[CSM]

"First of all the students themselves weren't searched for drugs, even though they could have been. They were certainly "secure in their persons" with regard to the 4th amendment."

How secure do you feel looking down the barrel of a gun? Considering the fact that students are told regularly that guns kill, they would feel even more of a threat. In addition, a drug sniffing dog is searching the entire area for an odor. That odor detection is not able to eliminate the students themselves and stick to the backpack only.

"Second, the students were not "seized" -- they were detained during the search. If drugs were found, the drugs would have been seized per the 4th amendment."

A person is seized as soon as they submit to the assertion of the police authority. The students were not free to leave at any time they were seized. This is shown when the story talks about the "cuffing" of the students that did not cooperate, then the others were not free to leave and they submitted to the authority of the police. Look up California v. Hodari D., 499 U.S. 621. Therefore you end up with this group of police seizing 107 people while suspecting 10 people of committing a crime. This seizure failed to bear any fruit (evidence) that could prove that any crime occured. That alone should show that this action was not based on simple reasonableness.

[robertpaulsen]

"How secure do you feel looking down the barrel of a gun?"

You're calling this a fourth amendment violation? We were discussing search and seizure in a public school environment, were we not? Or are you changing the subject to something else? You're confusing me, here.

In California v. Hodari D., 499 U.S. 621., Hodari was convicted of possessing cocaine.

The State Court of Appeal reversed, holding that Hodari had been "seized" when he saw Pertoso running towards him; that this seizure was "unreasonable" under the Fourth Amendment, the State having conceded that Pertoso did not have the "reasonable suspicion" required to justify stopping Hodari; and therefore that the evidence of cocaine had to be suppressed as the fruit of the illegal seizure.

The USSC took this case AND REVERSED the State Court of Appeal decision. Nice reference.

Look, you're doing it again. You are citing fourth amendment cases (poorly, I might add) that have nothing to with public schools. The "litmus test" for reasonable is different for public schools, no warrant is required and there need not be probable cause.

All is not lost. I did learn that detaining an individual during a search is "seizing" the person. In the case of these students, however, it was a "reasonable" seizure, and any drugs found would be admissable, IMO.

If it makes you feel better, I will concede that if this activity took place outside of a public school, I highly doubt the authorities would have this kind of lattitude without much more proof.