Consequences of the Court’s decision – FYS 100 – 34: The Rights of the Criminally Accused

Savanna Redding, a 13 years old student at Safford Middle school, was strip-searched for the possession of ibuprofen, which is in violation of her school policy, by school officials after being tipped off by another student. She filed a suit against the school and the school officials who did the search relying on the violation of her Fourth Amendment right. The case made its way to the Supreme Court, which declared that Savanna’s Fourth Amendment rights were violated when the school officials searched her underwear for non-prescription painkillers. The Court argued that the school officials did not have sufficient suspicion to extend the search of Savanna to her underwear.

However, while I agree with the majority opinion I think Justice Thomas brings up some important considerations that cannot be ignored. Namely, this brings up another issue of giving students an easy way out of similar situations and a question of how much leeway school officials should have when enforcing zero-tolerance policies. Court’s decision has in a way limited the school officials to conduct searches for the drugs in cases where they have a reasonable suspicion of a drug possession. Since some students might be allergic to over-the-counter drugs and Safford school policy prohibits any possession of drugs on school property, conducting a search to make students abide by the rules, school officials’ search was consistent with the school’s rules and policies. The Court argued that searches conducted by school officials must be ‘’reasonably related to the objectives of the search and not excessively intrusive in the light of the age and sex of the student and the nature of the infraction.’’ (Safford v. Redding 2009, 2.) Does that mean that if other more serious drugs were put in question, the school officials would be allowed to strip search?

I reason that, even though it protects the personal rights of the students, the Court’s decision has undercut student safety by not offering a clear guidance to school officials on how to decide whether there is a good reason to think that the drugs are hidden in an intimate place and how dangerous the contraband is. Moreover, it has done so in a case in which the school in question has zero-tolerance to any possessions of drugs. Therefore, it gives an incentive to students to use the limited course of action of school officials and hence impose a safety risk to other students.

Camryn Travis says:

October 19, 2016 at 12:38 pm

Nikolina, I think you bring up a great point in mentioning that although you agree with the Supreme Court’s ruling, their decision slightly undermined the school’s authority and therefore put students in danger. I agree that the Court should have defined specific situations in which a strip search is constitutional “in light of the age and sex of the student and the nature of the infraction.” (Safford v. Redding 2009, 2). You bring up the question of the possibility for strip search may be reasonable if there were more serious drugs involved, but I also am curious if the age and sex of a student could change the constitutionality of a strip search in this case. Say Redding was a 17 year old male, instead of a 13 year old female, would the change in age and sex make the strip search constitutional?