COURT FAULTS STRIP-SEARCH OF STUDENT

WASHINGTON--The U.S. Supreme Court rapped school officials for
strip-searching a 13-year-old girl in a fruitless hunt for ibuprofen,
ruling that an overzealous investigation based on scant evidence
violated the Fourth Amendment ban on "unreasonable searches and seizures."

The 8-1 vote provided a victory for student rights. In 2007, the
justices went in the opposite direction, ruling that a school
campaign to discourage drug abuse outweighed a teenager's First
Amendment right to mock such efforts.

In the latest case, the justices ruled that the school's effort to
keep drugs off campus don't justify what Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg
called "abusive" treatment of an innocent honor student, Savana
Redding, who later said the search was "the most humiliating
experience" of her life.

The court cited social-science literature showing that strip searches
can cause adolescents "serious emotional damage."

The opinion by Justice David Souter exempted the assistant principal
who ordered the search from liability, finding that it might not have
been clear to him that his action was unconstitutional. The justices
left open the possibility that the school district in Safford, Ariz.,
could be liable for the violation.

Review court decisions in the 2008-2009 terms video Court Rules Strip
Search Was Unconstitutional 2:30

The Supreme Court ruled 8-1 that school officials violated the Fourth
Amendment ban on "unreasonable searches and seizures" when they
strip-searched a 13-year-old girl. The decision was a surprising
victory for student rights, reporter Jess Bravin says.

Justice Souter's opinion was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and
Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy and Samuel Alito--who all
endorsed the 2007 decision limiting student free-speech rights when
it came to drug use. Justice Stephen Breyer also signed the majority opinion.

Justices John Paul Stevens and Ginsburg wrote separate opinions
saying they would have upheld the federal appeals-court ruling that
left the assistant principal exposed to liability.

In dissent, Justice Clarence Thomas, as he has before, took the
strongest position against student rights and in favor of school
administrators' authority.

The case arose after another Safford Middle School student was found
with several pills in her possession indicated that Ms. Redding
supplied her. Assistant Principal Kerry Wilson searched Ms. Redding's
backpack and, after finding nothing, had two female school employees
search her clothing.

Stripped to her underwear, Ms. Redding was forced to shake out her
bra and panties so that anything hidden therein would fall out, "thus
exposing her breasts and pelvic area to some degree," Justice Souter
wrote. She was detained for an additional two hours before being sent
back to class. Ms. Redding's mother filed suit.

The school district defended the strip-search as part of its
aggressive campaign to eradicate drug abuse. From the Archives

* Class Struggle: Should Schools Permit Searching of Students For
Weapons, Drugs? (May 30, 1984) * Students May Be Searched if School
Has 'Reasonable Grounds,' High Court Rules (Jan. 16, 1985)

Recognizing the need to maintain control on campus, Justice Souter
wrote that school officials need only hold a "reasonable suspicion"
of wrongdoing before searching students, a lower threshold than
"probable cause," which applies in ordinary circumstances. Mr.
Wilson's suspicion was reasonable, the court found, and that was
grounds enough to search Ms. Redding's backpack and outer garments.

But the strip-search was another matter, Justice Souter wrote, citing
social-science research showing that teenagers' "adolescent
vulnerability intensifies the patent intrusiveness of the exposure."

Justice Souter observed that the evidence against Ms. Redding was
weak, there was no specific reason to believe she had contraband
stashed in her underwear, and the medication involved was relatively
harmless--400 mg ibuprofen pills, equivalent to two Advil tablets. In
combination, "these deficiencies fatal to finding the search reasonable."

The case initially suggested a gender divide on whether
strip-searching a pubescent girl is "unreasonable" under the Fourth
Amendment. At oral argument in April, several male justices seemed
puzzled at Ms. Redding's humiliation over displaying her body to
adult inquisitors.

"Why is this a major thing, to say, 'Strip down to your
underclothes,' which children do when they change for gym?" Justice
Breyer asked at the oral argument.

The court's only woman, Justice Ginsburg, interjected, noting that
Ms. Redding wasn't merely stripped to her underwear, but had to shake
her bra and panties out. Justice Ginsburg's perspective apparently
influenced Justice Souter's majority opinion.

"Changing for gym is getting ready for play; exposing for a search is
responding to an accusation reserved for suspected wrongdoers and
fairly understood as so degrading" that several school districts,
including the nation's largest, New York City, have banned them
outright, the court said.

For generations, the court has recognized that students retain some
constitutional rights when they attend public school. In a 1943
decision striking down a law requiring recitation of the Pledge of
Allegiance, Justice Robert Jackson wrote that public schools must
respect students' constitutional rights, lest youth "discount
important principles of our government as mere platitudes."

But the court also has recognized, as Justice Abe Fortas wrote in a
1969 case upholding students' rights to wear black armbands to
protest the Vietnam War, that local officials generally are entitled
"to prescribe and control conduct in the schools."

In recent years, the court has been tilting that balance toward
administrators. Two years ago, the court ruled that the schools'
interest in fighting drug abuse allowed it to suppress student speech
that seemed to trivialize the issue -- in that case, a banner a
student unfurled outside campus reading "Bong Hits 4 Jesus."