B.C. v. Plumas Unified School District
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
192 F.3d 1260 (1999)
- Written by Tammy Boggs, JD
Facts
The high school that B.C. (plaintiff) attended decided to use a drug-sniffing dog on campus. There was no drug problem or crisis, and school officials (defendants) had no suspicions that any individual student was using drugs. The move was seemingly preventive. School officials instructed B.C. and his classmates to exit their classroom. As the students walked past the dog that was stationed a few feet away from them, the dog alerted to one student, signaling the smell of drugs. The students were directed to wait outside in a covered snack-bar area for five to 10 minutes while the dog sniffed bags and other items in the classroom. As the students returned to the class, the dog alerted to the same student. No drugs were found that day on campus. B.C. sued the school district (defendant) and its officials, alleging an unreasonable search and seizure in violation of the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The school officials argued that dog sniffing was not a search under the Fourth Amendment or, if it was a search, the search was reasonable to deter drug use on campus; even if the search was unreasonable, the officials were entitled to qualified immunity; and there had been no seizure of persons or property. The district court granted the school officials’ motion for summary judgment. B.C. appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Pregerson, J.)
Concurrence (Brunetti, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 812,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
