Facts of the Case - Term Paper Example

?Introduction The Supreme Court in Safford Unified School Dist. No v. Redding, ruled in June 2009 that strip search is illegal. The court ruled that intrusive search without the threat of a clear danger to other students violated the Constitution's protections against unreasonable search or seizure (Barnes) This case had attracted the attention of parents, educators and civil libertarians. The court ruled that it was reasonable to search the girl's backpack and outer clothes. Search beyond it caused degradation to the subject. In this case school officials overreacted to vague accusations that Redding was violating school policy by possessing the ibuprofen, equivalent to two tablets of Advil (Barnes). The missing thing according to Justice David H. Souter "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. (Barnes)." In a dissenting note, Justice Clarence Thomas wrote that Judges are not qualified to second-guess the best manner for maintaining quiet and order in the school environment (Barnes). He said that the school officials were logical in searching the school girl. The issue in this case was whether a 13-year-old student's Fourth Amendment right was violated when she was subjected to a search of her bra and underpants by school officials acting on reasonable suspicion that she had brought forbidden prescription and over-the-counter drugs to school. It was held that the search did violate the constitution because there were no reasons to suspect the drugs presented a danger or were concealed in her underwear. The official who ordered the search was also granted immunity from liability because the constitutional position of the Fourth Amendment was not clear at the time of the search. Facts of the case The case began when Marissa, another student was found with prescription-strength ibuprofen and said she received it from Savana. The facts of the case occurred in one October day in 2003 at 13-year-old Savana Redding’s math class at Safford Middle School. The assistant principal of the School, Kerry Wilson, came into the room and asked Savana to go to his office. Wilson then showed Savana four white prescription-strength ibuprofen 400-mg pills, and one over-the-counter blue naproxen 200-mg pill, all used for pain and inflammation but banned under school rules without advance permission (Safford Unified School Dist. No. 1 v. Redding, 129 S. Ct. 2633 - Supreme Court 2009). He then asked whether Savana knew anything about the pills. She said that she had no idea about it. Then Wilson told Savana that he had received a report that she was giving ibuprofen pills to fellow students. Savana said she didn’t. She also agreed to let Wilson search her belongings. An administrative assistant also came into the office, and together with Wilson they searched Savana's backpack. They did not find any ibuprofen pills. Wilson then asked the administrative assistant to take Savana to the school nurse's office to search her clothes for pills. Helen Romero, the administrative assistant and the nurse, Peggy Schwallier, asked Savana to remove her jacket, socks, and shoes, leaving her in stretch pants and a T-shirt (both without pockets), which she was then asked to remove. Finally, Savana was told to pull her bra out and to the side and shake it, and to pull out the elastic on her underpants, thus exposing her breasts and pelvic area to some degree (Safford Unified School Dist. No. 1 v. Redding, 129 S. Ct. 2633 - Supreme Court 2009). But no pills were found. Savana’s mother argued that strip search is in violation of Savana's Fourth Amendment rights. Savana's mother filed suit against Safford Unified School District 1, Wilson, Romero, and Schwallier for conducting strip search. The school officials raised the defence of qualified immunity. The District Court for the district of Arizona granted the motion on the ground that there was no Fourth Amendment violation, and a panel of the Ninth Circuit affirmed (Safford Unified School Dist. No. 1 v. Redding, 129 S. Ct. 2633 - Supreme Court 2009). A divided Circuit sitting en banc, however, reversed. The Ninth Circuit held that the strip search was unjustified under the Fourth Amendment test for searches of children by school officials set out in the case New Jersey v. T.L.O. The Fourth Amendment The fourth amendment says that, “the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized (U.S. constitution Online).” It requires a law enforcement officer to have probable cause for conducting a search. The court has said in Brinegar v. United States that "Probable cause exists where `the facts and circumstances within [an officer's] knowledge and of which [he] 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," and that evidence bearing on that offense will be found in the place to be searched (Safford Unified School Dist. No. 1 v. Redding, 129 S. Ct. 2633 - Supreme Court 2009). In T.L.O. case, the court said that for searches by school officials "a careful balancing of governmental and private interests suggests that the public interest is best served by a Fourth Amendment standard of reasonableness that stops short of probable cause." Applying the standard of reasonable suspicion to determine the legality of a school administrator's search of a student, held that a school 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 (Safford Unified School Dist. No. 1 v. Redding, 129 S. Ct. 2633 - Supreme Court 2009)." Several cases related to probable cause shows that it has an implicit bearing on the reliable knowledge element of reasonable suspicion. In that cases the court have attempted to flesh out the knowledge component by looking to the degree to which known facts imply prohibited conduct. The general observation of the court was that the required knowledge component of probable cause for a law enforcement officer's evidence search is that it raise a "fair probability," or a "substantial chance," of discovering evidence of criminal activity (Safford