The following excerpt is from B.C. v. Plumas Unified Sch. Dist. Et al, 192 F.3d 1260 (9th Cir. 1998):
We have said that "a student is required to be on school premises, subject to the direction of school authorities, during the course of the schoolday." Smith v. McGlothlin, 119 F.3d 786, 788 (9th Cir. 1997). In the circumstances of this case, we conclude that directing students to a covered snack bar area for five to ten minutes during an unquestionably legitimate dog sniff of the students' classroom is not a seizure within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. "[A ] degree of supervision and control that could not be exercised over free adults" is permissible in the school context. Vernonia, 515 U.S. at 655-56. The district court properly denied B.C.'s motion for summary judgment on the issue whether he suffered a seizure of his person.
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.