A Magnolia Middle School student was arrested Wednesday after failing to cooperate with school lockdown procedures initiated by a scheduled K9 drug sweep of the building, the Harford County Sheriff’s Office said.
The student, a 13-year-old male, was arrested for failing to follow instructions given in connection with the lockdown, according to Sheriff’s Office spokeswoman Monica Worrell.
Students are instructed to remain in their classes while the sweep is ongoing and not wander the building, Worrell said, and the student arrested failed to do so after being told repeatedly by school administrators and law enforcement officials. The student was released into the custody of his mother, Worrell said.
The search was part of a regularly scheduled sweep of both Magnolia Middle and Joppatowne High schools by School Resource Officers.
That search found no drugs at Magnolia, but turned up an unspecified quantity of a controlled dangerous substance in a student’s vehicle at Joppatowne High, Worrell said. The student involved in that incident was present during the search and cooperated with authorities.
A release posted on the Harford County Public Schools Web site on Wednesday indicated that a search had been conducted, but did not mention any arrests:
Three routine, random drug dog scans were performed at Joppatowne High and Magnolia Middle schools today. The scans, done as part of the school system’s commitment to keeping illicit drugs out of the schools, were accomplished using a canine under the direction of the Harford County Sheriff’s Office.
The Joppatowne High School scan involved 405 lockers being sniffed by the dog. The 13-minute scan – supervised by three deputies from the Harford County Sherriff’s Office, one drug dog, one administrator from the school, and the school system’s Coordinator of Internal Investigations – resulted in one alert producing no controlled dangerous substances.
In addition, 19 vehicles in the school’s parking lot were scanned. The 26-minute scan resulted in two alerts, which produced one suspected controlled dangerous substance that was sent for analysis.
The Magnolia Middle School scan involved 439 lockers being sniffed by the dog. The 8-minute scan – supervised by five deputies from the Harford County Sherriff’s Officers, two drug dogs, three administrators from the school, and the school system’s Coordinator of Internal Investigations – resulted in no alerts.
Check back with The Dagger for further details on this story.
It’s terrible that our children have their 4th Amendment Right trampled on so easily. In 1985 the Supreme Court ruled that searches in public schools do not require warrants, as long as the searching officers have reasonable grounds for believing that the search will result in the finding of evidence of illegal activity. I’ll say that part again, as long as the searching officers have reasonable grounds for believing that the search will result in the finding of evidence of illegal activity. Because it is on the schedule is not reasonable grounds.
Seriously? The other children have the right to go to a school that is drug free. If you don’t carry drugs or weapons to school, what is the problem? You must not have kids in school.
The locker belongs to the school. It clearly tells you that you have no expectation of privacy in a locker and the supreme court has agreed.
Which amendment is the right to a drug free school?? Not familiar with that, oh wait, you just feel that way. Great, but in the mean time, actual rights are being trampled on, not just the ones that make you feel good. Perhaps you’ll feel different when they started doing unwarranted searches of your home. Give up your rights now, you’ll never get them back.
Mike,
Student lockers are the property of the school system and the students are allowed to use the space so that they can secure their property.
There is NO expectation of privacy and therefore these drug scans do not fall under the 4th amendment.
The 4th amendment covers UNREASONABLE searches.
Holdings from NJ v. T.L.O. (1985) found that while the search of her purse was reasonable, Fourth Amendment’s prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures applies to searches conducted by public school officials. So YES, there is an expectation of privacy, even in school, even in lockers.
Mike,
You are wrong.
The 1985 case was dealing with a purse — personal property. You are trying to tie that ruling to student lockers which are not personal property.
The rights and responsibilities of students concerning school lockers are listed in the Parent-student handbook on page 21.
Also in the handbook is a section concerning the use of drug detecting dogs. (on page 9)
As such, all parents and students are informed at the before being assigned their lockers of the policies pertaining to these scans using the dogs. Therefore, there is no expectation of privacy and is NOT a violation of 4th amendment rights. If the dog alerts on a locker, it gives the police officers and the administration reasonable grounds to believe that there are drugs in the locker allowing a search of the personal property inside.
The parent/student handbook is not law.
No but meriad of court rulings that such a policy is constitutional are!
Mike,
Now you are just arguing for the sake of arguing.
If the policies set forth in the Handbook state that there will be random scans of the school’s property. then there is absolutely no expectation of privacy.
