by David G. Savage
The strip search of a 13-year old school girl who was suspected of hiding pain relief pills was unreasonable and unconstitutional, the Supreme Court ruled today, setting new legal limits on how far school officials may go to inspect for drugs on campus.
In an 8-1 decision, the high court called a strip search at school "categorically distinct" from other inspections for drugs and so degrading that it usually can not be justified.
The justices said that a search of a student's backpack or outer clothing is reasonable whenever a school employee has a reasonable suspicion that the student is hiding something illegal, such as drugs or a weapon.
But requiring a student to remove her clothes requires a "quantum leap" of suspicion and wrongdoing to be justified, the court said.
Its ruling was a partial victory for Savana Redding and her mother April, who sued the vice principal of her middle school over a strip search in 2003. The vice principal was told by another girl that Savana had brought extra strength Ibuprofen pills to school
and planned to give them to other students.
She was questioned and denied having the pills. Her backpack was searched as well. When no pills were found, the vice principal sent her to a nurse's office where she was ordered to remove her clothes.
No pills were found, but school officials did not apologize to the girl or her mother. They sued the employees and the Safford Unified School District, contending the strip search violated her rights under the 4th Amendment, which forbids "unreasonable searches" by the government.
In today's ruling, the justices agreed the search itself was unconstitutional, but they also rejected the suit against the school employees because the law had not been clear.
The decision sets a standard for all future school searches, but it may result in no compensation for the Savana and her mother. The court sent the case back to Arizona to consider whether the school district itself may face some liability.
In Safford v. Redding, Justice David H. Souter said the vice principal had reasonable grounds for questioning the students about drugs, but he went way too far.
"In sum, what was missing," Souter said, "was an indication of danger to the students from the power of the drugs or their quantity, and any reason to suppose that Savana was carrying pills in her underwear. We think that combination of these deficiencies was fatal to finding the search reasonable.''
Only Justice Clarence Thomas dissented.
He complained the ruling "grants judges sweeping authority to second guess the measures that these officials take to maintain discipline in their schools and ensure the health and safety of the students in their charge."
Meanwhile, Justices John Paul Stevens and Ruth Bader Ginsburg would have gone further and upheld a liability ruling against the school officials in this case.
"I have long believed that it does not require a constitutional scholar to conclude that a nude search of a 13-year old child is an invasion of constitutional rights of some magnitude," Stevens wrote.
.
Comments
In the mid-late 90's the school I and subsequently my son graduated from went into lockdown mode. It became a quasi low security prison.
The voters and the school admin. were fearful of drug use and other problems of society.
One day the local police showed up right after the days AM lockup was complete. They had drug sniffing dogs and did a complete sweep of the building.
Not one case of illegal drugs was found.
What a waste. And what a lesson we are teaching our kids.
Now that result doesn't mean none of the kids used drugs, but it highlights the overreaction of zealous officials.
And for the past decade the kids have had to pass a drug test, without probable cause, before participating in any extra-curricular activities.
Posted by: C.Morris✧ | June 25, 2009 12:09 PM
You can always count on Clarence to argue against basic rights. Strip searching a 13 year old in an effort to crack down on the notorious Ibuprofen trade? No problem!
Posted by: Michael | June 25, 2009 12:13 PM
Why does Clarence Thomas believe it's OK for schools to strip search girls? How is this being a family values republican?
Posted by: Grandblvd03 | June 25, 2009 12:37 PM
I think they should have waterboarded her.
Posted by: Dick Cheney | June 25, 2009 12:54 PM
On the Administration's side: For school officials it is damned if you do and damned if you don't, although in this case I think they took things waaay too far.They should have waited for her parent to be at the school once the back pack was checked. Are illegal drugs that prevalent amongst the "good" kids in that school that they had to take such measures? Where is common sense?
We are leaving out what should happen to the girl who falsely accused her. Maybe she will get a lesson as well if they sue her and her parents...something about perjury or bearing false witness? Do other kids even talk to that girl anymore for fear she will turn them in too?
Posted by: lochnessmonster | June 25, 2009 1:34 PM
“Its ruling was a partial victory for Savana Redding and her mother April, who sued the vice principal of her middle school over a strip search in 2003.”
.
Again, Mr. Savage, I must disagree. The decision was no victory at all for that young girl or her mother. While the Court found the search unreasonable, it also held that the school officials who ordered or conducted the search are protected from liability under the “qualified immunity” doctrine. That’s because, at the time of the search, “clearly established law [did] not show that the search violated the Fourth Amendment.”
