SCHOOL DRUG DOG IS A GOOD MOVE

We have opposed mandatory drug testing in schools because they are
intrusive and presume students to be guilty until they demonstrate
otherwise. The argument about requiring people to prove their
innocence was made last week in opposing the use of a drug-sniffing
dog in the Peters Township schools, but we don't believe it applies.

As we understand it, the dog would simply stroll through the school
and react if it catches the scent of drugs. Even if it gets a
positive whiff, it doesn't attack anyone, it simply lies down.

We would certainly have a problem with random searches of students'
persons. But the dog does not search, it simply sniffs. If it detects
the presence of drugs in a locker, we should remember that the courts
have held that school lockers are the property of the school, not of
individual students, and there is no reasonable expectation of
privacy in regard to what is stored there.

The dog is pricey - for the $14,000 cost they could have sent the
pooch to a state university for two years - but we recognize that
this isn't a job that an ordinary mutt from the Humane Society could
do. If it can drive drugs out of the schools without compromising
the students' rights, the dog is probably worth it.