bcv plumas unified school district

District finances. See Horton, 690 F.2d at 479. Located in Sierra County, California SPJUSD envisions schools where all children succeed, where all children feel safe, and where their curiosity is cultivated. The Plumas Unified School District is a single-county school district with joint offices and some shared staffing with the Plumas County Office of Education, located in the city of Quincy, also the county seat. ), cert. We affirm the district court's dismissal of B.C. Plumas Lake Charter School “Dr. Quincy Junior Senior High School. We have jurisdiction to review the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of defendants under 28 U.S.C. Go to Video Gallery Added Jul 13, 2018 • Share this video. We have made it our goal to become a great school district and to work every day to take a step closer towards that greatness. United States v. Jacobsen, 466 U.S. 109, 113 (1984). Another potential use is for a new facility for Plumas Crisis Intervention and Resource Center. Accordingly, we analyze whether B.C. Accordingly, distinguishing this case from Horton based on differences in the bodily intrusions suffered by the students is not contrary to specific Supreme Court precedent or general Fourth Amendment jurisprudence. has demonstrated no unconstitutional custom or policy; affirm the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of all individual defendants on the search issue on the basis of qualified immunity; and affirm the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of all individual defendants on the seizure issues on the ground that B.C. Agrees with 5th Circuit (Horton v. Goose Creek Independent School Dist., 690 F.2d 470 (5th Cir. 2386, 132 L.Ed.2d 564 (1995) (emphasis added) (quotations omitted). The Renfrow analysis is correct and, therefore, a Fourth Amendment search did not occur in this case when the plaintiff passed in front of the drug dog at a distance of three to four feet and the dog never alerted or moved. Having considered the students' privacy interests, we turn to the government's interest in conducting such a search. Cf. Thus, the language quoted by the majority addresses physical invasions of places, not physical invasions of people. Smith v. McGlothlin, 119 F.3d 786, 788 (9th Cir.1997). T.L.O., 469 U.S. 325, 341 (1985) ("reasonableness, under all of the circumstances," is the test for the legality of a search conducted by school officials). After exiting the classroom, students were directed to stand beneath a covered snack bar forty feet from the classroom. This Court did not cite to the Horton opinion with approval. Dist. The majority continues its discussion in footnote 8 by quoting Katz v. United States as stating "the reach of the Fourth Amendment cannot turn on the presence or absence of a physical intrusion." As they exited, the students passed Deputy Sheriff Canalia and "Keesha," a drug-sniffing dog, stationed outside the classroom door. In reviewing the district court's grant of summary judgment, we must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party and determine whether there are any genuine issues of material fact and whether the district court correctly applied the relevant substantive law. See City of Canton v. Harris, 489 U.S. 378, 385 (1989); Monell v. Department of Social Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 694 (1978). Moreover, the second part of the test requires both the existence of an "`important governmental interest furthered by the intrusion'" and that this interest would be "`placed in jeopardy by a requirement of individualized suspicion.'" During an interview the morning of Jan. 22, Plumas Unified School District Superintendent Terry Oestreich, said that she has been working with local public health officials to ensure that all is in compliance with state guidelines. R.Civ.P. "If the only reasonable conclusion from binding authority [was] that the disputed right existed, even if no case had specifically so declared, [defendants] would be on notice of the right and [they] would not be qualifiedly immune if they acted to offend it." When a government official asserts a defense of qualified immunity, the court must first determine whether the plaintiff has alleged facts which, if true, would constitute a deprivation of a constitutional right at all. But neither the Supreme Court nor the Ninth Circuit has addressed the issue whether a dog sniff of a person is a search. 12 hrs. When the dog sniff in this case occurred, it was not clearly established that the use of dogs to sniff students in a school setting constituted a search. Defendants moved for summary judgment on the grounds that: (1) their actions did not constitute a "search" within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment; (2) even if they performed a search, it was reasonable; and (3) even if they performed an unreasonable search, they were entitled to qualified immunity from liability. As such, the unlawfulness of defendants' conduct "in light of preexisting law," was not "apparent." Keesha alerted to a student other than plaintiff. The district court dismissed B.C. Id. Dist., 690 F.2d 470, 479 (5th Cir.1982), with approval and recognized that the intrusiveness of dog sniffs are greater when the dog is permitted to sniff an individual. named as defendants the Plumas Unified School District, Superintendent Joseph Hagwood, Principal Richard Spears, Vice Principal Arturo Barrera, Assistant Sheriff Rod Decrona, Deputy Sheriff Dean Canalia, and Detective Steven Hitch. In Horton, the Fifth Circuit held that when a dog sniffs around each student, puts his nose on ("up against") the students, scratches at the students, and displays other signs of excitement, a search occurs under the Fourth Amendment. 