Unified School Dist. No. 1 v. Redding, 129 S. Ct. 2633 - Supreme Court 2009). In the present case under discussion, the content of the suspicion failed to match the degree of intrusion. In this case Wilson knew beforehand that the pills were prescription-strength ibuprofen and over-the-counter naproxen, common pain relievers. He must have been aware of the nature and limited threat of the specific drugs he was searching for (Safford Unified School Dist. No. 1 v. Redding, 129 S. Ct. 2633 - Supreme Court 2009). The school authorities have done the search in good faith to prevent drug use in the campus. The difference is that the Fourth Amendment places limits on the official, even with the high degree of deference that courts must pay to the educator's professional judgment (Safford Unified School Dist. No. 1 v. Redding, 129 S. Ct. 2633 - Supreme Court 2009). Because the constitutional standard was not clear at the time of the search, the Court agreed that the assistant principal who ordered the search in 2003 was entitled to qualified immunity from liability for the violation (Supreme Court Rules Student Strip Search Unconstitutional). Section A Strip Search Illegal 1. Savana was a 13 year old school girl when strip search was conducted. It is a sensitive age for a girl. Strip search amounts to degradation of her dignity. It affected her emotionally. It is evident from the fact that she refused to go to that school after this incident. 2. It is different from changing for gym. When changing for gym, it means getting ready for the play. Exposing for search is reserved for suspected wrongdoers. In this case, the suspicion is not reasonable enough for a strip search. 3. Savana is strip searched for suspected possession painkillers that is not very dangerous. Taking any drug in large quantities is fatal. 4. The particular school had no history of such incidents. 5. Nobody has suggested that Savana is hiding drugs in underwear. 6. A number of states and school districts have already banned strip searches because it is degrading. Two largest school districts in Washington region are among them. The policy in Fairfax County specifies that personal searches may extend to pockets; and to the removal and search of outer garments such as jackets, coats, sweaters, or shoes; and to items such as pocketbooks or backpacks. (Barnes). In Montgomery County, searches are limited to outer clothing and pockets and the preferred method is self-search where a student is told what to remove (Barnes). A third person also will be present for any search. 7. Precedent on student searches in the 1985 case New Jersey v. T.L.O, the school was justified in conducting a limited search of the girl's backpack and outer clothing. Stripping to her underwear and partly expose herself was excessive. In the T.L.O. case, it was ruled that the officials may not employ searches "excessively intrusive in light of the age and sex of the student and the nature of the infraction." 8. Strip searches should be used only in extraordinary circumstances. In this case school officials overreacted and traumatized a young girl. 9. The degree of intrusion did not match the content of suspicion. The intrusion was high for suspicion of possessing ibuprofen, a pin killer. 10. School officials violated the Fourth Amendment, which prohibits unreasonable searches. School officials didn't bother to search her desk or locker, or even question additional students to find out if anyone thought Redding could be hiding drugs in her underwear (Associated Press). So the case does not pass the test of reasonable suspecian necessary for such searches as established in the T.L.O. case. 11. Allowing a strip search of school age children might lead to more intrusive searches, like body cavity searches. Section B Strip Search is Legal 1. The school policy prohibited all drugs on school grounds, including any "prescription or over-the-counter drug" like Ibuprofen, except when specifically permitted by the school. When the vice principal asked Redding's friend about the pill, she said Redding had given it to her. So there is reason to suspect Savana Redding 2. As long as there is reason to suspect, School officials were entitled to search any place where the contraband might be reasonably hidden. 3. Where such contraband might be reasonably hidden is based on an administrator's experience and certainly is proven out by the reported cases. 4. Hiding prohibited items in the underwear is not an uncommon thing. 5. To preserve the evidence of crime, it is necessary to act quickly. The school authorities cannot wait for a search warrant from the court. 6. The school officials have a responsibility to protect the kids. In this case, Savana was suspected of distributing ibuprofen pills to other children. 7. Strip search is sometimes necessary to maintain suitable environment in the school. The school is having strict drug policy. The school officials were aware that a few years earlier, a student had become "seriously ill" and "spent several days in intensive care" after ingesting prescription medication obtained from a classmate. 8. Maintaining discipline in the school is the responsibility of school officials and court should not interfere in the routine affairs the school. Schools and teachers shall be allowed to set and enforce rules to maintain order. 9. T.L.O. case permits search, if there is reasonable suspicion. 10. The fourth amendment only means that search and seizures must be reasonable. 11. The requirement of reasonable suspicion is not a requirement of absolute certainty. Works Cited Barnes, Robert. Student Strip Search Illegal. 26 June 2009. 24 April 2011 . Associated Press. Justices hear school strip-search arguments . 2011. 24 April 2011 . Safford Unified School Dist. No. 1 v. Redding, 129 S. Ct. 2633 - Supreme Court 2009. 2011. 24 April 2011 . Supreme Court Rules Student Strip Search Unconstitutional. 2011. 24 April 2011 . U.S. Constitution Online. 6 March 2011. 24 April 2011 . Read More