SUPREME COURT FINDS STRIP SEARCH OF THIRTEEN YEAR OLD TO VIOLATE FOURTH AMENDMENT

The Supreme Court last week ruled that it violated the Fourth Amendment for school officials to strip search a thirteen year old girl who was suspected of possessing prescription medication at school without prior permission.

Savana Redding was a thirteen year old student attending middle school. The assistant principal showed her a Daytimer and asked her if it was hers. Inside the Daytimer were knives and a few prescription pills. She said, yes, but she had loaned the Daytimer to her friend, Marissa. When Marissa was confronted she said she got the pills from Savana. The assistant principal, after receiving permission searched Savana’s back pack and other clothes. Finding nothing he asked the administrative assistant and the nurse both of whom were women to have Savana strip to her underwear. When nothing was found they had her move her bra and open up the elastic on her underwear which exposed her private parts.

Her mother sued the school district, the assistant principal and others who participated in the strip search. The defendants moved for summary judgment on the grounds that they did not violate the Fourth Amendment and if they did violate the Fourth Amendment they were protected by qualified immunity.

Citing New Jersey v. T. L. O. the Court pointed out that for a search at a school probable cause is not needed but the search must be reasonable. In determining whether a search is reasonable the age of the student and the possible harm to society must be considered. In this case the student is 13 years old, a particularly vulnerable age for being strip searched. The number of pills was a personal use amount and unlikely to cause much harm. Furthermore there was no specific evidence leading the school authorities to believe that drugs would be found inside Savana’s underwear Under these conditions, in an 8-1 vote, with Thomas dissenting, the Supreme Court found that it was not reasonable to perform a strip search.

Last week we discussed the issue of qualified immunity. Its comes up again. The test is whether “clearly established law does not show that the search violated the Fourth Amendment.” But this time the Supreme Court granted the defendant’s claim of qualified immunity. The Court pointed out that in several cases lower courts, in similar situations found that there was not a Fourth Amendment violation and that the Ninth Circuit was divided on this case. While a division among judges is not necessarily determinative, in this case the Supreme Court upheld the claim of qualified immunity,

Thus while Savana won the issue, she lost the case.