Safford Unified School District #1 v. Redding 557 – PLSC 337-01: The American Legal System

Savana Redding, right, and her lawyer Adam Wolf, stand outside the Supreme Court in Washington, Tuesday, April 21, 2009, after the court heard the case of Redding who was strip searched when she was 13 years old by school officials looking for prescription-strength ibuprofen pills . (AP Photo/Evan Vucci) — Savana Redding, outside the Supreme Court in Washington, Tuesday, April 21, 2009, after the court heard the case of Redding. (AP Photo/Evan Vucci)

On October 8th, 2003, administrators at Safford Middle School in Safford, Arizona received multiple reports of drugs being brought into the school by students. One of these reports pertained to a 13 year old 8th grader named Savanna Redding. Before Redding was implicated, a student named Marissa Glines was questioned and told to empty her pockets and bag. This search revealed a blue pill (Naproxen), several white ones (Prescription Ibuprofen), a razor blade, and a binder containing knives, a lighter, and a cigarette, all of which were prohibited on school property. Glines was questioned about this contraband and reported that Savanna Redding had given the drugs and other items to her.

Despite being a model student, the administrators brought Redding to Mr. Wilson’s office

where he accused her and asked to search her bag. She consented to the search while denying that she possessed or distributed drugs and that she gave any contraband to Glines. This search revealed no pills. Following this lack of drugs, Mr. Wilson ordered that Savanna go to school nurse Peggy Schawallier’s office to undergo a physical search of her person based on what they believed to be reasonable suspicion.

In the nurse’s office, Savanna was forced to strip down and to shift her bra and underwear to expose any hidden drugs, which exposed her breasts and pelvic area. This search also revealed no drugs. In fact, no drugs were ever found to be in Savanna’s possession.

Savanna’s mother sued the school district for damages because she believed that the strip search of her daughter was a violation of her 4th Amendment rights against unreasonable searches and seizures. A district court sided with the school, as did a panel on the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, however the 9th Circuit panel’s opinion was overturned in an en banc hearing. The Supreme Court subsequently agreed to hear the case in 2009.

In answering the question, the Supreme Court, in an 8-1 ruling, found that Ms. Redding’s 4th Amendment rights had been violated by this search, but reversed any liability against the school due to the administrators having qualified immunity. Under Supreme Court case Harlow v. Fitzgerald, this means that a government official could not be held liable for civil damages as long as the conduct does not violate clearly established Constitutional guidelines. Even though the actions were unconstitutional, this was not clear at the time and therefore immunity still applied.

In his majority opinion, Justice Souter wrote that although schools only require a level of reasonable suspicion to conduct a search rather than probably cause, this bar was not met to conduct the strip search. Justice Souter refers back to New Jersey v. TLO (1985) because this case established that schools require reasonable suspicion, defined as a moderate chance of finding evidence of wrongdoing, in order to conduct a search as long as the measures are reasonably related to objectives and not excessively intrusive. Justice Souter finds that this bar was met until the school conducted the strip search. This was because the strip search was excessively intrusive based on the evidence found against Savanna, while searching her bag and outer clothing was not.

In order for the search to be warranted, the Court finds that the “suspicion must match the degree of intrusion.” The lack of evidence suggesting that Savanna was concealing contraband in her underwear means that the search could not be considered warranted. No one had suggested that Savanna was hiding drugs in her underwear and no other student in this situation was found to have concealed drugs in her underwear. The school needed direct evidence and facts rather than a general suspicion that it was possible she had drugs hidden in her underwear. Furthermore, since these drugs were relatively harmless and not distributed in large enough numbers to be dangerous, there was no clear danger presented that warranted this search either.

Justice Thomas wrote the dissenting opinion in this case in which he argued that this search was not only warranted, but that it was also not the place of the Supreme Court to determine whether or not the rules used to justify the search were appropriate because those rules ought to be determined by local officials who know better on the matter. He argued that the reasonable suspicion against Savanna did not suddenly end when no drugs were found in the backpack or in her outer clothing, but rather the search was justified because it was reasonable to assume she would hide the drugs in a place where no one would look, i.e. her underwear. He then proceeds to counter Souter’s point that the the drugs were relatively harmless because the type of ibuprofen was explicitly prohibited on campus and the distribution and use of a prescription drug that does not belong to the individual is illegal and should be treated as a crime regardless of circumstance.

I agree with the Court’s ruling as I think it is abundantly clear that the excessive degree of the strip search was simply not warranted by the evidence. Savanna Redding was implicated in drug possession and distribution by multiple individuals which I feel justifies questioning her and searching her possessions, but I disagree with Justice Thomas’ allegation that this search could reasonably be expanded based on a hunch that she would hide the drugs where no one would look. I find no justification to warrant the strip search for this individual in this context. My question, however, pertains to the role of New Jersey v. TLO in this finding and the expectation that schools may abide by a lower standard than law enforcement. Should schools be allowed to operate on reasonable suspicion and, furthermore should schools be allowed in any situation to carry out a strip search on an underage student with no legal representation or parental notification? Who should be making this decision? Is Justice Souter correct in suggesting that this is the prerogative of the Court or is Justice Thomas right in writing that localities should be the ones to decide what is best for the children in their districts?

Safford Unified School District #1 v. Redding: 557: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/557/364/opinion.html

New Jersey v. TLO: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/469/325/case.html

Harlow v. Fitzgerald: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/457/800/

Brenden says:

March 20, 2017 at 1:05 pm

Dylan thanks for an interesting and informative blog post about Safford Unified School District #1 v. Redding.

To answer your question, I do think schools have the right to use reasonable suspicion over probable cause. Schools are meant to educate students, instill civil values and cultivate future Americans for the workforce and everyday life. Schools are meant to be safe places that can encourage these values and be a place to learning. Education is in fact the most important functions of states according to Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka Kansas. It is within the schools duty then to create and maintain a secure environment.

By using reasonable suspicion schools better maintain their ability to control the environment which happens on their grounds to ensure a protected place of education. Schools have the right and the need to prevent sexual misconduct, drugs, violence and other illegal distractions from occurring on their grounds so they can ensure a quality education with a limited amount of distractions and lawlessness. By using reasonable suspicion, the Court has enables schools to balance the rights of the students and by the need to create a productive environment.

What happened to Savannah Redding, was a violation of her Fourth Amendment rights because the school did not have reasonable suspicion that she was hiding pills in her underwear. I agree with the Courts ruling.