The state Board of Education is considering whether to allow locker searches and greater use of drug-sniffing dogs.

Board members say they are attempting to revise discipline rules in a way that balances the students' right to privacy and the schools' responsibility to keep students safe.

"There are some valid points on both sides. When you're on school property, is the locker your property or is it school property? To what extent can you expect privacy?" said Karen Knudsen, chairwoman of the Board of Education.

Some principals, however, are questioning whether the changes are needed.

"Right now, if we have a reasonable suspicion that a student has something that could cause harm, we can search," said Farrington High School principal Catherine Payne. "It seems to me that these changes are unnecessary."

Officials say the proposed changes were not prompted by an increase in contraband items seized at schools. Instead, officials said they first began considering revisions to rules to address the advent of cyberbullying and because the rules have not been changed since 2001.

"It's been a while since (the discipline rule) has been revised, and we wanted to update it and make it more clear in some areas," said Knudsen.

In the process, the state attorney general's office recommended changing provisions for search and seizures, and for allowing for the presence of drug-sniffing dogs.

Board members declined a recommendation by the attorney general that would have allowed school officials to search student lockers "with or without reason or cause," said Mary Cochran, chairwoman of the BOE's Committee on Special Programs.

"We voted to take out 'without cause,' which was the proper thing to do. ... Students have rights," Cochran said.

Cochran said she supports strengthening the school disciplinary code to give principals the clear authority to search suspicious lockers — even backpacks and cars — as a way to keep students from bringing drugs or weapons on campus. However, she said, it should only be done if there is reason to believe a student has contraband.

Cochran said the new language and authority is "primarily for deterrent purposes."

Some board members argue that the board should approve the recommendations by the attorney general's office, including allowing principals to search lockers "with or without reason or cause."

One of those members is John Penebacker, who said that by eliminating the "with or without reason or cause" wording, the search and seizure section would effectively remain unchanged.

"I would lean toward keeping the campus safe rather than toward student rights," Penebacker said. "We're responsible for keeping the environment safe so that learning can happen."

In its current form, disciplinary rules allow school officials to search lockers "only when the health or safety of a person or persons would be endangered if a search or seizure is not carried out."

There's a long process ahead before any changes are made. Changes require full board approval, public hearings and the governor's signature, said Greg Knudsen, spokesman for the state Department of Education.

Greg Knudsen said he also anticipates that there may be legal challenges to some of the revisions, especially one that would allow drug-sniffing dogs on a greater number of campuses. The American Civil Liberties Union is watching that issue closely, he said. The ACLU did not return a call seeking comment for this article.

The use of dogs to detect drugs on schools has already begun. Earlier this year, three Maui District schools — Lahainaluna High School, Lahaina Intermediate School and Lana'i High & Elementary School — participated in a pilot program in which specially trained dogs were used to detect drugs, alcohol and guns.

While some parents at pilot project schools expressed concern, the drug dogs were well-received by most parents and school communities at the time.

"There has been nothing but positive response from that pilot project on Maui," Cochran said. "It's one strategy. ... It's not the cure-all. But it is one strategy to control drugs. We've gone through 'Just Say No' and the anti-drug rallies, and this is just another strategy."

Whitney White owns Interquest Detection Canines of Hawaii, the private company that conducted the dog searches as a part of the pilot project. White said the canine inspections are legal because they are not considered searches and give officials the "reasonable suspicion" they need to open lockers or search backpacks.

"Our policies all fall within the legal areas," White said. "The courts have decided that a dog sniff is not a search. The alert of the certified detection canine is reasonable suspicion to perform an inspection."

During the canine inspections at the pilot schools, two DOE employees accompanied the dog and handler. If the dog detected drugs, alcohol or firearms, the DOE representatives followed search-and-seizure procedures.

For the pilot project, the canine inspections were limited to common buildings such as cafeterias and gymnasiums, student lockers and lounges, restrooms and school building exteriors, and campus grounds. The dogs were not allowed to sniff people, backpacks or purses, or inspect classrooms or inside cars.

Cochran argued that the dogs should be allowed to sniff cars and backpacks that have been left on the ground.

"We had a demonstration at a high school where there were 10 backpacks sitting in a row, and the dog went to every backpack, just walking, and he stopped right in front of the backpack that had a bottle of vodka," Cochran said. "We have to get those backpacks."

However, not everyone is convinced that the drug-sniffing dogs are the best option.

"It seems to me that this will be very disruptive to have something like that going on in the schools," said Payne, the Farrington principal. "I'm not convinced that it is needed. It's not like suddenly we have this rampant problem."

Reach Loren Moreno at lmoreno@honoluluadvertiser.com.