ud en ts who pa rti c i p a t e in

ex tra cu rri cu la r act iv i t i e s
, th e Su pr em e Co ur t co ns id ered "t he na tu re of th e pr iv acy

in te res t al le ge dl y

co m pr om is ed ," "t he ch arac te r of th e in tru si on im

po se d," an d " th e

na tu re an d im m ed ia cy of th e go ve rn m en t's co nc ern s an d th e effi cacy of th e Po li cy in

m eet in g th em ." Id

. at 83 0, 83 2, 83 4. In Earl s, th e Co ur t co nc lu de d th at th e sc ho ol 's

po li cy was "a reas on ab le m ean s of fu rth eri ng

. . . im po rta nt in te res t[s ] in pr ev en ti ng

an d d et erri ng dru g u se am on g i ts sch oo lc hi ld ren ." Id . at 8 38

.

Ass um in g th at C.M.'s be lo ng in gs were se iz ed in th is cas e wh e n th e sc ho ol

po li ce of fic er di rect ed th at th ey be le ft in th e cl as sr oo m fo r ap pr ox im at el y f i ve

m in ut e s w h i l e th e dr ug do g su rv ey oc cu rred , we co nc lu de th at th e se iz ur e was pa rt

of a reas on ab le pr oc ed ur e to m ai nt ai n th e sa fet y an d se cu rit y of st ud en ts at th e sc ho ol

. S e e T. L. O., 46 9 U.S. at 33 9. Si nc e C.M. is a hi gh sc ho ol st ud en t, he ha s a " l e s s e r

ex pe ct at io n of pr iv acy" th an th e ge ne ral pu bl ic

. Acto n, 5 1 5 U .S. at 65 7 (ci ta ti on

om it te d)

. He was on ly se pa rat ed fro m hi s be lo ng in gs fo r a sh or t pe rio d of ti m e whi le

th e de pu ty sh eri ff sa fel y an d effi ci en tl y co m pl et ed th e d r u g do g walk ab ou t.

Req ui rin g st ud en ts to be se pa r a t ed fro m th ei r pr op ert y du rin g su ch a reas on ab le

pr oc ed ur e av oi ds po te nt ia l em ba rras sm en t to st ud en ts

, en su res th at st ud en ts are no t

t arg et ed by do gs
, an d de crea se s th e po ss ib il it y of da ng ero us in te ract io ns be t w e e n

do gs an d ch il dr en

. See Hor to n v. Goo se Cree k In de p. Sch

. Dis t., 69 0 F.2 d 47 0, 47 9

(5 th Cir . 19 82 ).

-7

-C.M.'s free do m s were no t un reas on ab ly cu rta il ed by hi s br ie f se pa rat io n fro m

hi s po ss es si on s be cau se he no rm al ly wou ld no t ha ve be en ab le to acce ss or m ov e hi s

ba ck pa ck du rin g cl as s ti m e wit ho ut pe rm is si on

. In Lit tl e Ro ck

, 38 0 F.3 d at 35 1, we

co nc lu de d th at a sc h o o l ' s se arch po li cy was un co ns ti tu ti on al whe re it req ui red al l

st ud en ts to le av e th ei r be lo ng in gs in a cl as sr oo m an d al lo wed sc ho ol pe rs on ne l to

se arc h e a c h s t u d e nt 's pr op ert y

. W e no te d th at a dr ug do g pr oc ed ur e li ke th e on e

co m pl et ed in C.M.'s sc ho ol in Apr il 20 10 wou ld no t rai se th e sa m e type of

co ns ti tu ti on al is su es

. Id

. at 35 5. Tha t is be cau se su ch a dr ug do g su rv ey is

"m in im al ly in tru si ve
, an d pr ov id e[s ] an effe ct iv e m ean s fo r ad du ci ng th e req ui si te

de gr ee of in di vi du al iz ed su sp ic io n to co nd uc t fu rth er, m or e in tru si ve se arch es ." Id

. The dr ug do g pr oc ed ur e at C.M.'s sc ho ol was th e type of m in im al ly in tru si ve act iv it y

whi ch we refe ren ced in Lit tl e Ro ck

. C.M. was se pa rat ed fro m hi s ba ck pa ck on ly fo r

a sh or t pe rio d of ti m e an d sc ho ol pe rs on ne l were on ly to se arch a st ud en t's be lo ng in gs

if a dru g d og ale rte d t wice on th e sa m e p ro pe rty.