In 1967, the Supreme court ruled that the 4th amendment only protects against searches that are “unreasonable” and only if there is an expectation of privacy. That is clearly not the case in the situation of these drug dog scans of school property.
Stop arguing before you make more of a fool of yourself.
You degrade to name calling, and label him the fool.
I suppose that Robert is just calling it like he sees it.
If it posts like a fool, acts like a fool and talks like a fool…
Must be one.
Mike TLO (which is part of the social studies curriculum) dealt with a girl in the llavatory and the smell of cigarette smoke. The supreme court held that the search of her purse was reasonable as there was a reasonable suspicion. Locker cases are different as the locker belongs to the school.
I believe I said that in my previous post. Ignoring the rest of the ruling is just convenience I guess.
no it is not. although it has never gone to SCOTUS, They have declined CERT for cases before. Additionally 38 state courts and 5 federal courts have held that since lockers belong to the school if the school notifies students as such there is no expectation of privacy.
Note to self: Mike must be a stoner.
Are we certain it even had anything to do w/her not allowing a search? It said there were no alerts on the lockers. During a lockdown, students are not permitted to leave the classroom – maybe she refused to follow this or something?
Are we certian it is not a he?
oops – just misread an earlier post and thought it was a she. Schools are adamant that no one is in the hallways while doing these searches.
This story has been updated with a few additional details from the Sheriff’s Office.
Walking a Police K-9 through a school doesn’t violate any rights. The dog is merely the means to establish probable cause. A K-9 officer could be taking his K-9 for a walk down the road and he could randomly alert on a parked car. Local PD could then use that as probable cause to search the car. K-9s can be used the same way on traffic stops as long as the operator of the vehicle is not being held for an unreasonable amount of time.
A K-9 searching something was ruled by the courts to not be an actual search, but only a sniff or scan, therefore requiring no warrant, or probable cause by the officer to a certain extent.
Maryland law gives school administrators the right to search the school including student lockers at any time as long as this regulation is previously annoounced. Theoretically they could go through student lockers daily. The lockers belong to the school.
From COMAR:(Code of Maryland Law)
13A.08.01.14
B. Search of School by Principal, Assistant Principal, or School Security Guard.
(1) A principal, assistant principal, or school security guard of a public school may make a search of the physical plant of the school and its appurtenances, including the lockers of students.
(2) The right of a principal, assistant principal, or school security guard to search lockers of students under §B(1) of this regulation shall be announced or published previously in the school.
…and Mike is curiously silent.
Because Mike thought he was conversing with adults….done here.
you are
No, because Mike can’t defend the indefensible and can’t admit he was wrong.
Nope…because Mike lost his argument.
Its helps to get the full story first
So do the cars on the parking lot that belong to adults come under the authority of the school’s property just because they are parked on the lot? Should a dog “alert” on a car falsely and nothing be found can the teacher sue for defamation? How about a student? How many times do the dogs alert falsely? Is there ever a case of an officer just saying that the dog alerted? Should the teacher’s lounge, principal’s office and teacher’s desks be scanned to keep our kids safe? Should we have metal detectors at the doors? Should we be spending so much money enforcing something that is legal is many states and could soon be legal here. Are the dogs trained to sniff for legal drugs like salvia as well as marijuana. Is Phil D a hypocrite by acting like a child and not just coming out and saying that anyone that questions authority is a stoner? Is Phil Dirt a cocaine user? Alcoholic? Child abuser? On mood stabilizers? A woman? Using a pseudonym to hide behind? Note to self: what’s this “Phil” up to?” Phil Dirt – Fill Dirt …is he a developer looking to make Fallston into row homes, strip malls and McDonald’s? …Hmmmmm
To answer your question yes. There is no defamation because the dog alerts falsely. BTW I am not aware of illegal drugs being legal in many states. Teachers are made aware they have no privacy expectation in their desk.
Incidently violation of the drug free school zone act is a federal crime regardless of state law.
Note to Aber: Please remember to take your medication.
@Phil: Thanks for your concern for my well being. Perhaps I should just cut to the chase and talk in your language. “I know you are but what am I?”
btw, my belief that you have rights and they are worth at least discussing if not fighting for is historically considered to be patriotic. There’s an article out right now about a man that made it onto a flight with a handgun. While the TSA was being extra friendly with the pat down apparently they missed the large silhouette as it rolled by the screen. School is one of those areas that should be safe and I’m personally not offended by the scans but to slander someone because they don’t agree with you is where our freedoms start to erode in my opinion. Freedom of speech is just as protected as hiding behind a pseudonym -like a child.
