DRUG-DOG PROPOSAL DRAWS IRE OF ACLU

The Churchill County School Board was put on notice Thursday night
about potential lawsuits from the American Civil Liberties Union of
Nevada regarding the use of drug-sniffing dogs to search students' belongings.

The school board is considering an administrative regulation to
allow dogs to sniff backpacks of high school and junior high students.

Lee Rowland, northern coordinator for the ACLU of Nevada, warned the
board what could happen if a complaint were lodged against the
district. The ACLU was contacted by community members concerned that
the proposal was being discussed.

In a four-page letter to the school board, Rowland wrote schools
across the country have tried and failed in the courts to approve
the use of random drug searches with no suspicion.

Rowland said it is a bad policy and one with which the courts have
never agreed. She said districts that have tried to pass similar
measures have ended up paying students and families large sums of
money to settle the cases.

In one case - B.C. v. Plumas Unified School District - she pointed
out that once the courts made the ruling that a dog sniff was a
search, it was determined to not be reasonable because the district
had no record of a drug problem, the searches were involuntary,
unannounced and sudden, and the drug dogs brought fear to students
about their safety.

Rowland cited an article from the Lahontan Valley News in which
Superintendent Carolyn Ross stated she did not think there was a
drug problem in the district and wanted to prove that belief. She
said the court would consider that fact.

At the end of the meeting, while discussing a student survey, school
district Attorney Sharla Hales mentioned that 30 percent of students
reported being offered, sold or given illegal drugs on school
grounds in the past 30 days.

She said the courts may have to consider this fact.

"We believe the proposed policy lies in walking a razor-thin line
between existing court decisions, and this risks a court challenge,"
she said. "We also believe that if upheld to be a search, there is
little question that the search would definitely be unreasonable."

Rowland said the district and school board need to be aware of the
problems of the proposal.

"There is no court to say you can do that and no court that says you
can't," she said, asking if the CCSD wanted to test the policy in court.

She said having such a policy in place distances students from staff
because they are being told they are not trusted.

"I think it is fair to say you are on thin ice," she said. "The
potential consequences are very (harsh). We urge you not to pass
this. This is not a gray issue. It has the potential to have
negative connotations."

Mark Jones, a parent of three children and opponent of the measure,
said the reason a similar Washoe County School District policy holds
water is because searches are done based on reasonable suspicion.

Jones said his children have never told him there is a rampant drug
problem in the district.

"Not one of my kids has come home to tell me, 'I can't learn because
we have drug-crazed kids.'"

Interim High School Principal Robbin Pedrett, a supporter of the
proposed policy, has worked at a district where sniffing by drug
dogs was allowed. She said checking students' belongings is much
better than singling out a particular student.

"At some point we have a responsibility to keep a safe environment
for everyone else," she said. "So often, we are afraid of stepping
on the rights of people breaking the law.

"I am still in support of a policy that keeps a healthy and
conducive environment," she continued, adding at the district where
she had worked, the dogs never came in contact with students.

No action was taken on the policy, and board members mentioned more
discussion was needed.