The di st ric t an d it s of

fic i a l s ha ve sh own an im m ed ia te ne ed fo r a dr ug do g

pr oc ed ur e be cau se th ere is su bs ta nt ia l ev id en c e s h o win g th ere was a dr ug pr ob le m

in di s t ric t bu il di ng s. The Su pr em e Co ur t ha s rep eat ed ly em ph as iz ed th e st ro ng

go ve rn m en t in te res t in pr ev en ti ng dr ug us e by st ud en ts

. See, e.g
., Earl s, 53 6 U.S. at

83 4. Dru g pr ob le m s in sc ho ol s are "s eri ou s in te rm s of si ze, th e ki nd s of dr ug s be in g

us ed

, an d th e co ns eq ue nc es of th at us e bo th fo r ou r ch il dr en an d th e res t of us ." Id

. at

83 9 (Bre y er, J., co nc ur rin g)

. Tha t is be cau se "d ru g us e carr ie s a va rie ty of he al th

ris ks fo r ch il dr en
, in cl ud in g de at h fro m ov erd os e." Id

. at 83 6– 37 (m ajor it y op in io n)

. C.M. te st ifi ed th at he kn ew st ud en ts at hi s sc ho ol who us ed dr ug s an d a sc ho ol po li ce

of fic er st at ed th at he be li ev ed th ere "was an d is a dr ug pr ob le m " at C.M.'s hi gh

sc ho ol

. The di stri ct al so pr ov id ed reco rd s su bs ta nt ia ti ng th e nu m be r of dr ug in ci de nt s

f r o m 2 0 00 to 20 11

. Acco rd in g to th os e reco rd s th e di st ric t ha d 15 4 dr ug rel a t e d

in ci de nt s du rin g C.M.'s fres hm an y ear. The pr oc ed ur es us ed by di st ric t pe rs on ne l an d

th e de pu ty sh eri ff at C.M.'s sc ho ol in Apr il 20 10 reas on ab ly ad dr es se d co nc ern s ov er

-8

-dr ug us ag e in sch oo l i n a m an ne r th at was m in im al ly int ru si ve to st ud en ts an d t he ir

be lo ng in gs

.

The di st ric t co ur t no te d th at a ge nu in e is su e o f mat e ria l fact m ig ht ex is t

whe th er C.M.'s be lo ng in gs were se arch ed be cau se he te st ifi ed th at hi s ba ck pa ck was

zi pp ed whe n he le ft th e ro om an d whe n "[h e] cam e ba ck

. . . [h e] fel t li ke th e po ck et s

ha d be en un zi pp ed an d st uf f." The di st ric t co ur t co nc lu d e d ho wev er th at th e

Bu rli so ns co ul d no t ch al le ng e an y al le ge d se arch be cau se th ere was no ev id en ce th at

th e na m ed co un ty or sc ho ol pe rs on ne l ha d se arch ed C.M.'s be lo ng in gs

. C.M. co ul d

no t se e in si de th e ro om
, bu t h i s p o s s es si on s were in th e lo cat io n whe re he ha d le ft

th em whe n he ret ur ne d to cl as s. Sch oo l an d co un ty pe rs on ne l te st ifi ed th at th ey di d

no t se arch C.M.'s be lo ng in gs
, an d th e reco rd do es no t rev eal who m ay ha ve to uc he d

th e zi pp er on C.M.'s ba ck pa ck

. The Bu rli so ns co nc ed e on ap pe al th at th ey are no t

pu rs ui ng th e al le ge d se arch be cau se th e "p ro pe r pa rti es [are ] no t in th is act io n." Tha t

is si gn i fic an t be cau se th e "Se arch Cl au se [o f th e Fo ur th Am en dm en t] is who ll y

di st in ct fro m th e Sei zu re Cl au se
, su ch th at co ur ts ap p l yi n g th es e cl au se s m us t

un de rs ta nd th ey pr ov id e di ffer en t pr ot ect io ns ag ai ns t go ve rn m en t co n d u c t

