Participants in a forum about the possible use of canine searches within Cooperstown Central school district felt initially that searches would act as a deterrent to drug use, but feared that it might create a division among students and the faculty.

Canine searches were first investigated and eventually turned down by the school board in September of 1999 after more than a year of research, two demonstrations, and two comprehensive surveys. The rationale for the decision was to allow new administration the opportunity to assess the situation.

The board revisited the idea during their meeting in December.

"We feel we continue to experience issues with drugs coming into our campus," said superintendent Mary Jo McPhail.

High school principal Gary Kuch said that situations with drug possession had come to school officials' attention over the years.

Kuch ran down the list of drugs that are present among the students, which included marijuana, cocaine, ecstasy and crystal meth.

"It's all here. It's very clearly in the community so it is in the school," he said.

A committee of various community members, including students, participated in a discussion last week to investigate whether CCS would want to adopt a canine search policy.

Technical Sergeant David Rivera with the New York State Police presented a detailed explanation about locker sweeps. They conduct "non-intrusive," unannounced searches in common areas where there is "no expectation of privacy," Rivera said. These common areas are the students' lockers.

Searches would be held while the students and staff would be in lock-down mode, (within classrooms with the doors shut), as to avoid distractions, said McPhail.

Narcotic search dogs are trained to act aggressively while alerting an officer of a suspicious item, which means they would scratch or claw at an object.

"For that purpose, we do not search people," said Rivera. "There are certain things we can and cannot do."

When the dog alerts officers, he or she would inform school officials to search the locker and neighboring lockers on each side (the 18-inch rule). The dog can detect whether marijuana, hashish, cocaine, crack cocaine, heroin, methamphetamine, crystal meth and ecstasy was in that location, or if it was there recently. Residue of an illegal drug could also be detected on items in the locker.

Officers will test the area a second time with a different dog to make sure a finding was accurate.

"We always double check," Rivera said. "We do that for the benefit of the student."

The officers do not search the locker themselves, that is left to school administrators.

"If contraband is found, we have a zero tolerance policy. That student will be arrested," Rivera stated. However, he added that they remove the student from class as discreetly as possible.

Typically a school would conduct locker sweeps two to three times a year, Rivera said.

"It all depends on the needs of the school," he said.

Rivera also mentioned that every once in a while it was a good idea to bring in a bomb or weapons detection dogs to participate in the searches.

Students' cars would not be searched because it would be too timely and a student has the expectation to privacy with their vehicle.

Rivera concluded that over the past three years he had been conducting searches and had always received positive feedback from students.

Initial opinions among the members of the committee varied.

Mark Harman, a member of the Health Advisory Committee, felt that allowing locker searches to be conducted, would "show that the school is taking a no nonsense approach" to the issue of drugs.

"I think by having dogs here sends a clear message that we do not want drugs at our school," Kuch agreed. He did add that he believed these searches would not be the solution to all drug issues.

Middle school health teacher Wayne Weir stated that allowing canine searches in CCS might turn a potential problem around by opening up a parents eyes and getting help for student.

However, Mike Otis, a parent, commented that the effectiveness of a program should be weighed against what could be done to the relationship between the students and the faculty.

"If you're going to do it, it ought to be real effective," said Otis.

Celeste Johns, a member of the Health Advisory Board, agreed with Otis adding that these searches send a "scary" message to students.

"I still think we have to weigh the fact it is a very intimidating message," Johns said.

CCS senior Kate Johannesen was one of several students there who voiced her opinion.

"I have talked to many high school students. Over a vast majority have expressed an interest in not having dogs in school," she said.

She stated that after speaking with 60 juniors and seniors who are not members of the student council, only two of them said they agreed with the idea of having dog searches conducted on campus. The rest were against the idea.

She said some students felt that it might make more of a division between the faculty and students.

"It creates an intimidating atmosphere," said Johannesen. "It's as though we are all guilty until proven innocent. The will of the student body right now is disinclined."

She added, however, that those opinions were based on earlier perceptions and that she would now go back to the student council with new information.

When a school district decides to allow dog searches within their school, a policy would need to be created and reviewed by the zone commander of their school district, which would be Captain Kevin Molinari from the New York State Police headquarters in Oneonta.

If the policy is adopted, the school would have to include it in the student handbook and a letter, describing the sweeps, would have to be circulated to parents.

"You have to put everyone on notice," he said.

Rivera stated that CCS would be one of the last schools in the area to adopt a policy regarding canine searches, should the board approve it.

The next forum will be held on Monday, April 5, at 7 p.m. in the high school library.

Rivera stated that anyone with questions can contact him at 547-5325.