Safford Unified School District v. Redding
Safford Unified School District v. Redding, 557 U.S. 364, was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that a strip search of a middle school student by school officials violated the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures. However, the Court also held that, because the law was not clearly established at the time of the search, the school officials were entitled to qualified immunity.
On October 8, 2003, the assistant principal of Safford Middle School in Safford, Arizona, called 13-year-old Savana Redding down to his office, where he informed her that another student had accused her of distributing prescription-strength ibuprofen and over-the-counter naproxen pills, which were disallowed without prior permission by school rules. Redding denied this accusation, and after a search of her belongings did not reveal any pills, school officials instructed her to remove her outer clothing and pull out her bra and underpants, which also did not reveal any pills.
Redding's mother sued the Safford Unified School District and the school officials who searched her daughter, arguing that they had violated the Fourth Amendment. The school officials moved for summary judgment, arguing that they were entitled to qualified immunity because their actions did not violate law that was clearly established at the time of the search. The district court granted this motion, holding that the school officials did not violate the Fourth Amendment, and a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed. However, on July 11, 2008, after rehearing the case en banc, the Ninth Circuit reversed, holding in a closely divided decision that the search violated the Fourth Amendment and that the assistant principal was not entitled to qualified immunity.
On June 25, 2009, the Supreme Court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. In an 8–1 decision authored by Justice David Souter, the Court found that the search failed to meet the standard of reasonableness for searches of students in a school setting established by the Court in New Jersey v. T. L. O., stating that the school lacked reasons to suspect either that the drugs presented a danger or that they were concealed in her underwear. However, the Court also found that because there was sufficient doubt as to whether the law was clearly established at the time of the search, the school officials were entitled to qualified immunity. Finally, the Court stated that its conclusions do not resolve the school district's liability and remanded the case for lower courts to consider that issue.
Background
Prior case law
The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures by the federal government, and the Fourteenth Amendment extends this prohibition to state governments under the incorporation doctrine. In general, the Fourth Amendment requires law enforcement officers to have probable cause in order to conduct a search. In the context of searches of children by school officials, however, the U.S. Supreme Court held in New Jersey v. T. L. O. that the public interest in maintaining the school environment "'is best served by a Fourth Amendment standard of reasonableness that stops short of probable cause'".Instead, in T. L. O. the Court held that the reasonableness standard for searches conducted by school officials in a school environment is that of "reasonable suspicion". Additionally, the Court stated in T. L. O. that "a school search 'will be permissible in its scope when the measures adopted are reasonably related to the objectives of the search and not excessively intrusive in light of the age and sex of the student and the nature of the infraction'". In general, the doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials, including school officials, from facing individual liability for unreasonable searches, unless their conduct violated law that was "clearly established" at the time of the search.
Facts of the case
On October 8, 2003, Savana Redding, a 13-year-old student at Safford Middle School in Safford, Arizona, was in math class when the school's assistant principal, Kerry Wilson, asked her to go to his office. In his office, Wilson showed Redding a day planner, inside of which there were "several knives, lighters, a permanent marker, and a cigarette", and asked if it was hers. Redding stated that the planner belonged to her, but not any of the items inside. She also stated that she had lent the planner to her friend, Marissa Glines, a few days beforehand.Wilson then showed Redding "four white prescription-strength ibuprofen 400-mg pills, and one over-the-counter blue naproxen 200-mg pill, all used for pain and inflammation but banned under school rules without advanced permission". Redding stated that she did not know anything about these pills. Wilson informed her that he had received a report that she was distributing these pills to other students, which Redding denied. Redding agreed to let Wilson and an administrative assistant named Helen Romero search her backpack, which did not reveal any pills. At Wilson's direction, Romero then took Redding to the office of Peggy Schwallier, the school nurse, where Romero and Schwallier asked Redding to remove her jacket, socks, and shoes. They then asked her to remove her t-shirt and stretch pants, neither of which had pockets. Finally, Redding "was told to pull her bra out and to the side and shake it, and to pull out the elastic on her underpants, thus exposing her breasts and pelvic area to some degree". The search did not reveal any pills.