. " Va

Leri e, 42 4 F .3d at 7 01 (ci ti ng Seg ur a v . Uni te d S ta te s, 4 68 U.S. 79 6, 8 06 (19 84 )).

The Bu rli so ns al so arg ue th at th e se iz ur e of C.M.'s be lo ng i n g s w a s "p la in ly

il le ga l" be cau se it was no t un de r t a k en pu rs ua nt to jud ic ia l au th or it y an d was no t

su pp or te d by in di vi du al iz ed su sp ic io n. The Su pr em e Co ur t ha s sp eci fic al ly reject ed

th e ne ed to ob ta in a warra nt in a sc ho ol se tt in g, ho wev er, an d in st ead ha s st at ed th at

th e le ga li ty of Fo ur th Am en dme n t se arch es an d se iz ur es in sc ho ol "s ho ul d de pe nd

si m pl y on th e reas on ab le ne ss
, un de r al l th e ci rcu m st an ces " of th e act iv it ie s. T.L.O.

, 46 9 U.S. at 34 1. The Su p r e me C o u r t h a s al so reject ed th e id ea th at al l se arch es or

se iz ur es in a sc ho ol m

us t be su pp or te d by in di vi du al iz ed su sp ic io n. See Acto n, 51 5

U.S. a t 65 3. Als o, in Earl s, 53 6 U.S. a t 83 7, th e Co ur t de cl i n e d t o req ui re a sc ho ol

to fin d in di vi d u a l i zed su sp ic io n be fo re dr ug te st in g st ud en ts pa rti ci pa ti ng in

-9

-ex tra cu rri cu la r act iv it ie s be cau se th e sc ho ol was "at te m pt in g to pr ev en t an d de te ct

dr ug us e b y

st ud en ts ."

W e co nc lu de th at th e br ie f se pa rat io n of C.M. an d hi s b e l on gi ng s was

reas on ab le an d di d no t de pr iv e hi m of a co ns ti tu ti on al ly pr ot ect ed rig ht

. The di st ric t

co ur t th eref

or e pr op erl y gr an te d su m

m ary jud ge m en t to th e di st ric t an d to Ri dd er an d

Sn od gr as s i n t he ir o ffi ci al cap aci ti es

.

III.

The Bu rli so ns ne xt arg ue th at th e di st ric t co ur t erre d in gr a n ti ng su m m ary
jud gm en t to sh eri ff Arn ot t in hi s in di vi du al an d of fic ia l cap aci ti es

. A go ve rn m en t

o ffi ci al can be li ab le in hi s in di vi du al cap aci ty if "a cau sa l li nk to

, an d di rect

res po ns ib il it y fo r, th e de pr iv at io n of rig ht s" is sh own

. Mayorg a v. Mi ss ou ri, 44 2 F.3 d

11 28

, 11 32 (8 th Ci r. 20 06 ) (ci ta ti on om it te d)

. A su pe rv is in g of fic er "ca n be li ab le fo r

an in feri or of

fic er's co ns ti tu ti on al vi ol at io n on ly if he di rect ly pa rti ci pa te d in th e

co ns ti tu ti on al vi ol at io n, or if hi s fai lu re to tra i n or su pe rv is e th e of fen di ng act or

cau se d th e de pr iv at io n." Parr is h v. Bal l, 59 4 F.3 d 99 3, 10 0 1 ( 8 t h C i r

. 20 10 )