.
I think that decision is incredible on its face. At the time, school officials could only conduct searches that were “reasonable” under the circumstances. If school officials are supposed conduct only reasonable searches, then it is only reasonable to expect them to know what a reasonable search is (and isn’t) beforehand. Case law had already established that a search’s reasonableness, including its intrusiveness, depends on the nature of the infraction. The lesser the infraction, the lesser the justification for an intrusive search. In this case, they were searching for ibuprofen which is not an illegal or dangerous drug. Its possession only violated a school policy. The only indication the girl might have possessed ibuprofen came from another student whose motive for shifting blame away from herself was obvious. Under Fourth Amendment law, that is the least reliable category of information. In addition, less intrusive searches of the girl’s property and clothing had already failed to show that she possessed drugs. At that point, an objectively reasonable school official would have to know that a below-the-underwear search would be unreasonable based on the questionable information available. At least one federal appellate court had already come to the same conclusion long before the search involved in the Redding suit. (See Cornfield by Lewis v. Consol. High Sch. Dist. No. 230, 991 F.2d 1316, 1321 (7th Cir. 1993).) For a constitutional right to be “clearly established” to defeat a claim of “qualified immunity” it does not need the support of case law. But case law there was; and that should have eliminated the “qualified immunity” defense.
.
Not only does the Court’s decision leave the Reddings out of luck, it also decides the “qualified immunity” issue adversely to any other plaintiff who has a pending case with the same issue. Thus, not only must the Reddings lose on this issue, so must everyone else who has undergone the humiliating and degrading experience of a strip search by school officials under similar circumstances.
.
Nor is there much hope that the Reddings will collect damages from the school district. While school districts are not entitled to “qualified immunity” like individual school officials, neither are they liable simply because an injury was inflicted by one of their employees. The Reddings will have to prove that the school district, itself, violated their constitutional rights by authorizing the unreasonable search in some school district policy statement, ordinance, regulation, decision or custom. The Ninth Circuit and Supreme Court opinions made no mention of any school district policy or custom regarding searches of a student’s person. The only policy mentioned was the one that prohibited the possession of any prescription drugs on campus without pre-clearance from the school. That statement made no mention of how to implement that policy. It would have been pure folly, and thus unlikely, for the school district to issue any policy statement authorizing a strip search for a minor infraction.
.
In other words, the girl and her mother, and all other girls who have suffered the same injury before today’s decision, will get nothing for their embarrassment, humiliation and degradation. They will only get the satisfaction of knowing that the law is now “clearly established” and that the next girl to get strip-searched under similar circumstances can collect damages. Somehow, I have a hard time calling the total result a victory.
Posted by: John W. | June 25, 2009 4:24 PM
"Somehow, I have a hard time calling the total result a victory."
That's why Mr. Savage called it a partial victory. Defeat would mean not only getting the finger, but knowing this can happen again to someone else.
.
I don't think anyone below consenting age should be exposed to a strip search; without the consent and/or presence of their guardian, without over-whelming evidence, without a serious infraction.
Posted by: El Torro | June 25, 2009 7:30 PM
* * * * *
Posted by: El Torro | June 25, 2009 7:30 PM
.
I meant to say that it wasn’t a victory at all. The girl will likely get no compensation for her emotional scars; not even as much as an apology. Other similarly situated plaintiffs will also get booted out of court based on the same “qualified immunity” defense if their actions occurred before the date of this decision. That’s what I call getting the finger and knowing that others ARE getting away with it. It is only those who get searched from now on who can claim a constitutional violation. That’s too much blood, sweat and tears to pay for a warm fuzzy feeling.
Posted by: John W. | June 25, 2009 10:27 PM
Wait!!! When did the local school officials all the sudden get more power than local police???
In my opinion this should be a sexual assault case ..
and yet another reason MY SON will never be in public schools..
Posted by: MikeC | June 25, 2009 10:56 PM
I know what you meant. However, Mr Savage's usage of the term *partial victory* does not denote "warm and fuzzy feelings."
Posted by: El Torro | June 26, 2009 11:06 AM
Lochness, good point about the parental involvement. If a school official is contemplating something as radical as a strip search of a minor child, the parents need to be notified immediately, before anything happens. I would lose it if someone did that to my kid. And for Ibuprofin? This whole situation is bizarre.
Posted by: Herbie H. | June 26, 2009 11:20 AM