Legal Clips, [October 2007]The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has ruled that school officials did not violate a student’s Fourth Amendment search and seizure rights when they conducted a warrantless strip search of her person during school hours on school premises after receiving information from two student informants. Savanna Redding was a student at Safford Middle School (SMS) in Arizona. SMS’ drug policy prohibits the "nonmedical use, possession, or sale of drugs on school property or at school events." SMS staff members observed a group of students, including Savanna and her friend Marissa, behaving in an "unusually rowdy" manner at a school dance. Some staff detected the smell of alcohol from the group and later that evening a bottle of alcohol and a pack of cigarettes were found in the girls’ restroom. Subsequently, Jordan, another SMS student, told Principal Robert Beeman and Vice Principal Kerry Wilson that Savanna and Marissa were distributing prescription drugs, and turned over a pill he received from Marissa. Marissa was then called the vice principal’s office where she was questioned and asked to empty the contents of pockets and open her wallet. That search turned up some pills, including an over the counter drug that Marissa said she had gotten from Savanna. Marissa was then strip searched but no more drugs were found. When Savanna was confronted with Marissa’s admission, she denied all allegations regarding knowledge, possession or distribution of the pills. A search of her backpack and subsequent strip search yielded no drugs. Savanna sued Safford Unified School District #1 (SUSD1) in federal court, alleging an illegal search of her person in violation of the Fourth Amendment. The district court granted SUSD1’s motion for summary judgment, finding the search satisfied the requirements of New Jersey v. T.L.O., 469 U.S. 325, 341 (1985), that it be justified at its inception and permissible in its scope.
The Ninth Circuit agreed with lower court’s decision. Addressing the question of whether the search was justified at its inception, it found that it must determine whether school officials had "reasonable grounds" for suspecting Savanna was violating the law or school rules. While conceding that uncorroborated "tips" from student informants would not constitute reasonable grounds justifying a strip search, the appeals court concluded that school officials had made diligent efforts to "investigate, corroborate, or otherwise substantiate" the tip before ordering the search. It also found sufficient evidence to support Jordan and Marissa’s veracity. In addition, the appeals pointed out that there was independent evidence supporting school officials’ suspicion that Savanna was involved with the pills. The Ninth Circuit then turned to the question of whether the search was permissible in scope. It stated that a search is permissible in its scope if "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." Based on the school district’s paramount interest in protecting its students from the potential harm of misuse of prescription drugs and the small size of the pills, the court found that a "personally intrusive" search of the suspected student’s person was not unreasonable. Lastly, the Ninth Circuit concluded that school officials had administered the search in a reasonable manner since it took place in the privacy of the nurse’s locked office, the student was not touched in any way during the search, and she was permitted to keep her undergarments on during the search. The appeals court also rejected Savanna’s argument that the school officials’ search exceeded its permissible scope because they failed to utilize the "least restrictive means" to conduct search.
Redding v. Safford Unified Sch. Dist. #1, No. 05-15759 (9th Cir. Sept. 21, 2007)