(q uo ta ti on m ark s an d ci ta ti on s om it te d)

. To su ccee d on a cl ai m ag ai ns t Arn ot t in hi s

of fic ia l cap aci ty th e Bu rli so ns m us t s h o w th at "a co ns ti tu ti on al vi ol at io n was

co m m it te d pu rs ua nt to an of

fic ia l 'po li cy or cu st om ' an d th at su ch 'po li cy [o r] cu st om '

was th e m ov in g fo rce be hi nd pl ai nt iff 's in jury." M.Y. v. Sp eci al Sch

. Dis t. No. 1, 54 4

F.3 d 88 5, 8 9 0 ( 8 t h C i r . 2 00 8) (ci ti ng Mo ne ll v. Dep 't of So c. Serv s., 43 6 U.S. 6 58

, 69 4– 95 ) (1 97 8) ).

The di st ric t co ur t co rrec tl y co nc lu de d th at Arn ot t is no t li ab le un de r § 19 83 in

hi s in di vi du al or of

fic ia l cap aci ty. Arn ot t di d no t pa rti ci pa te in th e dr ug do g

p r o c e du re at C.M.'s sc ho ol an d he was no t at th e sc ho ol fo r th e dr ug de te ct io n

walk ab ou t. See Parr is h, 59 4 F.3 d at 10 01

. He ha d rece iv ed a req ue st fro m th e

di rect or of sc ho ol po li ce se rv ic es in 20 09 to ha ve dr ug do gs vi si t each of th e di st ric t's

-1 0-hi gh sc ho ol s and as si gn ed th e m at te r to a cap ta in

. The res ul ti ng dr ug do g su rv ey at

C

. M

. ' s sc ho ol was co nd uc te d pu rs ua nt to pr oc ed ur es es ta bl is he d by th e sc ho ol ' s

po li ce se rv ic es an d th e sh eri ff's of fic e, an d th ere was no res ul ti ng co ns ti t u t i o n a l

de pr iv at io n. See id

. The re is al so no ev id en ce th at Arn ot t fai le d to tra in or su pe rv is e

th e de pu ti es who co nd uc te d th e dr ug do g pr oc ed ur e at C.M.'s sc ho ol

. The re ha d be en

no co mp l a i n t s r e l at ed to th e dr ug do g su rv ey s be fo re Apr il 20 10

, an d th ere is no

ev id en ce tha t th e sh eri ff's off ic e sh ou ld ha ve be li ev ed th at it s pro ced ur es or act io ns

were l ik el y

to res ul t i n a co ns ti tu ti on al vi ol at io n. M.Y., 5 44 F.3d at 8 90

.

IV.

Fo r th es e rea so ns we affi rm th e jud gm en t o f th e d is tri ct co ur t.

LOKEN, Ci rcu it Ju dg e, co nc ur rin g.

I ag ree th at

, if se pa rat in g C.M. fro m hi s ba ck pa ck fo r fiv e m in ut es was a

se iz ur e, it was ob

jecti ve ly reas on ab le an d th us di d no t vi ol at e C.M.’s Fo ur th

Am en dm en t rig ht s. I th eref or e joi n th e op in io n of th e co ur t. I writ e se pa rat el y to

ex pl ai n why I al so ag ree wit h th e di st ric t co ur t th at th ere was no se iz ur e of C.M.’s

pe rs on al be lo ng i n g s w it hi n th e m ean in g of th e Fo ur th Am en dm en t. Acco rd Dor an

v. Co nt oo co ok Vall ey

Sch . Dis t., 6 16 F. Sup p. 2 d 1 84 , 19 3- 94 (D.N.H. 200 9)

.

A F o u r t h Am en dm en t se iz ur e of pr op ert y oc cu rs “ whe n th ere is so m e

m ean in gf ul in te rfer en ce with an in di vi du al ’s po ss es so ry in te res ts in th at pr op ert y .”

