Safford v. Redding (2009) – FYS 100 – 34: The Rights of the Criminally Accused

In 2003 a 13 year old girl named Savanna Redding was accused of the possession and distribution of over the counter Aleve and prescription strength ibuprofen. In violation of school policy, the girl was searched under reasonable suspicion on her person and in her locker, and after finding nothing, the school’s dean and nurse asked her to perform a strip search exposing parts of her pelvic area and breasts. The Redding family filed a suit against the school district saying that the search violated Savanna’s Fourth Amendment rights and while the court initially ruled in favor of the school district, the Arizona court of appeals and then the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Safford family, declaring the search was unconstitutional. The Court argued the school district officials did not have reasonable suspicion to extend the search to Savanna’s underwear.

I agree with the decision of the majority; however, Justice Thomas does bring up a very good point in his dissent. The Court does not have the place to decide how a school official can search a student without removing the power of the official to find contraband and enforce rules in a school zone. The majority opinion gives a lot of power to the student with a blanket decision based on basic principles and a comprehensive understanding of the Fourth Amendment, as it should; however, this was a case that really pushed the limits of the Fourth Amendment. The circumstances do not allow for much room, as the gender and age of the victim in question are extremely sensitive. There was no way the justices could, in good conscience, have allowed the school officials to have searched the undergarments of such a young girl without extremely solid reasonable suspicion or a warrant.

There are two arguments to consider when talking about student safety. The Court does allow for the students to have more freedom than should be allowed when it comes to the searches they can be subjected to if they possess and distribute contraband against school rules. On the other hand, the young girl, who was alone without the security of having her parents beside her, was violated and extremely uncomfortable while being forced to strip in front of adults. Because of this, no reasonable suspicion or warrant could bring me to support the kind of search presented in this case, no matter the location or circumstance.

Alexandra Serek says:

October 18, 2016 at 11:57 pm

It is understood that when students enter their school, they give up certain rights. More rights are given to the school and its administration in order to protect the entire school community. Stafford v. Redding brought up the question of the degree of rights students give up, specifically those regarding searches. I agree with Kurt and the statement that “There was no way the justices could, in good conscience, have allowed the school officials to have searched the undergarments of such a young girl without extremely solid reasonable suspicion or a warrant.” Although, I agree with that statement in this particular circumstance, I have another opinion on those types of intrusive searches in general. I believe that there may be certain circumstances when a more intrusive search is necessary without extremely solid reasonable suspicion or a warrant. These circumstances though would only include times when the contraband that is being looked for would place the surrounding students and administrators in immediate harm and when there is reason to believe the suspected person would have the contraband on them.

I would like to expand upon Kurt’s statement, “Because of this, no reasonable suspicion or warrant could bring me to support the kind of search presented in this case, no matter the location or circumstance.” By stating “presented in this case” he leaves whether he believes that kind of search would be supported in other cases up to interpretation. Therefore, I would like to interpret it. I believe there are situations in which a search of that kind should be supported. The most immediate example I can think of would be a hypothetical situation that revolves around a student known to have stated on some form of the internet or to another person that they were planning to physically hurt another student. If the student suspected of this was discovered by other students to have a knife, or another very dangerous object on them then they should be subjected to a more intrusive search like the search Savanna Redding was subjected to. This would be a very drastic scenario but I believe there are some drastic scenarios in which more intrusive searches are necessary. I believe this statement would be supported by Justice Souter, who delivered the majority opinion of the court on the grounds that that kind of search I specified would “be of content of suspicion [that] match[s] the degree of intrusion” and that the extensive search “calls for suspicion that will pay off.”