Hearn V Savanah Board Of Education Case Analysis

Analysis of Hearn v. Savanah Board of Education, 191 F.3d 1329 (11th Cir.1999)

Level or Type of Court: United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

Facts: In 1996, in a drug search of Windsor Forest High School, police dogs searched the parking lot and alerted them at, social studies teacher Sherry Hearn’s personal vehicle. The canine entered Ms. Hearn’s vehicle through an open window, where it alerted again. The school officer entered the vehicle without consent from Ms. Hearn, nor securing a warrant. He found a remnant of a, warm hand rolled cigarette, which field tested as marijuana, in the ash tray of Ms. Hearn’s car. She was then summoned to the principal’s office. Ms. Hearn denied knowledge or possession of any marijuana. She stated

Within two hours of the search school officials requested that Ms. Hearn take a urinalysis test to clear her of their suspicion. The school officials claimed they followed board policy which was put into place in 1993 to promote a drug free workplace. The policy stated that a supervisor should request a drug test when a “reasonable suspicion” that a drug policy violation had occurred within a two-hour time frame. If the employee refused to give consent, then it was cause for termination. Ms. Hearn refused to comply with this board policy and stated that the search of her vehicle was unconstitutional. Ms. Hearn was terminated from her position at Windsor Forest High School for insubordination. The day after the search Ms. Hearn took a drug test which found no traces of THC or controlled substances. She was given a hearing with the Board of Education, where they found no finding of facts, but voted to uphold her termination. She then appealed to the

Hearn’s termination was upheld by the United State Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit due to her direct violation of the employee agreement and refusal to take the drug test within the two-hour time frame. Judge James C. Hill concluded that the search of Ms. Hearn’s vehicle was done from a law enforcement operation and not that of campus security. It was also ruled that the search of her vehicle did not violate her Fourth Amendment rights, because the alert by the officer’s canine gave “reasonable suspicion” resulting in a probable cause search of the car. In the United States v. Ludwig, 10 F. 3d 1523, 1527 (10th Cir . 1993) case, the precedent was set which declared that when the canine alerted the police to potential controlled substances it gave them reasonable cause to search the vehicle without a warrant. Judge Hill stated that Ms. Hearn’s refusal to take the urinalysis drug test did constitute administrative discipline under the board policy and the production of body fluids is not viewed by the courts as communication. Therefore, her claim of refusal being protected by the Fifth Amendment was false. Ms. Hearn’s ability to perform as an educator was not questioned by administration nor the courts, which relied only on her resistance to comply with the School Board’s “Drug Free Workplace” policy. Ms. Hearn appealed to the Supreme Court, which denied hearing of her