Ja co bs en v. Uni te d St at es
, 46 6 U.S. 10 9, 11 3 (1 98 4)

. “ By req ui rin g so m e mea ni ng fu l

in te rf er en ce wit h an in di vi du al ’s po ss es so ry in te res ts in pr op ert y , th e Su pr em e Co ur t

in ev it ab ly co nt em

pl at ed ex cl ud in g in co ns eq ue nt ia l in te rf er en ce wit h an in di vi du al ’s

po ss es so ry in te res ts .” Uni te d St at es v. Va Leri e, 42 4 F.3 d 69 4, 70 6 (8 th Ci r. 20 05 )

(en ba nc ), (em

ph as is in or ig in al ), cert

. de ni ed

, 54 8 U.S. 90 3 (2 00 6)

. In m y vi ew,

-1 1-in st ru ct in g C .M. to lea ve hi s bac kp ack an d wait in th e h al l wh il e a d ru g d og bri efl y

sn iff ed th e cl as sr oo m

was, at m os t, an in co ns eq ue nt ia l i nt erfe ren ce.

In Va Leri e, we co nc lu de d th at m ov in g a bu s pa ss e n g e r ’s ch eck ed lu gg ag e

be fo re se ek in g co ns en t to se arch was no t a m ean in gf ul in te rfer en ce be cau se it di d no t

de la y t h e p a s se ng er’s tra ve l pl an s or free do m of m ov em en t, de la y de li ve ry of th e

lu gg ag e, or de pr iv e th e bu s co m pa ny of it s cu st od y of th e lu gg ag e. Id

. at 70 7- 08

. In

Uni te d St at es v. Cl ut te r, 67 4 F.3 d 98 0, 98 4 (8 th Ci r.), cert

. de ni ed

, 13 3 S. Ct

. 27 2

(2 01 2)

, we co nc lu de d th at t e mp o r a r y se iz ur e of th e de fen da nt ’s co m pu te rs whi le

o f f i cers ap pl ie d fo r a se arch warra nt di d no t m ean in gf ul ly in te rfer e wit h hi s

po ss es so ry in te res ts be cau se he was in jail a n d h i s fat he r co ns en te d to th e se iz ur e.

Here, th e in te rfer en ce wit h C.M.’s ba ck pa c k was far le ss co ns eq ue nt ia l. No

de fen da n t p h y si cal ly m ov ed or ev en to uc he d th e ba ck pa ck

, no r di d th e Bu rli so ns

id en ti fy an y o t h er in te rfer en ce wit h C.M.’s po ss es so ry in te res ts du rin g th e fiv e

m in ut es he was s ep arat ed fro m th e b ack pa ck whi le on sch oo l p rem is es

.

In co ns id eri ng th e o bjec ti ve reas on ab le ne ss th at go ve rn s Fo ur th Am en dm en t

is su es
, it is es se nt ia l to co ns id er th e pu bl ic sc ho ol co nt ex t in whi ch th is is su e aro se

. Fo ur th Am en dm en t pr ot ect io ns ex te nd to se arch es an d se iz ur es of st ud en ts an d th ei r

be lo ng in gs by pub li c sc ho ol off ic ia ls . New Jers ey

v. T.L.O. , 4 69 U.S. 3 25 , 3 36 -3 7

(1 98 5)

. Bu t beca us e co nt ex t m at te rs
, Fo ur th Am en dm en t p ro te ct io ns “ are di ffer en t

in pu bl ic sc ho ol s th an els ewh ere; th e ‘reaso na bl en es s’ in qu iry cann ot di sr eg ard th e

sc ho ol s’ cu st od ia l an d tu te la ry res po ns ib il it y fo r ch il dr en .” Vern on ia Sch

. Dis t. 47 J

v. Acto n, 5 15 U.S. 64 6, 6 56 (19 95 ). “ To q ua li fy as a se iz ur e in th e sc ho ol co nt ex t,

th e li m it at io n on th e st ud en t’s freed om of m ov em en t m

us t s ig ni fic an tl y

ex ceed th at

in he ren t in ev eryday

, co m pu ls or y at te n d a n ce.” Co ut ur e v. Bd

. of Edu c. of

Alb uq ue rq ue Pu b. Sc h., 5 35 F.3d 12 43 , 12 51 (10 th Cir . 20 08 ).

