ld that the sniff was no search at all and that the school authorities had acted reasonably in searching the possessions of the student after the dog indicated the presence of drug. The strip search had been impermissibly intrusive in scope and Woodard 5therefore unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment. Many commentators, as well as other court decisions from the same period, have been critical of that technical denial of student rights and have posited different findings. The court found that sniffing a person was in fact a search, as students' persons certainly are not the subject of lowered expectations of privacy in school, and that the Fourth Amendment applies with its fullest vigor against any intrusion on the human body. Sniffing a student would only be permitted after there is a reasonable, individualized suspicion of a student's drug possession (Magid and McKelvey 220-237). Dogs provide what humans cannot a sense of smell that catches illegal substances in places that aren’t visible. The school's regard in sniffing the cars was minimal and therefore searching them was also unreasonable. It posited the expression that although the school environment was a factor to be considered, it did not automatically beat all other factors and thereby make all searches reasonable.With respect to students' rights in school, the current juridical direction of Fourth Amendment law is of the most dubious legal, historical, and societal merit. It highlights society's fears of and disrespect for children and the paucity of alternatives to police-type enforcement measures under consideration in the schools, and indicates that school authorities are no longer willing to grant students even a semblance of the civil rights and civil liberties the rest of the nation's citizens consider inalienable. The first line of defense of school administrators is to bring in more military measures, with car searches, metal detectors, urine analyses, and drug...
