SEARCH DOGS GIVE STUDENTS THE MESSAGE

Westerly school kids recently learned a valuable lesson: Don't bring your
drugs to school.

But then, judging by what was found in a recent search of their cars and
lockers, they already knew that, didn't they?

On the morning of March 28, before school began, Westerly police, along
with several police departments from Rhode Island and Connecticut, officers
from the U.S. Naval Submarine Base, the U.S. Coast Guard and the Rhode
Island Department of Corrections, Rhode Island airport police and 11
drug-sniffing dogs, swept the halls of Westerly High School.

After having the dogs sniff all the lockers, they found this: one small
container containing "drug residue."

They also found, in a student's car -- which was not, according to Westerly
Police Chief J. David Smith, parked on school property -- a small amount of
marijuana.

Even so, Smith and Superintendent Scott Kizner say they may repeat the
lesson. "In the future," Kizner adds, "I would consider searches during the
school day."

How was it that they found so little? Could it be that somebody tipped them
off?

"No, there was no warning," Kizner says. "Not even my own daughter knew."

Asked the purpose of the exercise, Kizner says, "I think students have a
right to be in school where it's safe and where teachers and administrators
are focusing on learning. When students come in on drugs and try to sell
drugs, they detract from the mission of public education."

Kizner says he knows there are students using drugs on school grounds. But
didn't the fact that the dogs found bopkes suggest his information wasn't
very reliable?

"It's been an interesting experience," Kizner says. "I think people are
critical because we didn't find enough." He alludes to a letter in The
Westerly Sun in which the writer suggested the whole exercise, given its
slim results, wasn't worth it. "The only analogy I can think of," Kizner
says, "is this: Thousands and thousands of people go through the metal
detector at the airport every day, and no one is caught, but when one
person is caught, it's worth it."

But is it?

Is the analogy even valid? While we are willing to compromise certain civil
liberties to ensure our safety, should we be so quick to do so for the
purpose of intimidating students? Is a joint in a backpack really
commensurate with a bomb in a suitcase?

Yes, students have a "diminished expectation of privacy" on school grounds.
Yes, the Supreme Court has ruled that school systems may conduct such
searches. And yes, the whole affair was, technically, legal.

But was it reasonable?

Westerly's school policies allow school officials to search lockers if they
have a "reasonable suspicion" that a student might have an illegal
substance inside.

So how does Kizner define "reasonable suspicion?" Doesn't a suspicion need
to be based on some sort of reliable information to be considered "reasonable?"

"When a police dog marked a locker," Kizner says, "that gave you the
reasonable suspicion."

But what kind of reasonable suspicion did he have to bring in the dogs in
the first place?

And what lesson was he really teaching?

Kizner says he believes it was this: "I think what we're trying to
articulate to the students is that we believe students need to be prepared
to come to school to learn. And if they're coming for any other reason,
especially illegal, we're not going to tolerate it."

I would suggest that his students have learned an even more valuable
lesson. No doubt, they've studied the Constitution and know the Fourth
Amendment, which protects American citizens from unreasonable searches and
seizures.

Now they have learned that, as long as they're students in a public school,
that protection doesn't apply to them.

They also have learned that while we pride ourselves as being the freest of
nations, we the people are quick to carve away at the heart of our most
precious freedoms whenever we find it expedient.