Thursday
Jun252009
Strip Search of Middle School Student Unconstitutional, Supreme Court Rules
Thursday, June 25, 2009 at 1:12PM
By Matthew S. Schwartz — Talk Radio News Service
A 13-year-old girl's Constitutional rights were violated when school officials searched her bra and underpants for prohibited painkillers, the Supreme Court ruled today.
The Court did not go as far as banning school strip searches, but did state that officials must have a justified belief, based on suspected facts, that a strip search will reveal the hidden items.
"Nondangerous school contraband does not raise the specter of stashes in intimate places, and there is no evidence in the record of any general practice among Safford Middle School students of hiding that sort of thing in underwear," wrote Justice David Souter in the 8–1 decision. Officials need to fear danger to students, and have a specific reason to look in a student's underwear, "before a search can reasonably make the quantum leap from outer clothes and backpacks to exposure of intimate parts."
Because there was no reason to suspect the drugs presented a danger or were hidden in her underwear, the search violated the Constitution. The Fourth Amendment protects citizens from "unreasonable searches."
The highly anticipated case arose out of events that occurred at the Arizona middle school in October of 2003. Then assistant-principal of the school, Kerry Wilson, called Savana Redding into his office, where he showed her four white prescription-strength ibuprofen pills, and one over-the-counter naproxen pill, all used for pain but banned under school rules. Wilson told her he had received a report that she was giving the pills to students, but Savana denied it and agreed to let Wilson search her backpack.
After finding nothing, Wilson sent Savana to the school nurse, who searched her clothes for pills. Finding none, they then asked her to remove her clothes, pull her bra out and to the side and shake it, and pull out the elastic on her underpants. No pills were found.
Savan's mother filed suit against the the school district and officials for conducting a strip search in violation of Savana's Fourth Amendment rights.
Normally, for a search to be constitutional, a police officer must have "probable cause" to conduct the search. Probable cause exists where circumstances would "warrant a man of reasonable caution in the belief that an offense has been, or is, being committed," in the words of an oft-cited 1925 Supreme Court decision.
But the Court has also recognized that the Fourth Amendment must be applied differently in educational contexts, where schools are responsible for ensuring their students' safety. So in 1985, the Court required a less stringent standard — "reasonable suspicion" — and held that a student search is permissible if it is "reasonably related to the objectives of the search, and not excessively intrusive in light of the age and sex of the student."
The facts in this case did not justify such an intrusive search, the Court held.
"The suspicion of Wilson's was enough to justify a search of Savana's backpack and outer clothing," Souter wrote, adding that most reasonable suspicions would support searches of a student's backpack and outer clothes.
A strip search, however, is "categorically distinct" from a backpack and clothes search, Souter wrote. "Savana's subjective expectation of privacy against such a search is inherent in her account of it as embarrassing, frightening, and humiliating. … [A]dolescent vulnerability intensifies the patent intrusiveness of the exposure."
Lawyers for the school had argued that the search was no more intrusive than what happens in school locker rooms. But the justices wouldn't buy it.
"Changing for gym is getting ready for play; exposing for a search is responding to an accusation reserved for suspected wrongdoers and fairly understood as so degrading that a number of communities have decided that strip searches in schools are never reasonable and have banned them no matter what the facts may be," Souter wrote.
The Court also held that the school officials who conducted the search are protected from liability, because it was unclear at the time whether the search violated the Fourth Amendment.
The lone dissenter, Justice Clarence Thomas, believed the search did not violate Savana's Constitutional rights. "The majority imposes a vague and amorphous standard on school administrators," he wrote, calling the decision a "deep intrusion into the administration of public schools."
The case is Safford Unified School District #1 v. Redding.
A 13-year-old girl's Constitutional rights were violated when school officials searched her bra and underpants for prohibited painkillers, the Supreme Court ruled today.
The Court did not go as far as banning school strip searches, but did state that officials must have a justified belief, based on suspected facts, that a strip search will reveal the hidden items.
"Nondangerous school contraband does not raise the specter of stashes in intimate places, and there is no evidence in the record of any general practice among Safford Middle School students of hiding that sort of thing in underwear," wrote Justice David Souter in the 8–1 decision. Officials need to fear danger to students, and have a specific reason to look in a student's underwear, "before a search can reasonably make the quantum leap from outer clothes and backpacks to exposure of intimate parts."
Because there was no reason to suspect the drugs presented a danger or were hidden in her underwear, the search violated the Constitution. The Fourth Amendment protects citizens from "unreasonable searches."
The highly anticipated case arose out of events that occurred at the Arizona middle school in October of 2003. Then assistant-principal of the school, Kerry Wilson, called Savana Redding into his office, where he showed her four white prescription-strength ibuprofen pills, and one over-the-counter naproxen pill, all used for pain but banned under school rules. Wilson told her he had received a report that she was giving the pills to students, but Savana denied it and agreed to let Wilson search her backpack.
After finding nothing, Wilson sent Savana to the school nurse, who searched her clothes for pills. Finding none, they then asked her to remove her clothes, pull her bra out and to the side and shake it, and pull out the elastic on her underpants. No pills were found.
Savan's mother filed suit against the the school district and officials for conducting a strip search in violation of Savana's Fourth Amendment rights.
Normally, for a search to be constitutional, a police officer must have "probable cause" to conduct the search. Probable cause exists where circumstances would "warrant a man of reasonable caution in the belief that an offense has been, or is, being committed," in the words of an oft-cited 1925 Supreme Court decision.
But the Court has also recognized that the Fourth Amendment must be applied differently in educational contexts, where schools are responsible for ensuring their students' safety. So in 1985, the Court required a less stringent standard — "reasonable suspicion" — and held that a student search is permissible if it is "reasonably related to the objectives of the search, and not excessively intrusive in light of the age and sex of the student."
The facts in this case did not justify such an intrusive search, the Court held.
"The suspicion of Wilson's was enough to justify a search of Savana's backpack and outer clothing," Souter wrote, adding that most reasonable suspicions would support searches of a student's backpack and outer clothes.
A strip search, however, is "categorically distinct" from a backpack and clothes search, Souter wrote. "Savana's subjective expectation of privacy against such a search is inherent in her account of it as embarrassing, frightening, and humiliating. … [A]dolescent vulnerability intensifies the patent intrusiveness of the exposure."
Lawyers for the school had argued that the search was no more intrusive than what happens in school locker rooms. But the justices wouldn't buy it.
"Changing for gym is getting ready for play; exposing for a search is responding to an accusation reserved for suspected wrongdoers and fairly understood as so degrading that a number of communities have decided that strip searches in schools are never reasonable and have banned them no matter what the facts may be," Souter wrote.
The Court also held that the school officials who conducted the search are protected from liability, because it was unclear at the time whether the search violated the Fourth Amendment.
The lone dissenter, Justice Clarence Thomas, believed the search did not violate Savana's Constitutional rights. "The majority imposes a vague and amorphous standard on school administrators," he wrote, calling the decision a "deep intrusion into the administration of public schools."
The case is Safford Unified School District #1 v. Redding.
Reader Comments