Court says strip search of child illegal

WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court ruled by an 8-1 vote Thursday that the strip search of a middle-school girl for prescription-strength ibuprofen violated her privacy rights.

The decision in an Arizona case requires administrators nationwide to weigh more carefully how intrusively they search for drugs.

The majority opinion by Justice David Souter emphasized the great difference between a search of a student's backpack or outer clothing and a search that requires the removal of clothes.

The decision, which marks a departure from signals the justices sent during oral arguments in April, also breaks from a recent trend in decisions giving school administrators great latitude to search for drugs in schools.

A school official must have, Souter wrote, a "reasonable suspicion of danger" regarding the contraband sought and a belief that it could be in the student's underwear before making "the quantum leap from outer clothes and backpacks to exposure of intimate parts."

In October 2003, after obtaining an unverified tip from another student that eighth grader Savana Redding might have ibuprofen and finding none in her backpack, Safford Middle School assistant principal Kerry Wilson asked a school nurse and administration assistant to search Savana in the nurse's office. The two women had Savana take off her shoes and socks, then her shirt and pants. They then directed her to pull out her bra and pull open her panties to see if she was hiding any pills. None were found.

Savana's mother, April Redding, sued saying the Safford school district officials breached Savana's rights under the Fourth Amendment shield against unreasonable searches. A lower federal appeals court ruled for Redding and also said the Safford Unified School District was financially responsible for harm to her.

The school district's appeal was backed by the National Association of School Boards and other educators concerned about officials' ability to attack the scourge of drugs in schools.

Siding with the Reddings were groups such as the American Civil Liberties Union, which represented her, and the National Association of Social Workers.

In affirming that Savana's rights were violated, Souter wrote, "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."

He stressed that "the indignity of the search" is not what outlawed it, but rather that the "suspicion failed to match the degree of intrusion." Souter was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices John Paul Stevens, Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer and Samuel Alito.

Justice Clarence Thomas was the lone dissenter. He said the majority opinion "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."

By a separate vote of 7-2, the high court said that because its rulings in this area of school searches have not been clear, the Safford officials are immune from liability for their actions. Justices Stevens and Ginsburg dissented from that part of the ruling in Safford Unified School District No. 1 v. Redding.

During oral arguments on April 21, most of the nine justices voiced more sympathy for the Safford administrators looking for possible drug use than for Savana for having to remove her clothes.

Several justices, including Roberts and Breyer, appeared open to arguments that administrators need considerable leeway to search a student when they get a tip. Justice Ginsburg was most forceful on the other side, questioning whether the Arizona school district had sufficient grounds for the strip search.

In a concurring opinion Thursday, Ginsburg emphasized the humiliation Savana endured, including being forced to sit on a chair outside Wilson's office even after the search found no pills.

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