The safest place to hide: life after Safford Unified School District #1 v. Savana Redding.

• Author: Marzick, Abbey M.

THE SUPREME COURT RECENTLY REVIEWED the controversial issue of searches in public schools, especially addressing the narrow question of whether the strip search of a 13-year-old suspected of possessing prescription-strength drugs was unreasonable. In a highly anticipated decision, Safford v. Redding (1) answered this question in the affirmative. In a victory for the student who claimed her constitutional rights were violated, the decision addressed the broader question of how far is too far for a school official to go in order to recover contraband and maintain a safe school environment. The effects of Redding are likely to be felt by students, teachers, lawyers, judges, and school personnel. However, because of its factually sensitive and vague holding, those effects remain to be seen and will likely not be known for years to come. While Redding is a victory for individual liberty advocates, many wonder whether the decision will only further compound the problem of drugs in schools, arguably providing students with a safe way to sneak contraband into public schools.

FACTS

The events leading up to Redding began nearly six years ago in October 2003, in southeast Arizona. At the time, Savana Redding was a 13-year-old eighth grade honors student at Safford Middle School. She was an honors student with no history of disciplinary problems. (2) A week before Savana was searched, another student told Assistant Principal Kerry Wilson that "certain students were bringing drugs and weapons on campus" and that he had been sick after taking some pills that "he got from a classmate. (3) On the morning of October 8, that same student gave Wilson a white pill, alerting Wilson that other students were planning to take the pills at lunch. This student stated he got the pill from Marissa Glines. Through speaking with the school nurse, Peggy Schwallier, Wilson confirmed that the pill was a 400-milligram Ibuprofen, available only by prescription.

Acting on the student's tip, Wilson summoned Marissa to his office. Before Wilson spoke to Marissa, a teacher handed him a day planner found within Marissa's reach inside the classroom, containing contraband that included knives, lighters, and a cigarette. Inside Wilson's office, he asked Marissa to empty her pockets and wallet. Marissa produced a blue pill, four white pills, and a razor blade. Marissa stated that she got the blue pill from Savana Redding, adding "I guess it slipped in when she gave me the IBU 400s." (4) Wilson did not ask Marissa any follow-up questions, including whether Savana currently had any more pills or where Savana might be hiding such pills. Again with the help of nurse Schwallier, Wilson confirmed that the blue pill was an over-the-counter 200-milligram anti-inflammatory drug, generically known as naproxen. Unauthorized possession of both kinds of pills was against school rules.

Wilson then called Savana into his office. Wilson showed her the day planner, and she admitted the planner was hers but said she had lent it to Marissa a few days prior. Savana denied ownership of the contraband found inside the planner. Wilson also showed Savana the four white pills and one blue pill. Savana denied knowing where the pills came from, even after Wilson told her that other students (including Marissa) had told him that Savana was distributing such pills throughout the school. To prove her defense, Savana then consented to a search of her backpack, but no pills were found.

Unsatisfied with the results, Wilson instructed school administrative assistant Helen Romero to take Savana into the nurse's office and search her clothes for pills. Romero and Schwallier directed Savana to remove her clothes so that Savana was down to her bra and underwear. At this point, Savana was told to "pull out" her bra and the elastic band on her underwear. (5) It is unclear to what degree, but it is undisputed that part of Savana's breasts and pelvic area were exposed. Again, no pills were found.

PROCEDURAL POSTURE

Claiming that this strip search violated her daughter's Fourth Amendment rights, Redding's mother filed suit against Safford Unified School District #1, Wilson, Romero, and Schwallier. All defendants moved for summary judgment, claiming that even if there were a Fourth Amendment violation, they were entitled to qualified immunity as a defense. The District Court for the District of Arizona granted the motion on the ground that there was no Fourth Amendment violation. A panel of the Ninth Circuit affirmed. (6) However, after en banc reconsideration, the court reversed in a closely divided panel, (7) holding that the search was unconstitutional under the test set forth in New Jersey v. T.L. O. (8) The Supreme Court of the United States granted certiorari and issued its decision on June 25, 2009, agreeing with the Ninth Circuit that the search did in fact violate Redding's Fourth Amendment rights. (9) Justice Clarence Thomas cast the sole dissenting vote.

THE MAJORITY OPINION

In the majority opinion, the Court held that the limited search of Savana's backpack and outer garments was reasonable, but that the more intrusive strip search violated Savana's Fourth Amendment rights. In authoring the majority opinion, Justice Souter relied heavily on T.L.O. The student in T.L.O. was a 14-year-old girl accused of smoking in the girls' bathroom of her high school. A principal at the school questioned her and searched her purse, recovering a bag of marijuana and other drug paraphernalia. The Court held that this search was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment and thus did not violate the student's constitutional rights against unreasonable searches and seizures. T.L.O. was a seminal case because it recognized that the school setting requires a different analysis than other Fourth Amendment cases. The T.L.O. Court stated that the school setting "requires some modification of the level of suspicion of illicit activity needed to justify a search" and that "a careful balancing of governmental and private interests suggests that the public interest is best served by a Fourth Amendment standard of reasonableness that stops short of...