Horton v. Goose Creek Independent School District
United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
690 F.2d 470 (1982)
- Written by Daniel Clark, JD
Facts
The Goose Creek Consolidated Independent School District (school district) (defendant) believed that there was a major drug and alcohol problem among its students. To address the problem, the school district contracted with a security company to use dogs to sniff out drugs and alcohol. Under the scheme, trained dogs entered classrooms of students at the school district’s high schools and smelled each student and the area around each student. While sniffing, the dogs directly touched the students with their noses and paws. If a dog detected contraband, it alerted its handler, and a more thorough search of the student was conducted. Robby Horton and Sandra Sanchez (plaintiffs), two students in the school district, were subjected to searches of their personal effects after dogs sniffed these students and alerted the handlers. However, no contraband was discovered. Horton, Sanchez, and another student (plaintiff) sued the school district under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging violations of their Fourth Amendment rights to be free from unreasonable searches. The district court held that the dog sniffing constituted a search for the purposes of the Fourth Amendment but that the search was constitutional because it was reasonable. The three students appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Per curiam)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 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.