Court: Strip Search Of Schoolgirl Illegal

Justices Hold 4th Amendment Violated When Arizona Teen Was Forced To Strip In Search For Ibuprofen Pills

(CBS/AP)  Last updated 6:34 p.m. ET.

The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that school officials violated an Arizona teenager's rights by strip-searching her for prescription-strength ibuprofen, declaring that U.S. educators cannot force children to remove their clothing unless student safety is at risk.

In an 8-1 ruling, the justices said that Safford Middle School officials violated the Fourth Amendment ban on unreasonable searches with their treatment of Savana Redding. The court ruled that the officials could not be held financially liable but left it to lower courts to decide if the school district could.

While children's advocates and civil liberties groups cheered the decision, others suggested the high court may have created further problems for school systems by failing to make clear exactly when school administrators can strip search students and when they can't.

"The court seems to think it made things clearer, but I don't think they did," said Dan Capra, a Fordham University law professor. "Officials now know they can't do exactly what was done in Safford. But what if there is any change of material fact in the circumstances?"

"Even though the Court said the student's rights were violated, the Justices protected school officials from liability for their conduct," notes CBS News legal analyst Andrew Cohen. "The Court agreed that at the time of the search it wasn't precisely clear that what administrators were doing to the student was illegal or improper.

"You hope that this sort of a declaration from the Supreme Court is going to help school administrators understand where the line is when it comes to searches of students,' said Cohen. "It was an area of the law that clearly needed this sort of guidance."

Redding was 13 when the educators in rural eastern Arizona conducted the search in 2003. They were looking for pills - the equivalent of two Advils. The district bans prescription and over-the-counter drugs without advance permission, and the school was acting on a tip from another student.

The search of Redding's backpack and outer clothes was permissible, the court said. But the justices said that officials went too far when they asked to search her underwear.

"Once they got me into my underwear I thought they would let me put my clothes back on," she told CBS News correspondent Hattie Kauffman. "But then they told me to pull out my bra and shake it, and my underwear as well."

Redding's age also made a difference, with the Court ruling that "adolescent vulnerability intensifies the intrusiveness" of the search - a search the opinion calls "degrading," reports CBS News correspondent Wyatt Andrews.

"I think that the court 'got it'. I think they understood how traumatic and humiliating an experience this was for Savana or for any child put in that situation," ACLU legal director Steve Shapiro told Andrews.

A 1985 Supreme Court decision that dealt with searching a student's purse had found that school officials need only reasonable suspicions, not probable cause. But that ruling also warned against a search that was "excessively intrusive."

"What was missing from the suspected facts that pointed to Savana was any indication of danger to the students from the power of the drugs or their quantity, and any reason to suppose that Savana was carrying pills in her underwear," Justice David Souter wrote in Thursday's majority opinion.

"We think that the combination of these deficiencies was fatal to finding the search reasonable."

Redding, now in college, said she was pleased with the court's decision. "I'm pretty excited about it, because that's what I wanted," she said. "I wanted to keep it from happening to anybody else."

"The court's decision sends a clear signal to school officials that they can strip search students only in the most extraordinary situations," said her lawyer, Adam Wolf of the American Civil Liberties Union Foundation.

In a dissent, Justice Clarence Thomas said the search had been legal and the court previously had given school officials "considerable leeway" under the Fourth Amendment in school settings.

In this case, officials had searched the girl's backpack and found nothing, Thomas said. "It was eminently reasonable to conclude the backpack was empty because Redding was secreting the pills in a place she thought no one would look," he said.

Thomas warned that the majority's decision could backfire. "Redding would not have been the first person to conceal pills in her undergarments," he said. "Nor will she be the last after today's decision, which announces the safest place to secrete contraband in school."

In an opinion piece for CBSNews.com, Cohen criticized Thomas' position:"Less concerned about a forced and unnecessary intrusion into a young girl's pants and bra than he was about judicial intrusion into school safety policies, Thomas declared that the odious search was legal because administrators could have found what they were looking for."

The court also ruled the middle school officials could not be held liable in a lawsuit for the search. Different judges around the nation have come to different conclusions about immunity for school officials in strip searches, which leads the Supreme Court to "counsel doubt that we were sufficiently clear in the prior statement of law," Souter said.

"We think these differences of opinion from our own are substantial enough to require immunity for the school officials in this case," Souter said.

School lawyers praised the decision not to hold the school officials financially liable.

But "the majority opinion offers little clarification of the applicable Fourth Amendment standard while unduly limiting the ability of school officials to protect students from the harmful effects of drugs and weapons on school campuses," said Matthew W. Wright, lawyer for the school district.

The justices said lower courts would have to determine whether the Safford Unified School District No. 1 could be held liable.

"While today's decision was not an unqualified triumph for Savana Redding, she has secured a victory for schoolchildren nationwide," said Nan Aron, president of the Alliance for Justice.

