Safford Unified School District v. Redding, 557 U.S. 364 (2009), 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.
On October 8, 2003, the assistant principal of Safford Middle School in Safford, Arizona, informed 13-year-old Savana Redding that another student had accused her of distributing prescription-strength ibuprofen, which was 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. On June 25, 2009, in an 8–1 decision authored by Justice David Souter, the Supreme Court held that the search failed to meet the "reasonable suspicion" standard for searches of students in a school setting established by the Court in New Jersey v. T. L. O. (1985), 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 shielded from liability by qualified immunity.
The case garnered nationwide interest and sparked debates over the extent to which school officials should enforce zero-tolerance policies in schools. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was the only female justice at the time and discussed the case in an interview while a decision was still pending; observers have described Ginsburg's role in the case as emphasizing the need for more diversity on the Supreme Court.
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 most cases, the Fourth Amendment requires government officials 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. (1985) 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'".Redding, 557 U.S. 364, 370 (quoting New Jersey v. T. L. O., 469 U. S., at 341).
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".Redding, 557 U.S. 364, 370 (quoting New Jersey v. T. L. O., 469 U. S., at 342, 345). 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'".Redding, 557 U.S. 364, 370 (quoting New Jersey v. T. L. O., 469 U. S., at 342). 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.Redding, 557 U.S. 364, 377 (citing Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 243–244).
Facts of the case On October 8, 2003, Kerry Wilson, the assistant principal of Safford Middle School in Safford, Arizona, asked 13-year-old student Savana Redding to come to his office. Wilson showed Redding a day planner which had "several knives, lighters, a permanent marker, and a cigarette" inside, and he asked if it was hers.Redding, 557 U.S. 364, 368. 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". Wilson informed her that someone had reported her for 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.Redding, 557 U.S. 364, 369.
A week before Redding was searched, another student had reported to Wilson that "certain students were bringing drugs and weapons on 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.Redding, 557 U.S. 364, 372–373. He also told the principal that he attended a party at Redding’s house at which alcohol was served to his peers.Redding, 557 U.S. 364, 373.
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".Redding, 557 U.S. 364, 372. 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
April Redding, Savana 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 on September 21, 2007.Redding v. Safford Unified School District, 504 F. 3d 828 (2007). 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.Redding v. Safford Unified School District, 531 F. 3d 1071, 1081–1087 (2008). The en banc Ninth Circuit affirmed that defendants Romero and Schwallier were entitled to qualified immunity because "they had not acted as independent decisionmakers".Redding, 557 U.S. 364, 369–370 (citing Redding v. Safford Unified School District, F. 3d, at 1089).
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: (1) "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 (2) "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 David Souter delivered the opinion of the Court, which affirmed the Ninth Circuit in part, reversed in part, and remanded. In a vote of 8–1, the Court affirmed the Ninth Circuit's judgment that the search of Redding violated the Fourth Amendment; Justice Clarence Thomas would have held that the search did not violate the Fourth Amendment. In a vote of 7–2, the Court reversed the Ninth Circuit's judgment with respect to qualified immunity, holding that the school officials were entitled to qualified immunity because the search's unconstitutionality was not clearly established at the time of the violation; Justices John Paul Stevens and Ruth Bader Ginsburg would have held that the assistant principal was not entitled to qualified immunity.Redding, 557 U.S. 364, 367.
Fourth Amendment
In his analysis of the Fourth Amendment, Souter reiterated the holding in New Jersey v. T. L. O. that the validity of school searches merely requires a standard of "reasonable suspicion", not the "probable cause" standard ordinarily used by law enforcement officers.Redding, 557 U.S. 364, 370 In terms of the knowledge required to meet that threshold, this calls for only a "moderate chance" of finding the expected evidence, not at "fair probability" or "substantial chance" associated with probable cause.Redding, 557 U.S. 364, 371. Souter then recounted the facts of the case,Redding, 557 U.S. 364, 371–374. and he concluded that the school officials had conducted a "strip search", stating that "both subjective and reasonable societal expectations of personal privacy support the treatment of such a search as categorically distinct, requiring distinct elements of justification on the part of school authorities for going beyond a search of outer clothing and belongings".Redding, 557 U.S. 364, 374.
Souter reiterated that in T. L. O., the Court had held that the scope of a school search "will be permissible ... when it is 'not excessively intrusive in light of the age and sex of the student and the nature of the infraction".Redding, 557 U.S. 364, 375. From this, he concluded that in Redding's case, "the content of the suspicion failed to match the degree of intrusion" because assistant principal Wilson "must have been aware of the nature and limited threat of the specific drugs he was searching for".Redding, 557 U.S. 364, 375–376. Additionally, Wilson could not "have suspected that Savana was hiding common painkillers in her underwear".Redding, 557 U.S. 364, 376. "In sum," wrote Souter, "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." For these reasons, the strip search of Redding was unreasonable and violated the Fourth Amendment.Redding, 557 U.S. 364, 376 ("We think that the combination of these deficiencies was fatal to finding the search reasonable.").
Qualified immunity