skip navigation


Register for Latest Research

Stay Informed
Register with NCJRS to receive NCJRS's biweekly e-newsletter JUSTINFO and additional periodic emails from NCJRS and the NCJRS federal sponsors that highlight the latest research published or sponsored by the Office of Justice Programs.

NCJRS Abstract

The document referenced below is part of the NCJRS Virtual Library collection. To conduct further searches of the collection, visit the Virtual Library. See the Obtain Documents page for direction on how to access resources online, via mail, through interlibrary loans, or in a local library.


NCJ Number: 77881 Find in a Library
Title: Use of Drug Detecting Dogs in Public High Schools
Journal: Indiana Law Journal  Volume:56  Issue:2  Dated:(1980-1981)  Pages:321-346
Author(s): A P Gillman
Date Published: 1981
Page Count: 26
Format: Article
Language: English
Country: United States of America
Annotation: This note proposes that use of trained dogs to detect marijuana among public high school students constitutes a search, and that students are therefore entitled to fourth amendment protection.
Abstract: The cases of Doe v. Renfrow (1979) and Jones v. Latexo Independent School District (1980) are the only cases that have dealt with the use of trained dogs in a high school. The Doe case held that the use of dogs in a public school was constitutional, but the Jones case determined the indiscriminate use of marijuana-sniffing dogs was unconstitutional. In determining whether to apply the reasonable suspicion or the probable cause standard in testing the validity of dog searches in public schools, courts must recognize that other cases involving schools or dogs are not adequate to protect the fourth amendment rights of students. Unlike other school searches, the dog search involves extensive police participation. The dog search is also more intrusive than other types of searches in causing more damage to the student's reputation. The accuracy of the dogs in detecting the presence of marijuana, although very high in criminal cases, is likely to be low in the school environment where the scent of marijuana is widespread. The article suggests that drug-detecting dogs should be prohibited from the school grounds except within the strict limitations of the fourth amendment's probable cause requirement. The article includes 155 footnotes. (Author abstract modified)
Index Term(s): Drug detection; Judicial decisions; Legal privacy protection; Marijuana; Police dogs; Public schools; Right of privacy; Rights of minors; Search and seizure; Students; Warrantless search
To cite this abstract, use the following link:

*A link to the full-text document is provided whenever possible. For documents not available online, a link to the publisher's website is provided. Tell us how you use the NCJRS Library and Abstracts Database - send us your feedback.