Fair enough, I should have been more precise with my language. Section 1983 says that a violation of a constitutional right gives rise to a civil remedy for da

Fair enough, I should have been more precise with my language. Section 1983 says that a violation of a constitutional right gives rise to a civil remedy for damages. A violation of the Fourth Amendment right is such a violation of a constitutional right. If the school officials, being officers of the state, did not comply with the rule in Kyllo, then they would be in violation of the Fourth Amendment, so they could be liable for damages under section 1983. The officials could defend on the grounds of qualified immunity. However, to win on this defense, the officers must show that the law was not "clearly established." The argument I would make is that Kyllo is clearly established, so qualified immunity would not apply. The Wikipedia article on section 1983 provides some examples of its uses: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_1983 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_1983