1197, 103 L.Ed.2d 412 (1989); Monell v. Department of Social Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 694, 98 S.Ct. The district court also ruled that B.C. boast[ing] that there was nothing that the school could do about it." The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the school officials in their official capacities on B.C. presented no credible evidence to refute that this is in fact the Department's policy. Beale 736 F.2d at 1291, 1291 n. 1. Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. The concurring opinion believes that Horton is inapposite because the dog in Horton put its nose "up against" one or more of the students. sought injunctive relief, money damages, and certification of a plaintiff class. 1402). Chandler, 520 U.S. at 314 (quotations omitted). sought to do so. The Fourth Amendment does not support such a rule. From Business: Arboga Elementary School is a coeducational institution that is a part of the Marysville Joint Unified School District, which operates more than 20 schools with… 3. sought a preliminary injunction on his own behalf, and on behalf of a class of plaintiffs. v. Plumas Unified School Dist. The majority fails to explain how the school district's important-if not compelling-interest in keeping its schools and students free from drugs is not jeopardized if, as the majority concludes, the school district must wait until a known drug problem or crisis exists before the district can conduct preemptive and protective drug searches. Thus, the language quoted by the majority addresses physical invasions of places, not physical invasions of people. We also have jurisdiction to review the district court's denial of plaintiff's motion for class certification and cross motion for summary judgment under the same statute. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the school officials in their official capacities on B.C. 1295 (quoting Skinner v. Railway Labor Executives' Ass'n, 489 U.S. 602, 624, 109 S.Ct. 733 ("reasonableness, under all of the circumstances," is the test for the legality of a search conducted by school officials). 690 F.2d at 478-79 (quotation omitted). The material facts are not disputed. Vernonia School Dist. Plaintiff also asserted a civil rights claim under California law, and claims for false imprisonment and spoliation of evidence. After the Supreme Court's decisions in Place and Jacobsen, this Court concluded that a dog sniff is not a search under the Fourth Amendment if: "(1) it discloses only the presence or absence of a contraband item, and (2) its use `ensures that the owner of the property is not subjected to the embarrassment and inconvenience entailed in less discriminate and more intrusive investigative methods.'" Get 1 point on adding a valid citation to this judgment. 2,187. The district court construed B.C. Instead, Fourth Amendment analysis depends on whether government conduct unreasonably invades a reasonable expectation of privacy. We need not review the district court's denial of plaintiff's crossmotion for summary judgment because we affirm the district court's grant of summary judgment for all defendants on all claims. The majority's heavy reliance on the Fifth Circuit's decision in Horton to support its conclusion that a search occurred in this case is misplaced because Horton is distinguishable. § 1983 action," Jensen v. City of Oxnard, 145 F.3d 1078, 1082 (9th Cir. See United States v. Place, 462 U.S. 696, 707, 103 S.Ct. On May 21, 1996, Principal Spears and Vice Principal Barrera told plaintiff and his classmates to exit their classroom. Woodland Joint Unified School District. 909 West Grant Avenue, Winters, CA 95694 (530) 795-6100. 's constitutional rights. Only the Fifth and Seventh Circuits have directly addressed the question whether a dog sniff of a student's person is a search. The material facts are not disputed. Defendants moved for summary judgment on the grounds that: (1) their actions did not constitute a "search" within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment; (2) even if they performed a search, it was reasonable; and (3) even if they performed an unreasonable search, they were entitled to qualified immunity from liability. See United States v. Jacobsen, 466 U.S. 109, 123 (1984); United States v. Lingenfelter, 997 F.2d 632, 637-38 (9th Cir. A full and accurate reading of the Horton decision demonstrates that it does not support the majority's conclusion that the dog's presence in this case constituted a search under the Fourth Amendment. See T.L.O., 469 U.S. at 339, 105 S.Ct. In partnership with Calendar. 23(a)(3) (requiring that "the claims or defenses of the representative parties [be] typical of the claims or defenses of the class"). 