Supreme Court Limits School Districts' Ability to Strip Search Students

On June 25, 2009, eight justices of the Supreme Court ruled that the strip search of a 13-year-old middle school girl violated the Fourth Amendment prohibition against unreasonable searches. The majority opinion held that the search did not even raise a moderate chance of finding evidence of wrongdoing, the standard endorsed by the court for school searches.

In October 2003, the assistant principal of Safford Middle School received a student tip that a female student, Savana Redding, had prescription-strength ibuprofen and over-the-counter naproxen in her possession. Each pill is approximately equivalent to two Advil, or one Aleve. The assistant principal, a male, searched Savana's backpack and clothes, but no pills were found. The assistant principal directed an administrative assistant and school nurse, both female, to search Savana further in private. She was forced to strip down to her underclothes, pull her bra out to the side and shake it, and pull out the elastic on her underpants, thus potentially exposing her breasts and pelvic area. The additional search uncovered no pills.

The majority opinion, authored by Justice Souter and joined by seven other justices held that although the school officials had reasonable suspicion to warrant searching the student's backpack and outer clothing, they were not justified in conducting the strip search. According to the majority, the search would only have been reasonable if the type or quantity of the drug posed a danger to students, or if there was some additional reason to suppose that the student was carrying the contraband in her underwear.

Although a majority of the Court held that the strip search violated the Fourth Amendment, a different group of seven justices also found that the school officials who conducted the search were entitled to qualified immunity, because at the time of the search the issue of whether such a search was unconstitutional was not clearly established. The Supreme Court did not address the issue of whether the school district was also entitled to qualified immunity, and the majority remanded to the lower court on that issue.

The opinion has important results for school districts. Importantly, the Court's ruling may be applicable to searches for other nondangerous school contraband besides prescription-strength and over-the-counter medicines, although it is unclear what contraband would be covered. And although the majority opinion suggested that more dangerous contraband would not be covered by the rule, it may be difficult for school officials to determine what contraband is dangerous enough to warrant more intrusive searches. At a minimum, the case makes clear that schools and school districts must now take additional care when conducting more invasive searches of students.