A week before Redding was searched, another student had reported to Wilson that students were bringing drugs and weapons onto campus, and furthermore, the student reported becoming sick after taking pills obtained from a classmate. Earlier on the morning of Redding’s search, the same student gave Wilson a white pill, later identified by Schwallier as prescription-strength ibuprofen, and told him that other students were going to take the pills at lunch. The student claimed that Marissa Glines had given him the pills. He also told the principal that he attended a party at Redding’s house at which alcohol was served to his peers.
Wilson then took Marissa Glines out of class and, in the presence of Helen Romero, asked her to "turn out her pockets and open her wallet", which "produced a blue pill, several white ones, and a razor blade". Glines identified Savana Redding as the person who had supplied her with the drugs. When Wilson asked Glines about the day planner, she denied knowledge about its contents. Wilson then instructed Romero and Schwallier to search Glines' bra and underpants, which revealed no additional pills. It was at this point when Wilson called Redding into his office.
Lower court proceedings
Redding's mother sued Wilson, Romero, Schwallier, and the Safford Unified School District, arguing that they had conducted an unreasonable strip search in violation of the Fourth Amendment. The school officials moved for summary judgment, arguing that they were entitled to qualified immunity. The U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona granted this motion, holding that the school officials did not violate the Fourth Amendment, and a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed. At this point, the American Civil Liberties Union joined the case as co-counsel for Redding. On July 11, 2008, after rehearing the case en banc, the Ninth Circuit reversed the panel, holding in a closely divided decision that the search violated the Fourth Amendment and that assistant principal Wilson was not entitled to qualified immunity. The en banc Ninth Circuit affirmed that defendants Romero and Schwallier were entitled to qualified immunity because "they had not acted as independent decisionmakers".Supreme Court
The school officials filed a petition for a writ of certiorari with the Supreme Court, which granted certiorari on January 16, 2009, in order to review two questions: "whether the Fourth Amendment prohibits public school officials from conducting a search of a student suspected of possessing and distributing a prescription drug on campus in violation of school policy", and "whether the Ninth Circuit departed from established principles of qualified immunity in holding that a public school administrator may be liable in a damages lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for conducting a search of a student suspected of possessing and distributing a prescription drug on campus".Opinion of the Court
Justice Souter, writing for an 8-1 majority vote, held that the strip search violated Savana's Fourth Amendment rights, but that the individual school officials were entitled to qualified immunity, because the search's unconstitutionality was not clearly established at the time of the violation.Summary of Fourth Amendment jurisprudence related to school searches
Elaboration of facts
These facts demonstrate a violation of Redding's Fourth Amendment rights
These school officials were entitled to qualified immunity
Justice Stevens and Justice Ginsburg
Justice Stevens, joined by Justice Ginsburg, dissented as to the question of qualified immunity. He would have denied it, as he felt that unconstitutionality of the search was obvious: "This is, in essence, a case in which clearly established law meets clearly outrageous conduct."In a separate opinion, Justice Ginsburg further elaborated on why she thought qualified immunity was inappropriate in this case:
In contrast to T. L. O., where a teacher discovered a student smoking in the lavatory, and where the search was confined to the student’s purse, the search of Redding involved her body and rested on the bare accusation of another student whose reliability the Assistant Principal had no reason to trust. The Court’s opinion in T. L. O. plainly stated the controlling Fourth Amendment law: A search ordered by a school official, even if “justified at its inception,” crosses the constitutional boundary if it becomes “excessively intrusive in light of the age and sex of the student and the nature of the infraction.” 469 U.S., at 342.
Here, “the nature of the infraction,” the slim basis for suspecting Savana Redding, and her “age and sex,” ibid., establish beyond doubt that Assistant Principal Wilson’s order cannot be reconciled with this Court’s opinion in T. L. O. Wilson’s treatment of Redding was abusive and it was not reasonable for him to believe that the law permitted it.