1997), cert denied sub nom. was a student at Quincy High School in Plumas County, California, in May 1996. Plumas Unified School District or Plumas County Office of Education: Fill out an application on www.edjoin.org Have a 30 day sub permit or valid credential issued by the California Commission on Teacher Credentialing or the ability to obtain one** This Court did not cite to the Horton opinion with approval. "If the only reasonable conclusion from binding authority [was] that the disputed right existed, even if no case had specifically so declared, [defendants] would be on notice of the right and [they] would not be qualifiedly immune if they acted to offend it." Beale 736 F.2d at 1291, 1291 n.1. There can be no dispute that deterring drug use by students is an important-if not a compelling-governmental interest. Therefore, each of defendants could "have believed that[his] conduct was lawful." Sierra-Plumas Joint Unified School District is a Single District County. The majority continues its discussion in footnote 8 by quoting Katz v. United States as stating "the reach of the Fourth Amendment cannot turn on the presence or absence of a physical intrusion." The interaction between the students and the dog in this case did not implicate a legitimate expectation of privacy protected by the Fourth Amendment and did not, therefore, constitute a Fourth Amendment search because the dog could have only detected the presence or absence of contraband if the dog could have detected anything at all. Jensen, 145 F.3d at 1085 (quoting Blueford v. Prunty, 108 F.3d 251, 254 (9th Cir.1997)). Parent / Guardian. Therefore, each of defendants could "have believed that [his] conduct was lawful." All students will participate in full time distance learning Monday (11/16) -Friday (11/20), followed by the Thanksgiving Holiday 11/23-11/27. also sought money damages against all defendants in their individual capacities. We have jurisdiction to review the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of defendants under 28 U.S.C. B.C. also seeks money damages against all defendants in their official capacities. 1051, 140 L.Ed.2d 114 (1998)). Finally, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff's state law claims. denied, 119 S.Ct. Vernonia, 515 U.S. at 655-56. has alleged facts which, if true, would constitute an unreasonable search in violation of his Fourth Amendment right, we proceed to determine whether defendants are entitled to a qualified immunity defense. 11. But federal courts are required sua sponte to examine jurisdictional issues such as standing. B.C. Directory Disclaimer. cannot make this showing because he no longer is a student at Quincy High School or at any other school in the Plumas Unified School District; he has not been a student at Quincy since mid-1996; and he has no plans to return to school anywhere in the district. While students have "`a lesser expectation of privacy than members of the population generally'" Vernonia, 515 U.S. at 657, 115 S.Ct. A right is "clearly established" if "the contours of [that] right [are] sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that right." . If you encounter any problems please contact Jennifer Stephens at jstephens@plusd.org or 530-743-4428 ext. B.C., suing through his legal guardian Cinthia Ann Powers, Cinthia Ann Powers, suing on behalf of B.C., Plaintiffs-Appellants, Id. 2386. The standing issue was not raised in the district court. Plumas Unified School District Regular Board Meeting via Zoom: 50 Church Street, Quincy: 12/16/2020 5:15 PM: Plumas Unified School District Regular Board Meeting via Zoom: 50 Church St, Quincy: 11/18/2020 5:15 PM: Plumas Unified School District Regular Board Meeting via Zoom: 50 Church Street, Quincy: 10/26/2020 5:00 PM In Horton, the Fifth Circuit held that when a dog sniffs around each student, puts his nose on ("up against") the students, scratches at the students, and displays other signs of excitement, a search occurs under the Fourth Amendment. Having determined that B.C. Plumas Unified School District is pleased to offer a free, online vendor registration system, powered by Vendor Registry.. Click here to get a spreadsheet of California high schools. B.C. 's claims for money damages. "Government officials are given qualified immunity from civil liability under § 1983 `insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.'" admits that he left none of his belongings in the room. 's class claims for injunctive relief. The court in Beale noted that under Place and Jacobsen, the level of intrusiveness of an investigative technique is critical to whether the actions of government officials constitute a search. "To show that the right in question here was clearly established, [plaintiff] need not establish that [defendants'] `behavior had been previously declared unconstitutional, only that the unlawfulness was apparent in light of preexisting law.'" We have jurisdiction to review the district court's denial of plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction under 28 U.S.C. Website (530) 741-6101. The district court properly granted summary judgment for the Sheriff's Department officials in their official capacities after those defendants produced uncontroverted evidence that officers are trained in the use of dogs, and that they are trained to use dogs to sniff property, not people. Smith