1.

May it please the court, my name is Andrew Shen, and I represent the Appellant, Julia
Kostner. With the courts permission, I would like to reserve 2 minutes for rebuttal.
2. Your honors, this is a case about upholding the basic constitutional protections of a young
schoolgirl. The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution decrees that the right of
the people to be secure in their persons against unreasonable searches shall not be violated.
Furthermore, schools are charged with a duty to instill constitutional values that society
holds dear. This duty is defeated when students are taught that it is okay to infringe upon the
rights and freedoms of others in furtherance of what may or may not be a legitimate purpose.
3. Today, appellant Julia Kostner asks this court to uphold this Constitutional provision and set
a reasonable limit on a schools dominion over its students. This court should find that
Athens Township Local School District violated her Fourth Amendment rights and subjected
her to an unlawful search.
4. On October 24. 2013 Athens Township Local School District brought a large narcotics-
detection canine into a classroom and allowed it to come within three inches of Julia
Kostners person where it vigorously sniffed her body.
5. As the record states on page 13 and 14, the canine was allowed to intensely sniff Julias
person for more than ten seconds, and embarrassed her to the point that she wanted to cry in
the midst of her classmates and peers.
6. Julia Kostner respectfully asks this court to reverse the lower courts decision and find that
an unconstitutional search of Julia Kostner took place for two reasons.
7. First, because the intensive close proximity sniff of Julia Kostner was a search within the
meaning of the Fourth Amendment
8. And second, this search was unreasonable, and thus was unconstitutional and in violation of
Julia Kostners rights under the Fourth Amendment.


9. To my first point:
10. Supreme Court in U.S. v. Jacobsen:
a. Search occurs where there is a legitimate privacy interest and where an investigative
method infringes upon this interest.
11. Supreme Court in Katz v. U.S.:
a. What a person seeks to preserve as private, even in an area accessible to the public may
be constitutionally protected.
12. Here, Julia Kostner not only had a reasonable expectation of privacy in her person but this
also extends to the odors of her body and the air around her.
13. Further, the actions of Athens Township Local School District infringed upon Julia
Kostners privacy interests.
14. The Fifth and the Ninth Circuit
a. In Horton v. Goose Creek Independent School District
b. And in B.C. v. Plumas
c. Held that the intensive smelling of people, even if done by dogs is indecent and
demeaning.
d. Dog sniff is search within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment
15. Supreme Court in Terry v. Ohio
a. Warned against an overly technical definition of a search.
b. This court should find that a search took place and consider whether the search was a
reasonable one.
16. Reject Seventh Circuit Doe v. Renfrow
a. holding a dog sniff to not be a search was based on precedent cases addressing dog
sniffs of places and property.
b. This holding confuses the distinction between a search and one that is unreasonable. In
determining that there was no search, the court only mentions that students expectations
of privacy was diminished and moreover that the schools need to sniff the students
trumped these privacy interests.
i. This holding addresses the reasonableness of the actions rather than whether or not a
search has occurred
1. As such the holdings in Plumas and in Horton are more compelling.
17. This brings me to my second point, the search of Julia Kostners person was unreasonable.
18. Supreme Court in Vernonia School District 47J v. Acton
a. Established the Special Needs Doctrine to address the reasonableness of a search
b. This is a balancing test that weighs a particular intrusion upon an individuals Fourth
Amendment protections against the promotion of legitimate governmental interests.
c. Three factors are weighed in considering the reasonableness of a search:
i. Nature of the privacy interest upon which the search here at issue intrudes.
j. Scope of the legitimate expectation of privacy at issue here
k. Nature and immediacy of the governmental concern at issue and the efficacy
of the means for meeting it.
1. Regarding the intrusiveness of the search,
a. First, public
b. Second, alert seen by the entire class
i. Non-related parties are instantly aware of the positive results of the search.
c. Dogs are intimidating
i. Whether or not the subject is afraid of dogs, to use dogs on the entire student
population ignores the fact that many people could have a serious fear of the
animal, especially a large specimen like the canine in this case.
d. The method used caused discomfort in the pupils being searched.
i. Record p. 4 and 5 Julia Kostner admits being uncomfortable and frozen in place
for fear of touching the canine.
2. Regarding the nature of governmental concern at issue here
a. Problem was declining
b. P. 19 of the Record, Mangum indicated that the drug problem was already declining
c. In contrast, the Vernonia and Earls problems were much greater.

When weighing Julia Kostners significant interest in privacy against the lessened need of the school to
impose such an intrusive search method, this court should find that the dog sniff of Julia Kostner was an
unreasonable search in violation of Appellants Fourth Amendment rights.

For these reasons, Julia Kostner respectfully asks this court to reverse the lower court's decision because
the dog sniff was a search and further, it was unreasonable, thus implicating the protections of the Fourth
Amendment of the United States Constitution.