Several states ban strip searching students, including California, Washington, Iowa, New Jersey, Oklahoma, South Carolina and Wisconsin.

A schoolmate had accused Redding, then an eighth-grade student, of giving her pills.

The school's vice principal, Kerry Wilson, took Redding to his office to search her backpack. When nothing was found, Redding was taken to a nurse's office where she was told by a female administrative assistant and the school nurse to take off her shirt and pants. She then was told to move her bra to the side and to stretch her underwear waistband, exposing her breasts and pelvic area. No pills were found.

A federal magistrate dismissed a suit by Redding and her mother, April. An appeals panel agreed that the search didn't violate her rights. But last July, a full panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals found the search was "an invasion of constitutional rights" and that Wilson could be found personally liable.

Justices John Paul Stevens and Ruth Bader Ginsburg dissented from the portion of the ruling saying that Wilson could not be held financially liable.

"Wilson's treatment of Redding was abusive and it was not reasonable for him to believe that the law permitted it," Ginsburg said.

The opinion in Safford United School District #1 v. Redding (08-479) can be viewed here.


Court Rules For Defendants On Crime Lab Reports

The Supreme Court said today criminal defendants have a constitutional right to cross-examine the forensic analysts who prepare laboratory reports on illegal drugs and other evidence used at trial.

The court on Thursday ruled 5-4 for a defendant who was convicted of cocaine trafficking, partly because of crime lab analysis.

Luis Melendez-Diaz challenged lab analysis that confirmed cocaine was in plastic bags found in the car he was riding in. Rather than accept the report, Melendez-Diaz said he should be allowed to question the lab analyst about testing methods, how the evidence was preserved and other issues.

Massachusetts courts rejected his arguments.

Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the high court, said "the analysts' affidavits were testimonial statements, and the analysts were 'witnesses' for purposes of the Sixth Amendment". Therefore, Melendez-Diaz has a constitutional right to confront the lab analyst.


Court Eases Oversight Of Ariz. English Program

The Supreme Court ruled for Arizona officials who are challenging federal court supervision of a program to educate students who aren't proficient in English.

By a 5-4 vote, the court reversed an appeals court ruling in a 17-year-old lawsuit intended to close the gap between students in Nogales, Ariz., who are learning to speak English and native English speakers.

Justice Samuel Alito, in the majority opinion, said a federal judge in Arizona must take another look at the program to see whether Nogales now is "providing equal opportunities" to English language learners.

In 2000, a federal judge found that the state had violated the Equal Educational Opportunities Act's requirements for appropriate instruction for English-language learners. A year later he expanded his ruling statewide and placed the state's programs for non-English speaking students under court oversight.

Since then, the two sides have fought over what constitutes compliance with the order. Arizona has more than doubled the amount that schools receive per non-English speaking student and taken several other steps prescribed by the No Child Left Behind Act, a broader education accountability law passed by Congress in 2002.

Alito (joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Anthony Kennedy, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas) said the courts need to be more flexible in evaluating the state's actions.

Justice Stephen Breyer, in a dissent for himself and the other three liberal justices, said the lower courts were thorough and correct.

Thursday's decision "risks denying schoolchildren the English-language instruction necessary to overcome language barriers that impede their equal participation," Breyer said in a dissent that was longer than Alito's majority opinion.

The opinions in Horne v. Flores; Speaker of the Arizona House of Representatives v. Flores (08-289 and 08-294) can be viewed here.


Ruling on Maritime Law

The Supreme Court, in its opinion in Atlantic Sounding Co., Inc., et al. v. Townsend (08-214), said that an injured seaman is allowed to seek punitive damages for his employer’s willful failure to pay maintenance and cure - an obligated provision by the vessel's owner of food, lodging and medical services to a seaman injured while serving on his ship.

[lizziebear94]

does anyone even know why they decided to search her in the first place if she didn't do anything wrong to begin with?

[toldyouso29]

Earlier, it was not reported that the male VP was not the one facilitating the strip search. If it was indeed done by female staff and the male was not present, then--though humiliating and definitely weird and uncalled for--it was not as damaging as many of us believed.

On the other hand, strip searches of any sort should be done only by law enforcement and should be only after probable cause has been substantiated. advil or ibuprofin is not probable cause, even cops cannot demand a strip search if they search your car or purse and find nothing, they cannot push the issue to orifices and undies just to be sure.

What we afford adults in civil rights--at some point we should afford children--they did not cease to be citizens or humans just because they are under 18--from rape sentences to drinking--we either man up to making laws appropriate for all people (if a man rapes a child he usually gets less time than for raping a grown up) and not dismiss them and what others do to them. After all, the children we neglect, ignore or abuse will one day be the only people left running or destroying this country.