C.M. ret ai ne d so m e po ss es so ry an d pr iv acy in te res ts in hi s ba ck pa ck whe n he

br ou gh t it to sc ho ol

, li ke th e pu rs e at is su e in T.L.O

. , b u t h i s free do m to ta ke hi s

-1 2-pe rs on al be lo ng in gs wit h hi m whe rev er he w en t on sc ho ol gr ou nd s was n eces sa ril y

li m it ed by th e sc ho ol ’s “ le gi ti m at e ne ed to m ai nt ai n an en vi ro nm en t in whi ch le arn in g

can ta ke pl a c e

. ” 4 6 9 U.S. at 34 0. Fo r ex am pl e, st ud en ts m ay be req ui red to le av e

pe rs on al be lo ng in gs in lo ck ers to red uc e cl ut te r in cl as sr oo m s an d ha ll way s. And

, fo r

reas on s su ch as sa fet y or an im pr ov ed le arn in g en vi ro nm en t, st ud en ts m ay be to ld to

le av e th ei r be lo ng in gs in th e cl as sr oo m whi le th ey te m po rari ly le av e th e bu il di ng fo r

a fir e dr il l, or pr oc eed to a sc ie nc e la b o r at hl et ic faci li ty in an ot he r pa rt of th e

bu il di ng

. Here, act in g on es ta bl is he d Bo ard of Edu cat io n an d Sh eri ff’s Dep art m en t

po li ci es
, de fen da nt s br ie fly se pa rat ed a cl as sr oo m of s t u d en ts fro m th ei r pe rs on al

be lo ng in gs to p e r mi t a d r ug do g to sa fel y sn iff th e cl as sr oo m fo r th e pr es en ce of

il le ga l dr ug s. As th e co ur t th or ou gh ly ex pl ai ns
, th e Su pr em e Co ur t h a s rep eat ed ly

em ph as iz ed th e im

po rta nc e of de al in g wit h th e dr ug pr ob le m in ou r Nati on ’s sc ho ol s.

In th es e ci rcu m st a n c e s, I wou ld affi rm be cau se no se iz ur e of C.M.’s ba ck pa ck

oc cu rred

. Of co ur se
, if th e dr ug do g h a d al ert ed an d th e ba ck pa ck th en be en

se arch ed , add it io na l Fo ur th Am en dm en t i ss ue s wo ul d b e p res en te d.

COLLOTON, Ci rcu it Ju dg e, co nc ur rin g.

I co nc ur in Ju dg e Mu rp hy’ s op in io n fo r th e co ur t. It is un ne ces sa ry to de ci de

whe th er sc ho ol of

fic ia ls effe ct ed a se iz ur e of C. M

. ’s b e l o ng in gs , b ecau se an y su ch

se iz ur e was reas on ab le un de r th e F ou rth Am en dm en t. As Ju dg e Lok en ha s ch os en

to op in e th at C.M.’s be lo ng in gs were no t se iz ed

, ho wev er, it is wor th no ti ng th at th ere

is a su bs ta nt ia l ar gu m en t o n t he ot he r si de

.

In Uni te d St at es v. Ja co bs en , 46 6 U.S. 10 9 (1 98 4)

, th e Su pr em e Co ur t sa id th at

“ [a] ‘seiz ur e’ of pr op ert y oc cu rs whe n th ere is so m e m ean in gf ul in te rfer en ce wit h an

in di vi du al ’s po ss es so ry in te res ts in th at pr op ert y .” Id

. at 11 3. The Co ur t he ld th at th e

st an da rd of “ m ean in gf

ul in te rfer en ce” was sa ti sf ie d whe n fed eral ag en ts to ok

te m po rary cu st od y o f a pa ck ag e fro m Fed eral Exp res s at an ai rp or t of fic e fo r

in ve st ig at iv e pu rp os es
, id

. at 12 0, ev en be fo re th ey co nd uc te d th ei r in ve st ig at io n, id

.

