U. S. Supreme Court Rules That "Strip Search" Of A Teenager By School Officials Looking For Prescription Drugs Is Unreasonable Under Fourth Amendment.
The case is SAFFORD UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT #1 ET AL. v. REDDING, No. 08–479 (2009).
You can read the opinion here.
In essence, the court, through Justice David Souter, held (8 to 1, with Clarence Thomas dissenting):
The issue here is whether a 13-year-old student’s Fourth Amendment right was violated when she was subjected to a search of her bra and underpants by school officials acting on reasonable suspicion that she had brought for-bidden prescription and over-the-counter drugs to school. Because there were no reasons to suspect the drugs presented a danger or were concealed in her underwear, we hold that the search did violate the Constitution, but because there is reason to question the clarity with which the right was established, the official who ordered the unconstitutional search is entitled to qualified immunity from liability.
...
Here, the content of the suspicion failed to match the degree of intrusion. Wilson knew beforehand that the pills were prescription-strength ibuprofen and over-the-counter naproxen, common pain relievers equivalent to two Advil,or one Aleve. He must have been aware of the nature and limited threat of the specific drugs he was searching for, and while just about anything can be taken in quantities that will do real harm, Wilson had no reason to suspect that large amounts of the drugs were being passed around, or that individual students were receiving great numbers of pills.
Nor could Wilson have suspected that Savana was hiding common painkillers in her underwear. Petitioners suggest, as a truth universally acknowledged, that “students . . . hid[e] contraband in or under their clothing,” Reply Brief for Petitioners 8, and cite a smattering of cases of students with contraband in their underwear, id., at 8–9. But when the categorically extreme intrusiveness of a search down to the body of an adolescent requires some justification in suspected facts, general background possibilities fall short; a reasonable search that extensive calls for suspicion that it will pay off. But non dangerous school contraband does not raise the specter of stashes inintimate places, and there is no evidence in the record of any general practice among Safford Middle School stu-dents of hiding that sort of thing in underwear; neither Jordan nor Marissa suggested to Wilson that Savana was doing that, and the preceding search of Marissa that Wilson ordered yielded nothing.
In sum, 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. We think that the combination of these deficiencies was fatal to finding the search reasonable.
The court went on to extend qualified immunity to those school staff who conducted the search, in essence suggesting that they could not have known better because the law was not clear regarding the permissibility of their conduct.
Other justices, who formed the Majority, agreed that the strip search was unlawful (Justices John Paul Stevens and Ruth Bader Ginsburg) but dissented in part, arguing that the school officials were not entitled to qualified immunity.
The Court's lone dissenter, Justice Clarence Thomas, abandoned by his Conservative colleagues on the Court, found that the strip search was constitutional, arguing that:
The majority imposes a vague and amorphous standard on school administrators. It also grants judges sweeping authority to second-guess the measures that these officials take to maintain discipline in their schools and ensure the health and safety of the students in their charge. This deep intrusion into the administration of public schools exemplifies why the Court should return to the common-law doctrine of in loco parentis under which “the judiciary was reluctant to interfere in the routine business of school administration, allowing schools and teachers to set and enforce rules and to maintain order.”
Editor's comments: As a result of this ruling, school officials are NOW under WARNING that they will no longer be given the kind of qualified immunity these school officials enjoyed here because of "unsettled law" in the area.
Secondly, it is CLEAR from the ruling that only illegal DANGEROUS drugs (or street drugs) will permit the kind of strip search that took place here.
You can read the opinion here.
In essence, the court, through Justice David Souter, held (8 to 1, with Clarence Thomas dissenting):
The issue here is whether a 13-year-old student’s Fourth Amendment right was violated when she was subjected to a search of her bra and underpants by school officials acting on reasonable suspicion that she had brought for-bidden prescription and over-the-counter drugs to school. Because there were no reasons to suspect the drugs presented a danger or were concealed in her underwear, we hold that the search did violate the Constitution, but because there is reason to question the clarity with which the right was established, the official who ordered the unconstitutional search is entitled to qualified immunity from liability.
...
Here, the content of the suspicion failed to match the degree of intrusion. Wilson knew beforehand that the pills were prescription-strength ibuprofen and over-the-counter naproxen, common pain relievers equivalent to two Advil,or one Aleve. He must have been aware of the nature and limited threat of the specific drugs he was searching for, and while just about anything can be taken in quantities that will do real harm, Wilson had no reason to suspect that large amounts of the drugs were being passed around, or that individual students were receiving great numbers of pills.
Nor could Wilson have suspected that Savana was hiding common painkillers in her underwear. Petitioners suggest, as a truth universally acknowledged, that “students . . . hid[e] contraband in or under their clothing,” Reply Brief for Petitioners 8, and cite a smattering of cases of students with contraband in their underwear, id., at 8–9. But when the categorically extreme intrusiveness of a search down to the body of an adolescent requires some justification in suspected facts, general background possibilities fall short; a reasonable search that extensive calls for suspicion that it will pay off. But non dangerous school contraband does not raise the specter of stashes inintimate places, and there is no evidence in the record of any general practice among Safford Middle School stu-dents of hiding that sort of thing in underwear; neither Jordan nor Marissa suggested to Wilson that Savana was doing that, and the preceding search of Marissa that Wilson ordered yielded nothing.
In sum, 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. We think that the combination of these deficiencies was fatal to finding the search reasonable.
The court went on to extend qualified immunity to those school staff who conducted the search, in essence suggesting that they could not have known better because the law was not clear regarding the permissibility of their conduct.
Other justices, who formed the Majority, agreed that the strip search was unlawful (Justices John Paul Stevens and Ruth Bader Ginsburg) but dissented in part, arguing that the school officials were not entitled to qualified immunity.
The Court's lone dissenter, Justice Clarence Thomas, abandoned by his Conservative colleagues on the Court, found that the strip search was constitutional, arguing that:
The majority imposes a vague and amorphous standard on school administrators. It also grants judges sweeping authority to second-guess the measures that these officials take to maintain discipline in their schools and ensure the health and safety of the students in their charge. This deep intrusion into the administration of public schools exemplifies why the Court should return to the common-law doctrine of in loco parentis under which “the judiciary was reluctant to interfere in the routine business of school administration, allowing schools and teachers to set and enforce rules and to maintain order.”
Editor's comments: As a result of this ruling, school officials are NOW under WARNING that they will no longer be given the kind of qualified immunity these school officials enjoyed here because of "unsettled law" in the area.
Secondly, it is CLEAR from the ruling that only illegal DANGEROUS drugs (or street drugs) will permit the kind of strip search that took place here.
Labels: Constitutional rights, Justice, The Constitution, U. S. Supreme Court
posted by KYJurisDoctor at 3:37 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home