[rhs648]

We demand that our children be safe from drugs and violence in schools. The school autorities should have detained the girl and called the police. The police could then take the girl into custody, investigate, and require a strip search if they wanted one. That way, the police would take the heat, not the school officials. And why are over-the-counter and prescription drugs banned in schools? Watch the TV commercials. Much of the drugs abused by children and teenagers are right out of medicine cabinets found in their homes. Again, let the police handle these matters. They are better equipped for it.

[Sloughfoot]

All the humilliation for a nonexistent pain pill. I'll bet that an after the fact composition of an excuse by school officials is a common line in that district. I hope a Civil jury shows more intelligence than the fat toads with the black robes did trying to shield the School Officials.

[displeased]

If that's where you want your tax dollars going...

[amateurradio]

Let's consider the FACTS of this case.
Persons in a position of power and authority forced a minor child to disrobe in a manner that we already have a Supreme Court decision ruled was illegal. Forcing a child to disrobe in front of strangers without the permission of a parent is CHILD MOLESTATION. It is a FELONY and a SEX OFFENSE in EVERY STATE.
I cannot imagine ANY court ruling that an act already ruled illegal - which involves the above facts can be ANYTHING else but felony child sexual abuse - for which the perpetrators should be serving VERY LONG prison terms and be listed as SEX OFFENDERS for the rest of their lives and forbidden any contact with any minor.

[amateurradio]

So the Supreme Court agrees that the search is illegal. So - file charges of sexual abuse against the officials who perpetrated this assault - and have them listed FOREVER as sex offenders.

[toldyouso29]

That same court said the people who did the search are not liable--this means they cannot be blamed or prosecuted. Though the girl could sue, because they also ruled that school officials cannot be blamed, the girl would lose the case if a judge presided over the trial. The girl should go for a jury trial and sue the pants off of them. Because juries can award damages where they deem harm was caused, whether the actions violated a point of law or of fact.

[displeased]

What an idiotic comment. Obviously you know nothing of girls. No girl wants to be naked in front of other girls let alone a group of her peers. This child was stripped naked in front of a Vice Principle who was also a grown man. Every time she sees him, she will know he knows what she looks like naked. And she was FORCED to do so. This was visual rape done under the guise of necessary. She will be humiliated and traumatized every time she sees this person and she will cringe thinking that he knows what she looks like initimately.
by toldyouso29 June 25, 2009 3:04 PM PDT

There was no man present. It was in front of a school nurse and secretary. They didn't touch and she didn't have to take off her underwear or bra, according to previous stories. You all need to stop making assumptions.

[skyk-2009]

Who called Thomas a Judge? Wacko? Yes! Insane? Yes! Out of touch? Yes! But a JUDGE? NO WAY!

[fred-mertz]

Strip searching a 13 year old girl is insane, and it should be criminal.

Strip searching a 13 year old girl, looking for IBUPROPHEN, is just completely effing insane.

The "war on drugs" is completely insane, and totally ineffective, and a waste of money and lives. It is crippling our country.

Treating IBUPROPHEN like some kind of dangerous drug is insane.

Every thing about the strip search is insane.

I remember all the comments on CBS at the time this happened. Many people seemed to think it was justified by the "war on drugs", or perhaps it was "justified" by their own deep-seated desire to be absolute, unquestioned authoritarians. This opinion seemed to be the norm for republicans. None of those who supported the strip search seemed to be able to imagine what it would be like if THEIR 13 year old, unjustly accused daughter had been strip-searched at school. This lack of empathy is typical of the authoritarian, republican mind-set.

The ability to empathize with others is one of the primary qualities that distinguishes human beings from animals.

[g-gfather]

When Supreme Court members are selected for any reason other than demonstrative ability of the highest intellect in rendering decisions of justice, we the people will be at the mercy of idiots,
be they selected for race-gender-political affiliation-sexual orientation etc. WE NOW HAVE SUCH A COURT. When we the citizens witness the lack of moral integrity in the leadership of the U.S.
is it any wonder that we are a WITHERING NATION. Great-Grandfather

[stn_sage]

NO KIDDING! I wonder how long it took this group of legal scholars to figure out what was brazenly clear to the vast majority of the public?! A week?
Two weeks? But, at least---in this case---they DID figure it out, that's more than they've been able to do in other cases!

God help us!

[spredbury]

I was appauled when I first heard about this case. I would have gone rabid had this been my daughter and the courts would have been the least of Mr Wilson's worry. I hope Ms Redding successfully sues the school district for a ton money. Sure would like to know where Kerry Wilson is now. I checked the school's web site and someone else is the Vice Principal now. This man is truly evil in my mind and does not belong in any position where he has power over children. I hope he was told to find employment else where after this happened. Hopefully his current employment requires "do you want fries with that".