-1 3-at 12 4- 25

, be cau se “ th e de ci si on by go ve rn m en ta l au th or it ie s to ex ert do m in io n an d

contr ol ov er th e pa ck ag e fo r th ei r own pu rp os es cl earl y co ns ti tu te d a ‘seiz ur e,’ th ou gh

no t ne ces sa ril y an un reas on ab le on e.” Id

. at 12 1 n.1 8. Si m il arl y , th e au th or it ie s he re

se pa rat ed C.M. fro m hi s pr op ert y , th us de pr iv in g hi m of cu st od y of th e ba ck pa ck

, se e

Uni te d St at es v. Al va re

z- Man zo , 57 0 F.3 d 10 70

, 10 76 (8 th Ci r. 20 09 ); cf

. Uni te d

St at es v. Va Ler ie

, 42 4 F.3 d 69 4, 70 2, 70 8 & n.9 (8 th Ci r. 2 0 0 5 ) ( e n b a n c) (n o

de pr iv at io n of cu st od y ), an d th e au th or it ie s d id so “ fo r th ei r own pu rp os es ” of

in ve st ig at in g th e pr es en ce of co nt rab an d in th e pr op ert y , as in Ja co bs en , no t to

faci li ta te a fi re d ril l o r sc ho ol ass em bl y un rel at ed to th e p ro pe rty.

Pres um ab ly be cau se th e “ se iz ur e” is su e is no t an eas y on e, th e Tex as Co ur t of

App eal s b yp a ss ed th e is su e en ro ut e to co nc lu di ng th at a co m pa rab le sc ho ol

pr oc ed ur e was co ns ti tu ti on al ly reas on ab le

. In re D.H.

, 30 6 S.W .3d 95 5, 95 8 (Tex

. App . 20 10 ). The d is tri ct co ur t i n Dor an v. Co nt oo co ok Val le y S ch oo l Di st ri ct , 61 6

F. Su pp . 2 d 18 4 (D.N.H. 2 00 9) , a lt ho ug h c it ed ab ov e as ho ld in g t ha t th e pr oc ed ur e

at is su e effe ct s no se iz ur e of pr op ert y , ad dr es se d on ly w h e t h e r c h il dr en (n ot th ei r

be lo ng in gs ) were se iz ed in th e co ur se of a sc ho ol ’s dr ug do g op erat io n. Id

. at 19 3- 94

.
In so far as th e Dor an co ur t to uc he d on th e se pa rat io n of ch il dr en fro m th ei r pe rs on al

be lo ng in gs
, th e co ur t ad dr es se d o nl y whet he r th ere was an “ imp ro pe r se iz ur e,” i.e.,

an un reas on ab le on e, id

. at 19 4 (em ph as is ad de d)

, an d rel ie d on th e Su pr em e Co ur t’s

di sc us si on in Vern on ia Sc ho ol Dis tr ic t 47 J v. Acto n , 51 5 U.S. 64 6 (1 9 9 5 )

, w h ic h

em pha siz ed that “ th e ‘r ea so na bl en es s’ in qu ir y can no t di sr eg ar d the sc hool s’ cu sto dia l

an d t ut el ary res po ns ib il it y for ch il dr en .” Id . at 6 56 (em ph as is ad de d)

.

Giv en th e di ffi cu lt y of t he “ se iz ur e” qu es ti on
, it is pr ud en t to res ol ve th is

ap pe al ba se d on th e reas on ab le ne ss of th e sc ho ol ’s pr oc ed ur e un de r th e

ci rcu m st an ces . W it h t he se ob se rv at io ns , I co nc ur in th e o pi ni on of t he co ur t.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-1 4-