School was wrong to strip-search teen

WE SAY Invasive search was a violation of rights and dignity.

Eighth grader Savana Redding was accused in 2003 by another student of possessing ibuprofen pills. The assistant principle ordered two female employees to fully strip-search Redding, exposing her genitalia and breasts. No pills were found.

Feeling violated, Redding sued, and on April 21 the Supreme Court will hear her argument. What precedent will the Supreme Court set?

When are school officials, who are trying to enforce zero-tolerance drug policies, becoming unreasonable in their searches?

In 1985, the Supreme Court ruled that school officials could search a student’s purse without a warrant or probable cause on the basis that there was reasonable suspicion or reasonable cause.

In this case it seems clear that there was no reasonable cause and that the search was entirely inappropriate. 

The assistant principle, Kerry Wilson, said he had good reason to suspect Redding. In a sworn statement submitted for a previous case, he said that she and others had been unusually rowdy at a school dance a couple of months before. He claimed a student accused Redding of having served alcohol at a party before the dance. 

It was never proven that this one instance of rowdiness at a popular school dance was anything more than teenage excitement. Nor would a single instance months ago warrant an unrelated strip search now.  

Wilson’s school district went on to say that given the rising abuse of prescription and over-the-counter medications among 12- and 13-year-olds, the search was “not excessively intrusive in light of Redding’s age and sex and the nature of her suspected infraction.”

In light of Redding’s age and sex? This profile would include every female student at the school. So the logic of their argument goes like this: If someone caught with drugs accuses any female student of possession, we can strip-search them.

If the defense lawyers are going to create a profiling standard on which to base searches, then certainly a profile would take into consideration that Redding was an honors student without any disciplinary record.  

But even if there was reasonable suspicion for a search, the 1985 Supreme Court decision gave permission to search a purse. Surely it would separate a purse and conducting a body search. 

Ultimately, it’s a no-brainer. Judge Kim McLane Wardlaw sided with Redding when the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit heard her case.

Writing for the majority, she said, “It does not require a constitutional scholar to conclude that a nude search of a 13-year-old child is an invasion of constitutional rights.”