[toldyouso29]

What would have made the action illegal? If the VP had wanked off while watching her stripped or had molested or raped her due to her already being in a state of undress? Who was present during that search? Just the male grown up and the 13 year old? I say there should be liability galore, and next time, the "school official' may take his actions to even greater heights. Who is to say the Vice Principal did not get a huge amount of masturbatory mileage about remembering his power over a young girl and her having to strip down to nothing in front of him? The justices are sick and Thomas is the sickest of the lot.

[displeased]

Where are you getting your info? I've never read about a man being present. Or are you just trying to embellish this ordeal?

[toldyouso29]

When this article (and my comments)were first posted, the implication was that the male Vice Principle had conducted the strip search. NO mention was made of any females doing the search. Don't know if CBS deliberately left the info out--but initially, on this blog--the part about him sending the girl to the nurse and another female staff was not there. Because of that, many of these posts point to the VP as being a possible pedophile. Now that we know females did the search, it is not as horrible, though the article does not say if the male was present and the girl was still humiliated. CBS is notorious for updating articles and combining them as they get more info or change the tenor of the article--when you read some of the comments, it is easy to tell which occurred before the new info was added and which reflect the new info

[babooph]

All they have to do is declare her a terrorist & she loses all rights-where is the problem for the gestapo ?

[bajajohn1]

Back when Justice Thomas underwent confirmation hearings, the most negative testimony revealed a perverse sexual nature. The search as described in the news article seems unreasonable and an extension of in loco parentis doctrine, whereby school administrators serve as the parents of the children. Public schools are political subdivisions of their state, and so the protection afforded by the 4th Amendment against unreasonable searches and seizures had been waived by the in loco parentis doctrine. In light of the evidence about this young ladies search, it is apparent that an abuse of authority to perform a strip search without a warrant occurred. Good decision by the majority. Justice Thomas needs to retire; his dissent appears to be a bitter man expousing less individual rights for the citizens of this country.

[dixxson]

I thought about Scalia, But decided on Thomas!
Scalia is a Young Man!
When he sees the Country trying to "Awaken" from some 40 Yrs of "Totalitarianism he might "Bend" a little!
Thomas is an Old "Nazi", He "Don't Care".

[dixxson]

I knew the dissenter was Clarence Thomas!
Even on a Right Wing Court, in a Right Wing Nation, He stands "Out!
He has no Shame!
And The Right Wing Court, issued less than "Half Justice!
There is No Way that "Principal, that ordered the "STRIP", should be
assumed, judged, not Responsible!
The Right Wing Court, is "Still" "A RIGHT WING COURT".

[bajajohn1]

The real miracle in this decision is that Scalia sided with the majority.

[shaneisdope]

by jincstress Its TWO THOUSAND AND NINE! Who on Earth would be so stupid as to get a 13 yr old down to her undies without contacting the parents? These neanderthals are in the business of EDUCATING people?? Unbelievable.


unbelievable indeed. my daughter was accused of haveing pills at school. the principal searched her purse and found some large white pills and imediatly had her expelled for the rest of the year. the principal never tested the pills and the police didn't think they were anything but candy, but since she couldn't or just didn't want to tell the jerk what they were he expelled her. turns out it was a mentos.

[displeased]

So you all think it's normal that an incident like this would cause someone to become emotionally screwed and traumatized?

[GOPforever]

I must say before signing off that many of the above comments are mocking the right appointed SC memebers and the appointing Presidents. The BEST part is that I would bet my home that the folks doing the STRIP SEARCH of a 13 year old honor roll female student were all LEFT WING UNION members. So, before you throw rocks at the right.....look at the folks who caused this BIG waste of time to our court system!!! Have no fear people your Messiah has been elected and will fix all that you believe that is wrong with the greatest country in the world!

God Bless....can I say that?

[toldyouso29]

No. Most likely they were REpublican. If it happened 6 years ago, it happened during the Bush years --when gestapo tactics were all the rage and the belief that authority and might makes right ruled the land--all Republican sentiments. That much interest in repression and strip searches as neo con written all over it.

Just look at www.armchairsubversive.com lots of Republican pedophiles. When it comes to abuse of power and blind obedience to the law--almost always neo con--if the school had ordered immediate counseling and therapy for the girl and her parents as well as called CPS--then most likely it would have been Dems--but the steps to abuse the law, humiliate the girl and pretend it was all okay in the zeal to stop drugs--sounds very much like the GOP.....

[rhs648]

by McRoboCon June 25, 2009 8:57 AM PDT

The conservative US Supremes finally upholding the US Constitution? I am shocked! This has got to be a huge blow for the Republicons war on the American people!


What an idiotic post. This post shows how stupid some people are. People have different opinions, philosophies, and political views. This poster needs to go back to school and learn tolerance for the views of other people. Even this simpleton should be educable.