Drug-sniffing police dogs were on the agenda for last Tuesday’s Redondo Beach school board meeting. But the issue was tabled until Oct. 25 due to the absence of board member Laura Emdee. The board was also adamant about having Redondo Union’s principal Nichole Wesley at the next board meeting to discuss the issue.
“I think the board wants to deal with this,” said board member Todd Loewenstein. “It’s just that Laura’s not here. I don’t see moving it to the next board meeting would be any significant issue.”
The issue on the table was the option of adding contraband detection dogs to the school’s arsenal of drug-fighting tools. Both Torrance and Manhattan Beach currently use the dogs in their schools. However, instead of using the public police force, Manhattan Beach uses a contractor.
Even though Emdee was not at the meeting, it did not preclude the members from discussing the issue. Members of the board were concerned about the areas the dogs would be allowed to sniff, mostly discussing the use of the dogs in the parking lot around vehicles. In the end, most of the members came to the conclusion that if the dogs would be used, their main objective would be to search strictly around lockers and common areas, avoiding vehicles. However, no decisions were made and the area the dogs may be able to detect drugs is still under discussion.
“I am concerned about the dogs around vehicles,” said school board member Drew Gamet. “If they can sniff students’ cars, they can detect it in staff vehicles as well…. Cars seem to function as a different type of property and therefore it becomes a different issue. The parking lot is not just a student-only zone.”
Board member Anita Avrick countered that opinion, suggesting that the school has a no tolerance policy. “Everybody is included,” she added.
Members were concerned about the possibility of also screening parents’ cars, and members were of the opinion that no matter who was in possession of the contraband, they do not want it on campus. “Just don’t bring it to campus,” said Avrick.
Frank DeSena, the assistant superintendent of student services who facilitated the option of this program, was adamant about the necessity of more tools to fight the problem.
“It does get you into decision-making time,” he said, regarding the school’s drug policy. “Those issues are things that cause districts not to use the drug-sniffing dogs. It is a tough decision. What do you do if you have a dog that’s alerting you to a non-student vehicle?”
The program would come at no cost to the school because it would be utilizing the Redondo Beach Police Department’s program instead of a contracting company. However that option could lead to legal problems for students, when the use of a contract company possibly would not.
“I don’t have a problem starting off sniffing around the lockers,” said Avrick. “Then it’s our responsibility a year from now that we bring it back to have that conversation about how it’s working, what’s going on, should we move it on to another stage.”
Currently the high school has many programs to fight drugs including a drug counselor, red ribbon week and a voluntary drug-testing program where parents, at their own cost, can opt for a private drug screening for their children with private results.
“I think it’s easy to go down this path, it is the knee-jerk way of doing this. It’s not necessarily the smartest way to do this,” said Loewenstein. “You know that kids will have it on them, and they will take it off campus. Then you have other issues. You have it in the community; you might also have kids driving under the influence. There are a lot of issues here that are really deep.”
Other issues with having dogs on campus came into play when Diehl asked the opinion of the student representative.
“I think that if you don’t have drugs you don’t need to be worried about the dogs, but there are a few people who are scared and allergic to dogs,” said Brooke O’Neal. “I think most students aren’t fond of the idea, they think it’s going too far and is too much of an invasion of privacy. I think it could potentially lead to other things like hiding it in other places or do other things the dog may not catch the scent of. I’m definitely against the vehicles, because vehicles are private property.”
DeSena pushed the option because he felt that having drug sniffing dogs on campus would be a deterrent for many students. “It’s just another spoke on the wheel of drug prevention.”
“How do you measure if it’s a deterrent or not?” asked Loewenstein. “If kids have it on themselves and are smoking in bathrooms, how do you know that?”
The program would not simply focus on marijuana, but cocaine and methamphetamine as well as some prescription drugs.
Loewenstein added, “I would imagine that there are some kids that we are stereotyping, that kids that are smoking aren’t good students. Some of them may be really good students that could be affected.”
“We have some of our top students, some of our top athletes who are involved in this also,” said Avrick. “It’s not just the lower-level kids who are doing this. A lot of them are not. We have to look at that. We have to also find a way to get those students the help they need.”
Board members discussed the possibility of changing the wording of the policy. DeSena, for example, noted the board could just include “dogs may sniff the air around lockers or common areas and just leave it at that for the first year and adjust after that.”
In the end, the issue was pushed off for another couple of weeks, but the doors of the discussion were opened wide.
“Everybody has a commitment to helping keep drugs off our property,” said board member Jane Diehl. “Everybody feels that is important. The question is, how are we going to do this? We have to be careful and proceed slowly and cautiously.”