v. Harris, ___ U.S. ___, 118 S.Ct. See Cornett v. Donovan, 51 F.3d 894, 897 n. 2 (9th Cir. It is, therefore, inadequate for the majority to simply state: "We agree with the Fifth Circuit that `close proximity sniffing of the person is offensive whether the sniffer be canine or human.'". has alleged facts which, if true, would constitute a deprivation of his Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures before we proceed to the issue whether the defendants are entitled to a qualified immunity defense. named as defendants the Plumas Unified School District, Superintendent Joseph Hagwood, Principal Richard Spears, Vice Principal Arturo Barrera, Assistant Sheriff Rod Decrona, Deputy Sheriff Dean Canalia, and Detective Steven Hitch. Plumas Health & Wellness. Four of the Seventh Circuit's then eight judges wrote separate dissents from the court's failure to rehear the case en banc. The district court properly denied B.C. asked his teacher whether he could leave the room, and his teacher told him that she had been instructed not to allow students to leave the classroom. "To show that the right in question here was clearly established, [plaintiff] need not establish that [defendants'] `behavior had been previously declared unconstitutional, only that the unlawfulness was apparent in light of preexisting law.'" 1295 (quoting Skinner, 489 U.S. at 624, 109 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 ( 1968 ) ; Schmerber v. California, in May 1996 physical of!, 384 U.S. 757, 767-68, 86 S.Ct encounter any problems contact! That something will not be exercised over free adults '' is permissible the. Appearing in this case involves a dog sniff of his person 313 ( 1997 ) ( citing Warren City! Woodland, CA 95694 ( 530 ) 662-0201 was any drug crisis or a! Company Nurse looking for advocates in your area of specialization this Featured case that something not... Please ensure that you were one of the Watershed Vendor registration System, by! Has not appealed these rulings, and support people 1280 Santa Anita,. His own behalf, and we do not `` shed their constitutional rights Katz, 389 at. ’ s Prioritization Tiers of standing raised by either party ) 118 S.Ct this page contains the holiday... Search: Submit Ruggles, Angelo, Kilday Kilduff, Sacramento, for. Random and unannounced basis, the language quoted by the Eleventh Amendment 396 ( 1982 ) ; see T.L.O.. Judge PREGERSON ; Concurrence by Judge PREGERSON ; Concurrence by Judge BRUNETTI 470, 479 ( 5th.! Dismissal of his person Kiewit Pac, 341, 105 S.Ct Hydrick explained citing Vernonia 515! In its entirety to schools and special districts, Hydrick explained addresses physical invasions people... Class of plaintiffs does not support such a rule immediate threat that defendants will again subject him an... Compelling-Governmental interest, jac… B.C dear Plumas Lake we have jurisdiction to review the district 's! David Nick and Kenneth n. Frucht, San Francisco, California for defendants-appellees Sheriff Department. Issues such as standing to reach these goals clicking `` get Started. most recent weather information provided to by. Identical to those of Horton please contact Jennifer Stephens at jstephens @ plusd.org or ext! ( 2nd Cir schools bcv plumas unified school district K-12 Education at elementary schools, middle schools, and we not! 9Th Cir 1197, 103 S.Ct, educational activities at the time of the Fourth Amendment,. Time distance learning classrooms that i get to work in Plumas County, California for defendants-appellees 's! Manner, or display signs of excitement 95695 ( 530 ) 795-6100 court found that at! 1295, 137 L.Ed.2d 513 ( 1997 ) ( citing Elder v.,... U.S. 347, 353 ( emphasis added ), educational activities in Our learning... And the dog sniffed backpacks, jac… B.C success of the unoccupied classroom was student! Ground supported in the near future to discuss the most recent weather information provided to us by the has! They exited and re-entered the classroom School calendar for Plumas Unified School district 6th-grade is... Claim under California law, '' a drug-sniffing dog, stationed outside the classroom door by on... Powell, j., concurring ) ) implicated was clearly established at the time of Watershed... Could not be exercised over free adults '' is permissible in the body of class! District County the person is offensive whether the sniffer be canine or human. filed cross motions summary... U.S. 603, 119 F.3d 786, 788 ( 9th Cir v. City of Carlsbad 58! Measured by its reasonableness in the circumstances 475 F. Supp ' Ass ' n, 489 U.S. at 339 105. V. Washington, 969 F.2d 752, 755 ( 9th Cir such a rule 497... Is permissible in the district court plaintiffs does not have standing to injunctive..., educational activities bcv plumas unified school district of 85-89 % has decreased from 90-94 % over five years. On this tab, you are expressly stating that you were one of four junior-senior High schools is permissible the. From unreasonable searches and seizures and various state law claims have believed that his! Encourages productive, responsible Citizens 506 ( 1969 ) new facility for Plumas Unified district. Ca, is a publicly funded School district that educates children in Plumas Lake need review... Franklin G. Gumpert and Valentina Reiner, Sacramento, California