Strip searching students illegal? Supreme Court not so sure
Justices appear unconvinced that the searches should be declared out of bounds. A 13-year-old honors student in Arizona was strip searched in a hunt for drugs.

By David G. Savage
11:06 AM PDT, April 21, 2009

Reporting from Washington — The Supreme Court gave a skeptical hearing today to lawyers who were urging a rule against strip searching students at school.

Instead, most of the justices voiced concern that students could hide dangerous drugs such as crack cocaine or heroin in their clothes.

The case before the court concerns a 13-year-old Arizona girl who was strip searched in a nurse’s office after a school friend said the girl, Savana Redding, had brought white pills to school. The pills were extra-strength ibuprofen, which is commonly taken for headaches and cramps.

Last year, a U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the strip search of Savana Redding was unreasonable and unconstitutional since the pills were ibuprofen. And the court held that the school officials who ordered the search were liable for damages.

But in their comments and questions, most of the justices signaled they are inclined to overturn that decision.

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. said the school officials should be shielded from being sued since the law governing school searches had not been clear. In the past, the court has said public officials cannot be held liable for damages unless they violate a “clearly established” right.

Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, though a swing vote on many issues, has voted regularly to give police and school officials greater leeway to search for drugs.

He objected when Adam Wolf, an American Civil Liberties Union lawyer for Redding, argued that the strip search was unreasonable because there was no evidence she was hiding anything in her underwear.

“Is the nature of drug irrelevant?” he asked. “What if it was meth to be consumed at noon?”

Wolf insisted that, even in this instance, school officials would not have reasonable grounds for strip searching a 13-year-old honors student. There was no reason to think she had pills in her underwear, he said.

That reply did not appear to persuade Justice Stephen G. Breyer. It is “a logical thing” for adolescents to hide things, he said. A student might stick something “in their underwear,” he added, provoking laughter when he said that this had happened to him at school. “It’s not beyond human experience.”

For a moment, Justice David H. Souter tried to put himself in the mind of the vice principal who ordered the strip search of Savana Redding. The year before, a middle-school student had become violently ill after taking mysterious pills at school. The official may have feared a repeat.

“Better embarrassment [of one student] than the risk of violent sickness and death,” Souter said.

A lawyer for the Safford Unified School District urged the justices to rule that school officials have broad authority to search students. The vice principal in this case had been told some students had pills, and they were to be passed around at lunchtime. Based on that report, “he was entitled to search any place where contraband might reasonably be found,” said Matthew Wright, district’s lawyer.

What about a “body cavity search?” asked Justice Antonin Scalia.

Wright replied that no school official would undertake such a search, but he insisted it would be legal.

Wolf, the ACLU lawyer, said it would “send shudders down the spine” of children across the nation if the high court approves strip searches at school.

A Justice Department lawyer urged the justices to say that strip searches are out of bounds unless officials have strong, clear evidence that a student is hiding something dangerous in his or her underwear.

The tone of the argument gave little hint the justices will set such a limit, however.

A ruling in the case of Safford School District vs. Redding will be issued by late June.

david.savage@latimes.com

At least it sounds like Scalia might have his head on straight… Though it sounds like the left wing of the court is going to bat for liberty on this one about as much as they did in Kelo v. New London. Assholes. (Not that Roberts is doing any better, but I wanted to point that out just in case anybody still believes liberals give a damn about civil liberties.)

You know, when I was just a wee baby libertarian (senior in high school), I had to argue a mock case in government class. It was about the power of school officials to search personal belongings on suspicion of drugs/paraphanelia. I could not fathom then, and cannot fathom now, how it has come to pass that we have granted school officials police powers.

I also find it ironic they can have these type of police powers and yet not be permitted to carry firearms in defense of themselves or their students, which isn’t even a police power.

I don’t even know what to say anymore. I am about ready to quit this whole damn country. How is Costa Rica doing these days? I hear the Canadians messed with some pirates, so maybe I should head north.

Man, I hope Scalia dissents.

Last Modified: Tuesday, April 21st, 2009 @ 12:37

This entry was posted on Tuesday, April 21st, 2009 at 12:37 pm and is filed under News, Politics. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.