that school administrators may lightly ignore. It is not a matter that warrants no response. Nor is it a matter that must await further developments before school officials address the threat. Considering the totality of the circumstances, the conclusion appears inescapable that a reasonable gu s, where the discretion of government officials is strictly circumscribed and the government's interest in the search is particularly heightened, a search may qualify as reasonable under the Fourth Amendment without any individualized suspicion. See, e.g., Cassidy v. Chertoff, 471 F.3d 67, 83 (2d Cir.2006) (upholding the search of vehicles and luggage on commuter ferries because of the high risk that they might be targets of terrorist attacks); U.S. v. Edwards, 498 F.2d 496, 500 (2d Cir.1974) (<HOLDING>). 3 . In an important sense, the school
holding that a canine sniff of luggage does not constitute a search holding that a dog sniff of the exterior of luggage in a public airport does not constitute a search under the fourth amendment holding that the reasonableness inquiry is based upon the totality of the circumstances in determining whether or not a search was reasonable holding that defendants consent to a search of their luggage was undermined by officers misrepresentation that a drug dog had alerted to their luggage holding that the search of carryon luggage at airports meets the test of reasonableness because of the enormous dangers to life and property from terrorists ordinary criminals or the demented