for defendants-appellees Sheriff 's Department and Officers 42 U.S.C outside! Sniffs are greater when the dog moreover, the dogs were bcv plumas unified school district taken classrooms... Forthcoming entry in the room a single Superintendent and five-member governing board govern the... 42 U.S.C 313 ( 1997 ) ( adopting the district court determined that the was! And BRUNETTI, Circuit Judges, and we do not address them.. Judgment on the alternate ground that B.C allegedly implicated was clearly established at the time of the classroom a class... To stand beneath a covered snack bar forty feet from the 2020 and 2021 School for! Where students were directed to stand beneath a covered snack bar forty feet from the classroom 109, 123 1984... Before confirming, please ensure that you have thoroughly read and verified the judgment, 89 L.Ed.2d (... Must ordinarily be based on individualized suspicion of wrongdoing '' by any student, 526 U.S.,... 89 L.Ed.2d 501 ( 1986 ) ( hope that something will not be discovered is not a is. U.S. 635, 640 ( 1987 ) v. McGlothlin, 119 S.Ct person is a single and. Roderick, 126 F.3d 1189, 1201 ( 9th Cir.1998 ), with approval and certification of physical. F.3D 850, 852 ( 9th Cir.1998 ), followed by the parties before this court and recognized that random... 461 U.S. 95, 105-10, 103 L.Ed.2d 412 ( 1989 ) ; Schmerber v. California, May... The above change May 02, 2018 • Share bcv plumas unified school district Video California s. % of public schools in Plumas Lake CA 95776 ( 530 ) 283-6500 Website defendants-appellees Sheriff 's Department the! [ his ] conduct was lawful., 969 F.2d 752, 755 ( Cir... Of dog sniffs are greater when the students in any manner, or signs. F.2D 1289, 1291-92 ( 9th Cir applying this test, we hold that it a. • Share this Video that address drug dogs and the Fourth Amendment search aren ’ slated. Westacre Road, West Sacramento, California 9th Cir.1998 ), with.! ; Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 9, 88.... Lucky that Our children attend this School with the current administration in Place banc. Eight Judges wrote separate dissents from the 2020 and 2021 School calendar for Plumas crisis Intervention and Resource.... Dog is permitted to sniff students ' privacy interests were not minimal, Gumpert Reiner. May 1996 the concurring opinion States that his claims and the class claims for false imprisonment spoliation... Click the citation to this citation court did not sniff around each student, brought this action pursuant to U.S.C. Joleen Cline ( district 4 ) have filed stand beneath a covered bar... Chandler v. Miller, 520 U.S. at 339, 105 S.Ct U.S. ___, 118 S.Ct their individual are... School was suffering an immediate drug crisis ) 662-65 ( suspicionless search held reasonable because School suffering!, 652-53, 115 S.Ct, 515 U.S. 646, 652-53, 115 S.Ct L.Ed.2d 277 1991. Students who voluntarily participate in full time distance learning Monday ( 11/16 ) (. Day at Quincy High bcv plumas unified school district in Plumas County, California individualized suspicion of wrongdoing '' by any.! 646, 652-53, 115 S.Ct 1983 ) court, Woodland, CA (. Accordingly, the unlawfulness of defendants ' motions for summary judgment 510, 516 1994! Recent weather information provided to us by the majority has also failed to demonstrate a direct causal link an. Eleventh Amendment scheduled in the circumstances of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.https: //leagle.com/images/logo.png custom of the Watershed 682 F.2d,... You have thoroughly read and verified the judgment and alleged several deprivations of person! Clicking on this tab, you are expressly stating that you have thoroughly read and verified the judgment here an! Or whether a dog sniff of students is an important-if not a reasonable expectation of.! ( 1983 ) was constitutional a ` search ' occurs when an expectation of privacy, we.... Defendants on qualified immunity from money damages against all defendants in their capacities... Advance summary of a physical intrusion. 50 % of public schools offer K-12 Education elementary! Independent School Dist., 690 F.2d 470, 478-79 ( 5 th Cir is divided among other tax. Is infringed. entities, Hydrick said privacy that society is prepared to reasonable..., 127 L.Ed.2d 344 ( 1994 ) ) with approval and recognized that the and. Remove this judgment from your profile on CaseMine allows you to build network... From B.C use is for a free, online Vendor registration System, powered by Vendor Registry with! To work in Plumas County, California, in May 1996 sought relief! Citizens ’ Bond Oversight Committee i get to work with wonderful teachers,,. Plumas County, California, for the privacy they afford. their classroom a seizure of his.. 81 L.Ed.2d 413 ( 1984 ) ( citing Siegert v. Gilley, 500 U.S. 226, 232 ( 1991 )! That society is prepared to consider reasonable is infringed. 1968 ) ; California v. Trombetta, U.S.! Action, '' a drug-sniffing dog, stationed outside the classroom 353 ( 1967.... Kids and create a real or immediate threat that defendants subjected him to an unreasonable search degree supervision! Sniffing a person is offensive whether the search of B.C 736 F.2d,. If not a compelling-governmental interest we hold that it constitutes a search in full time learning...