Supreme Court Finds Student’s Strip Search Unconstitutional, but Administrator Entitled to Qualified Immunity
July 2009
The United States Supreme Court has found that an assistant principal’s strip search of a 13-year-old female student’s undergarments was not based on “reasonable suspicion,” thus violating the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. However, the Court also found that the assistant principal and other school staff were entitled to qualified immunity from personal liability relating to the search.
In Safford Unified School District #1 et al. v. Redding, 557 U.S. ___ (2009), an assistant principal received reports that the female student had distributed pills to students, including prescription strength ibuprofen and an over-the-counter pain reliever. The assistant principal also obtained the student’s planner from another student. The planner contained several knives, lighters, a marker, and a cigarette.
The assistant principal confronted the student, who denied providing pills to other students. She admitted that the planner was hers, but claimed that the knives, lighters, a marker and a cigarette did not belong to her. With the student’s agreement, the assistant principal searched her belongings, but found nothing. The assistant principal then directed the student to the nursing office for a search of her clothing.
Once in the nursing office, a female nurse and another female staff member directed the student to remove her outer clothing. After the student removed her outer clothing, the nurse and staff member directed the student to pull her bra out and shake it. The nurse and staff member also directed the student to pull out the elastic in her underpants. The student complied, thereby exposing her breasts and pelvic area. The nurse and the staff member did not find any pills.
The student’s mother subsequently filed a lawsuit against the school district, the assistant principal, and other school district staff. She alleged that the search violated the student’s Fourth Amendment rights.
The Fourth Amendment guarantees the “right of the people to be secure in their persons . . . against unreasonable searches and seizures.”
The Fourth Amendment generally requires a law enforcement officer to have probable cause for conducting a search. “Probable cause exists where the facts and circumstances within [an officer’s] knowledge and of which [the officer] had reasonably trustworthy information [are] sufficient in themselves to warrant a man of reasonable caution in the belief that an offense has been or is being committed.” However, in the school setting, the Supreme Court has determined that officials need not have “probable cause” for conducting a search. Instead, school officials must only have a “reasonable suspicion” or “moderate chance of finding evidence” of wrongdoing. Under this standard, a 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.”
In this case, the Court found that the search of the student’s backpack and outer clothing was appropriate because the school had reasonable suspicion that the student was carrying pills on her person and/or in her backpack. The Court also found this search to be reasonable because it was not excessively intrusive.
However, the Court found that the search of the student’s underwear was unreasonable because the assistant principal, “must have been aware of the nature and limited threat of the specific drugs he was searching for, . . . [and] had no reason to suspect that large amounts of the drugs were being passed around, or that individual students were receiving great numbers of pills.” In addition, the Court found that the assistant principal had no real suspicion that the student was carrying pills in her underwear. As a result, the Court concluded that the search violated the student’s Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable searches.
The Court then analyzed whether the school staff could be personally liable for the search. A school official searching a student is “entitled to qualified immunity where clearly established law does not show that the search violated the Fourth Amendment.”
The Court analyzed several cases involving strip searches. Some of those cases found the strip searches to be constitutional, while others found the strips searches to be unconstitutional. Based on these cases and their differing outcomes, a majority of the Court’s Justices concluded that it was not clearly established that the strip search of the student would violate the Fourth Amendment. As a result, the majority found qualified immunity was warranted and that the administrators were not personally liable.
This case illustrates the complexity of strip searches in the school setting. As with all student searches, the strip searches should only occur when: (1) it is reasonably related to the objectives of the search and (2) it is not excessively intrusive in light of the age and sex of the student and the nature of the infraction. Although the Court found that the administrators in this case were entitled to qualified immunity, this case suggests that administrators could be held personally liable for unconstitutional strip searches in similar circumstances.
This F3 NewsFlash is a summary only and not legal advice. We recommend that you consult with legal counsel to determine how this case may apply to your specific facts and circumstances. Information on a free NewsFlash subscription can be found at www.fagenfriedman.com.
