Legal Case Analysis: Safford Middle School District

The Assistant Principal of a Safford Middle School District school called 13-year-old Savana Redding from her classroom and walked her to his office. Savana was removed from her Math class due to what was considered by the Assistant Principal as disturbing information regarding Savana and the reports received that she was giving pills to other students. In his office, Wilson showed Savana a day-planner filled with knives and other contraband. Savana admitted the planner was hers but that the knives and other items were not. Savana said she had loaned the planner to a friend (Marissa). The Assistant Principal then proceeded to show Savana pain medication—one over-the-counter and 4 prescription-strength that another student had given to the Assistant Principal saying that Savanna had given to the student. Pain medication of any sort was not permitted on school campus without the student gaining prior approval. Again, Savana denied knowing anything about the pills and agreed to have the contents of her backpack searched. The search turned up nothing. Assistant Principal Wilson had his Administrative Assistant (Romero) take Savana to the nurse’s office to search her clothes for pills. Romero and the nurse (Schwallier) removed Savana’s outer clothing exposing parts of her body. No pills were found. Savana’s mother filed suit against all three school personnel claiming that the removal of Savana’s clothing violated her Fourth Amendment Rights. The school officials claimed immunity and the District Court of Arizona concurred and reasoned there had been no violation of the Fourth Amendment. The issue to analyse in the next: 'did the search of 13-year-old Savana’s underwear violate the Fourth Amendment?'

First, the Court held that the search of Savana’s underwear violated the Fourth Amendment. However, the Court questioned how clear the T.L.O. case was to immunity as established and therefore, granted Assistant Principal Wilson qualified immunity. The Court affirmed the immunity of the other two school officials assisting Wilson—the Administrative Assistant and the School Nurse. The Court felt the liability of the Safford School District was questionable and remanded that aspect of the case.

Citing a precedent case New Jersey v. T.L.O. 469 U.S., the Court reasoned that it was in the public’s best interest to use the reasonable test that this referenced case set forth—one that stops short of probable cause. There was reasonable suspicion for a search of Savana’s belongings based on the information of pill dispensing other students had relayed to the Assistant Principal. Only one week earlier a student told the Administration that he had gotten sick after taking pills obtained from Savana and Marissa. Additionally, students had reported that alcohol had been served at Savana’s home during a recent party. However, the search of Savana’s underwear was intrusive given the student’s age and gender. The Assistant Principal was not warranted in searching Savana’s clothing because other students were in no apparent danger and the initial search provided no evidence of pills or looming danger. Savana’s privacy was infringed upon during a process she deemed as frightening and humiliating. The Court reasoned that for such an invasive search, imminent danger would have had to have been present—none was. Furthermore, even though the strip search violated the Fourth Amendment, Wilson, Romero, and Schwallier were granted qualified immunity because the law was unclear as to strip searches and immunity of school officials as set forth by previous precedent. Lastly, the issue of Safford’s liability was to be addressed on remand under 436 U.S. 658.

Intrusive searches are considered unreasonable when there is no reasonable suspicion to do so and when the measures related to the purpose of the search are in accordance with the standard set for in New Jersey v. T.L.O. 469 U.S. 325. After initial searches, which were deemed permissible by the court, turned up no evidence, and with student at the school in no imminent danger, the search should have ceased. Sufficient suspicion is the key for school officials, but for law enforcement probable cause is the guideline. Twenty-four years after the New Jersey v. T.L.O. the courts continue to afford students a certain level of privacy while giving school officials the leeway they need to keep the school environment sage and conducive to learning. Additionally, the fact that where the law does not clearly show that the Fourth Amendment was not violated, as was the case in this instance, the school officials performing the search were entitled to qualified immunity. It appears that immunity was granted the Administrative Assistant and Nurse because they did not request the search but were following through with instructions from a superior.

In summary, school officials in this case violated the student’s Fourth Amendment rights when they strip searched her in clear violation that this type search was intrusive in light of the student’s age and gender and unwarranted based on the lack of reasonable cause. Additionally, the school officials conducting the search in Safford Unified School District #1 et al v. Redding were granted qualified immunity—a lower court’s earlier ruling denying Assistant Principal Wilson qualified immunity was reversed while the other two officials retained their qualified immunity lower court rulings.