GOOD VOTE ON SCHOOL LOCKER SEARCH

The state Board of Education is on solid ground in allowing public
school officials to make sure that students' lockers are not used as
caches for weapons, illicit drugs or other contraband. Its decision
to use dogs to sniff for drugs could be helpful as long as they don't
sniff students themselves in violation of their privacy rights.

The board approved the new rules in an 8-4 vote in favor of allowing
random searches of lockers. The rule change stipulates that "students
should assume that their lockers are subject to opening and
inspection (and external dog sniffs) any time with or without cause."

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which includes Hawaii in its
jurisdiction, indicated in a 1999 ruling that it recognizes that "the
sniffing of inanimate and unattended objects" is legal, differing
from warrantless searches of students themselves.

The board-approved rule, which awaits a review by Attorney General
Mark Bennett and Gov. Linda Lingle's signature, states that "students
have a reasonable expectation of privacy in their persons" on school
grounds. It bans random searches of students themselves and searches
of them lacking "reasonable grounds to suspect" prohibited activity.
Bennett has assured the board that random locker searches are allowed
"at any time with or without reason or cause."

The rules go beyond those used in a four-month pilot program two
years ago at three Maui public schools, where dog-sniffing was
confined to public areas on school grounds, such as cafeterias and
gymnasiums. They were not allowed to sniff students, their lockers or
their cars, but did discover empty liquor bottles and traces of
marijuana in public areas.

Criminologist Katherine Irwin told board members that drug-sniffing
dogs are ineffective. If so, schools may determine that the effort is
not worth the irritation caused by their presence.

More important is the part of the measure that clearly eliminates any
expectation of privacy in student lockers. The language to be
stricken from the schools' rules has given students "a legitimate
expectation of privacy" that extends to "school property assigned for
individual use," which has included lockers.

Board member Kim Coco Iwamoto voted against the change, concerned
that it would violate the Constitution. However, constitutional
rights are violated when a person's expectation of privacy has been
infringed. If no privacy can be expected, no violation occurs.

The state Board of Education is on solid ground in allowing public
school officials to make sure that students' lockers are not used as
caches for weapons, illicit drugs or other contraband. Its decision
to use dogs to sniff for drugs could be helpful as long as they don't
sniff students themselves in violation of their privacy rights.

The board approved the new rules in an 8-4 vote in favor of allowing
random searches of lockers. The rule change stipulates that "students
should assume that their lockers are subject to opening and
inspection (and external dog sniffs) any time with or without cause."

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which includes Hawaii in its
jurisdiction, indicated in a 1999 ruling that it recognizes that "the
sniffing of inanimate and unattended objects" is legal, differing
from warrantless searches of students themselves.

The board-approved rule, which awaits a review by Attorney General
Mark Bennett and Gov. Linda Lingle's signature, states that "students
have a reasonable expectation of privacy in their persons" on school
grounds. It bans random searches of students themselves and searches
of them lacking "reasonable grounds to suspect" prohibited activity.
Bennett has assured the board that random locker searches are allowed
"at any time with or without reason or cause."

The rules go beyond those used in a four-month pilot program two
years ago at three Maui public schools, where dog-sniffing was
confined to public areas on school grounds, such as cafeterias and
gymnasiums. They were not allowed to sniff students, their lockers or
their cars, but did discover empty liquor bottles and traces of
marijuana in public areas.

Criminologist Katherine Irwin told board members that drug-sniffing
dogs are ineffective. If so, schools may determine that the effort is
not worth the irritation caused by their presence.

More important is the part of the measure that clearly eliminates any
expectation of privacy in student lockers. The language to be
stricken from the schools' rules has given students "a legitimate
expectation of privacy" that extends to "school property assigned for
individual use," which has included lockers.

Board member Kim Coco Iwamoto voted against the change, concerned
that it would violate the Constitution. However, constitutional
rights are violated when a person's expectation of privacy has been
infringed. If no privacy can be expected, no violation occurs.