reasonable suspicion vs. probable cause

[Ladyback1]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Montana

I know the public school system here works off of reasonable suspicion (as it relates to students committing unlawful acts).

That said, is the school legally capable of creating reasonable suspicion, in order to search a student for contraband (specifically illegal drugs)?
One of our local school districts has contracted with a 3rd Party company to bring in drug sniffing canines to perform random "sweeps" of the campus. Isn't that creating reasonable suspicion to search a child's person/backpack/purse, etc.?

Please understand, I do not have issue w/ law enforcement coming in to search (with K9s) if there is already reasonable suspicion established. I also understand that the lockers are school property, and are subject to search at any time.

What my issue is: This is a 3rd party company that does not allow law enforcement to be present when their canines are working. The information I have been provided, and have found online, does not indicate what kind of training the canines and the handlers undergo. When I asked the school principal about the company's qualifications, I was told "don't worry about it, we checked it out". Ummmm....no, that's not an answer. That's blowing me off because I asked questions. I know that drug sniffing canines reliability in detecting illegal substances is roughly 45%, IF they are properly trained/certified/tested--and that training/certification/testing is kept current.

 

[CavemanLawyer]

Reasonable suspicion means that law enforcement has a reason to believe that there is activity suspicious of a crime. By definition it is something that must be created, or more specifically developed. The illegal activity is either there or it isn't and this individual is investigating to see if they can find evidence of it. The legality in this case turns not so much on the actions of the 3rd party dog handler but rather on the student's expectation of privacy, or lack thereof. There is alot of caselaw dealing with free air sniffs and the general ruling is that you have no expectation of privacy in the air around you or your property. So long as the person, or in this case dog, is located in a place that they are lawfully entitled to be at and they do not have to manipulate the person or their property to do the free air sniff, then there hasn't even been a search at all. Absent a search, the only other factor is if any student is unlawfully detained to do the free air sniff. IF they are making students go through checkpoints or wait around unreasonable amounts of time then there maybe could be an argument. If the dog is just making the rounds until it alerts on something, that is perfectly acceptable police practice.

The reliability of drug dogs has come somewhat into question in recent years but they are still widely used and legally accepted tools to develop probable cause for a search.

All of the above deals with legalities which would come into play if the student were charged criminally. When you say that the school operates off of a reasonable suspicion standard versus probable cause, that makes me believe you are talking about for purposes of their administrative sanctions. The rules dealing with disciplining students are entirely different and a textbook unlawful search for criminal purposes can still be valid grounds for the school to sanction the student. Blanket sweeps by a drug dog in a school likely pass Constitutional scrutiny so they surely suffice for school discipline purposes. Talking a dog for a walk is certainly a very practical way to police the school rather than trying to visually monitor every locker, student, etc... to hope and get lucky and see drugs.