Pubdate: Fri, 26 Jun 2009 Source: New York Times (NY) Page: A24 Copyright: 2009 The New York Times Company Contact: http://www.nytimes.com/ Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/298 Referenced: The ruling http://drugsense.org/url/ewgAsKhd Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/people/Savana+Redding Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/find?225 (Students - United States) Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/topic/strip+searches AN UNREASONABLE SEARCH In an important victory for students' rights, the Supreme Court ruled, 8-to-1, Thursday that school officials acted unconstitutionally when they strip searched a 13-year-old girl. The majority was too willing to find that in this particular case the officials involved were immune from liability. But the decision still sends an important message to schools about the need to respect their students' privacy when they conduct investigations. Savana Redding, an Arizona middle-school student, was strip searched by school officials looking for prescription-strength ibuprofen. The school acted on a sketchy accusation from a fellow student, who said Ms. Redding had possessed ibuprofen pills in the past. The search -- which Ms. Redding understandably regarded as humiliating -- did not turn up any pills. Ms. Redding's mother sued, charging that the strip search violated the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable searches. In schools, the protection is reduced, but officials still must show that a search was not overly intrusive in light of its purpose and the age of the student. Justice David Souter, writing for the majority, said the school was justified in searching Ms. Redding's backpack and outer clothing. But a strip search is of another order of magnitude, he noted, especially when done on someone whose "adolescent vulnerability" magnifies the intrusiveness. In this case, the court said, the school's rationale did not justify the search. The drugs -- a few ibuprofen pills -- posed only a limited threat. And there was no legitimate reason to believe that Ms. Redding was hiding anything in her underwear. The decision will no doubt, rightly, discourage schools from conducting strip searches of their students in all but the most extreme circumstances. The court should have gone on to hold the school officials involved liable for damages. Regrettably, it ruled that the state of the law was so uncertain before this ruling that the officials should be given immunity for their actions. It sent the question of whether the school district is liable back to a lower court to resolve. Justice John Paul Stevens, writing for himself and Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, noted that the standards for student searches have been clear since a 1985 Supreme Court ruling laid them out. And as he observed, it does not take a constitutional scholar to know that a strip search of a 13-year-old child is a significant invasion of constitutional rights. - --- MAP posted-by: Richard Lake