evidence that the student has violated or is violating either the law or the rules of the school. Such a search will be permissible in its scope when the measures adopted are reasonably related to the objectives of the search and not excessively intrusive in light of the age and sex of the student and the nature of the infraction. T.L.O. 469 U.S. at 340-342, 105 S.Ct. at 742-743 (footnotes omitted). Examining the facts of this case in light of the holding of T.L.O., we find that Harborcreek High School officials did not have a proper basis for conducting the search of Cass’ locker. We first note that the canine sniff is the action with which we are concerned because this constitutes a search under Pennsylvania law according to Commonwealth v. Johnston, 515 Pa. 454, 530 A.2d 74 (1982) (<HOLDING>); See also, Commonwealth v. Martin, 534 Pa.
holding that a canine sniff of luggage does not constitute a search holding that a canine sniff is a search for purposes of the fourth amendment holding canine sniff during traffic stop is not illegal search under fourth amendment holding a canine sniff on a legitimately detained automobile is not a search within the meaning of the fourth amendment holding canine sniff of an unattended vehicle parked outside the curtilage of defendants home was not a search within the meaning of the fourth amendment