I appreciate the protections that the officers & K9s provide to our county, but last week’s Co Council vote to settle with a protest group says that officers interpreting the law are (like the rest of us) just people and are therefor imperfect. The protest in that case was very distasteful and I would prefer that they weren’t here. Still I don’t feel the need to slander them. Always be suspect of those who get offended when you question authority.
Oh, and um …God Bless America! -and the rest of the world too.
Actually, I’m more concerned for our well being (the rest of us), not yours.
Hope this helps,
Phil
I’m concerned when someone uses terms like “the rest of us” when they really mean me and anyone that agrees with me.
It didn’t help. I already know who you are.
Dogs do alert falsely, and yes there are commands to make your dog alert, even when they are not showing any interest. You are basically relying on the honesty of the officer doing the inspection to trust that the dog is doing it’s job.
I don’t really think this any different from any other police search not involving a K-9, since you are at the mercy of the officer’s integrity. There are usually 2 types of K-9s, Narcotics Detection and Explosives Detection. Narc dogs find various drugs including marijuana, and yes it is possible to teach them to find salvia, its just a matter of exposing them to the odor and teaching them to alert when they smell it. Explosives dogs work the same way except they find explosives and explosive particles.
A properly maintained and trained K-9 may never false, but you should expect around a 90% accuracy rate. Just because a dog indicates and no drugs are found does not mean it’s a false. Dogs are trained to find the least amount of odor and trace it back to the source, which means a vehicle that frequents drugs but may be empty at the time would still register a positive indication with the dog, since of residual odor.
I’m pleased that law enforcement and government utilize such a highly unobtrusive method of determining whether a student in a school is in possession of illegal drugs without having to truly violate privacy, because it is simple fact that kids bring drugs to school. Kids bring drugs to school equals scheduled searches, I get that. A dog walking around smelling lockers doesn’t give individuals nearby any indication as to the actual personal contents of the locker, as someone opening and viewing the contents of each locker would. Since the school has the right to do so, how polite of them not to. So, a student’s personal belongings inside of a locker in actuality remain personal. In the event that the dog “alerts” to there being illegal drugs contained within a given locker, the locker would then be opened and any personal contents–legal or otherwise–would then become public. As to dogs sniffing out the contents of cars, I have to agree that privacy is violated in such cases. I don’t do drugs, never have done drugs, and still wouldn’t be thrilled about having a police K9 sniffing my personal vehicle looking for anything. I have to agree with that being a violation of privacy. So now what? I choose to travel by air and my bags get scanned at the airport; I go to the pharmacy to buy cold medicine and I have to show my driver’s license’ I go the store to buy groceries and some guy I don’t know starts asking me personal questions about myself, I apply for a job and have to take a drug test and have my credit checked. Adults live with routine little intrusions on our privacy that we consider normal, though annoying, so let’s consider it to be just another means of preparing the kids for the realities of life and call it a day.
Why are you worried about the Gov’t? The private sector keeps far greater tabs on you than the Gov’t does. Private companies know all about your personal info and share it with other companies. They know what you buy, when you buy those items, how you pay, what your preferences are….Do you have a smart phone? There are aps that track where you go (GPS), what time of day you go there, etc….
Do you want some private sector sales guy/marketing guy selling your private info to other companies to target your spending habits? This stuff happens daily and most of us are not aware.
The Gov’t is only trying to keep people safe. The private sector wants $ and doesn’t care about much else.
What?? I’m not worried about the government and I’m not worried about the private sector. My writing “little intrusions…we consider normal, though annoying” was not my way of saying I’m worried about the government. I’m aware the government is trying to keep up safe (though that’s debatable in some aspects, such as the crap the FDA allows to be put into food, for example) and I just love that about the government. I appreciate that the police want to keep me safe, and kids in schools so let them bring in those K9’s and do all those things that seem to go unappreciated by some, but not by me. I don’t mind that the private sector wants money, I just love that too–let them give me stuff to buy. I also want money, so I certainly wouldn’t fault anyone for wanting money and taking actions to obtain it by legal means. I want to earn money, I want to spend money, and I want to save money and I do all of that while not worrying, as you seem to believe I do. Thanks for your input just the same. Your comments were intelligent, they just don’t apply to me.