Safford Unified School District #1 v. Redding
557 U.S. ____ (2009) (2009)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
For a school official to conduct a search of a student's underwear, there must be a reasonable suspicion that the student is hiding drugs that pose a danger or that the student is hiding evidence of wrongdoing in their underwear; a general suspicion of possessing common painkillers is insufficient.
Facts:
- Savana Redding, a 13-year-old student at Safford Middle School, lent her day planner to her friend, Marissa Glines.
- Another student told Assistant Principal Kerry Wilson that students were distributing pills and that Marissa Glines had given him one.
- Wilson confronted Marissa, who was found in possession of several prescription-strength ibuprofen pills and an over-the-counter naproxen pill.
- When questioned, Marissa claimed she had received the pills from Savana Redding.
- Wilson brought Savana to his office, where she admitted the planner was hers but denied any knowledge of the pills.
- After a search of Savana's backpack and outer clothing revealed nothing, Wilson instructed two female staff members to conduct a more thorough search.
- In the nurse's office, the staff members had Savana remove her outer clothing and then pull her bra and underpants away from her body, exposing her breasts and pelvic area.
- No pills were found as a result of the search.
Procedural Posture:
- Savana Redding's mother filed a lawsuit against Safford Unified School District and several school officials in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona, alleging a violation of Savana's Fourth Amendment rights.
- The defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing they were entitled to qualified immunity.
- The District Court granted the motion, ruling that there was no Fourth Amendment violation.
- Redding (plaintiff-appellant) appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, where a three-judge panel affirmed the District Court's decision.
- The Ninth Circuit then reheard the case en banc (with a larger panel of judges).
- The en banc Ninth Circuit reversed the panel decision, holding that the search violated the Fourth Amendment and that the right was clearly established, thereby denying qualified immunity to Assistant Principal Wilson.
- The school officials (petitioners) petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari, which was granted.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a school official's strip search of a 13-year-old student violate the Fourth Amendment when the search is based on a reasonable suspicion that she is distributing prescription and over-the-counter painkillers in violation of school policy, but there is no reason to suspect the drugs pose a danger or are hidden in her underwear?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Souter
Yes. A school search must be permissible in scope, meaning it cannot be excessively intrusive in light of the student's age and sex and the nature of the infraction. While school officials had a reasonable suspicion to search Savana's backpack and outer clothing based on the tip, extending that search to her underwear was unconstitutional. The search was a 'categorically distinct' intrusion that required a higher level of justification. The suspicion here failed to match the degree of intrusion because Wilson knew the drugs were common painkillers that posed no immediate danger, and there was no specific reason to believe Savana was hiding pills in her underwear. A generalized belief that students hide things in their underwear is not sufficient to justify such a degrading search. However, the school official is entitled to qualified immunity because the law regarding the scope of such searches was not clearly established at the time, given divergent lower court opinions.
Concurring in part and dissenting in part - Justice Stevens
Yes, the search was unconstitutional, but the official should not get qualified immunity. This case is not about predicting a new course of constitutional law; it is a case of 'clearly established law meet[ing] clearly outrageous conduct.' The standard set in New Jersey v. T.L.O.—that a search cannot be 'excessively intrusive in light of the age and sex of the student and the nature of the infraction'—was sufficient to put any reasonable official on notice that this strip search was unconstitutional. The clarity of a well-established right should not depend on whether some judges have misinterpreted precedents.
Concurring in part and dissenting in part - Justice Ginsburg
Yes, the search was unconstitutional and qualified immunity should be denied. The law from T.L.O. was clearly established. The suspicion against Savana was weak, resting on the bare accusation of another student in trouble, and Wilson conducted no follow-up questioning to verify its credibility. Wilson's actions, which also included making Savana wait outside his office for two hours after the humiliating search, constituted an abuse of authority that should not be shielded by official immunity.
Concurring in part and dissenting in part - Justice Thomas
No, the search of Savana Redding did not violate the Fourth Amendment. The majority imposes a vague standard that allows judges to second-guess the reasonable disciplinary measures of school officials. Under T.L.O., the search was justified at its inception and reasonable in scope, because it was plausible that Redding could have hidden the pills in her underwear. The Court should not evaluate the relative importance of school rules; the school's zero-tolerance policy against all unauthorized drugs is a valid judgment that courts should defer to. The judiciary should return to the common-law doctrine of 'in loco parentis,' which grants schools broad authority to maintain discipline and safety.
Analysis:
This decision significantly refines the 'reasonable scope' prong of the T.L.O. test for school searches, creating a higher standard for highly intrusive searches like strip searches. It establishes that as the intrusiveness of the search increases, so too must the specificity of the suspicion. The Court created a new precedent requiring officials to have a particularized suspicion that dangerous contraband is hidden in a student's underwear before such a search is permissible. While this ruling strengthens students' Fourth Amendment privacy protections, the granting of qualified immunity signals that officials will not be held liable for damages in areas where the law is still developing and lower courts are divided.
Unlock the full brief for Safford Unified School District #1 v. Redding