Fourth Amendment update: the Supreme Court and strip searches: Safford Unified School District No. 1 v Redding

Abstract

In light of the dramatic increase in the presence of weapons, violence, drugs, and other contraband in schools, school officials in the United States and England face significant challenges as they seek to maintain safe and orderly learning environments. Almost twenty five years after the United States Supreme Court's 1985 ruling in New Jersey v. T.L.O. allowed educational officials to search student lockers and property in order to keep schools safe, the Justices addressed the more delicate matter of strip searches for contraband such as drugs. In Safford Unified School District No. 1 v. Redding (Redding), the Court invalidated the strip search of a student for drugs but left the door open for the possibility of allowing searches for weapons under some circumstances. In light of remaining unanswered questions after Redding, this article reviews the background on the Fourth Amendment, earlier cases on student searches in American public schools, Redding in detail, and reflects on unanswered questions in its wake in the hope of shedding light on the propriety of strip searches of students.

Keywords:

• drugs
• Fourth Amendment
• search
• strip search

Notes

1. 469 U.S. 325 (1985).

2. Vernonia Sch. Dist. 47J v Acton, 515 U.S. 646 (1995); on remand, 66 F.3d 217 (9th Cir. 1995); Board of Educ. of Indep. Sch. Dist. No. 92 of Pottawatomie v Earls, 536 U.S. 822 (2002), on remand, 300 F.3d 1222 (10th Cir. 2002). Since this article focuses on searches of students and their persons, it does not address drug testing of student athletes other than this reference to the Supreme Court's application of the Fourth Amendment in these two cases.

3. 129 S. Ct. 2633 (2009).

4. See note 1.

5. In re T.L.O., 428 A.2d 1327 (N.J. Juv. & Dom. Rel. Ct. 1980).

6. In re T.L.O., 448 A.2d 493 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1982).

7. In re T.L.O., 463 A.2d 934 (N.J. 1983).

8. In re T.L.O., 463 A.2d 934 (N.J. 1983). at 341.

9. In re T.L.O., 463 A.2d 934 (N.J. 1983). at 342.

10. In re T.L.O., 463 A.2d 934 (N.J. 1983). at 342.

11. R.S.M. v State, 911 So. 2d 283 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2005) (declaring that a hunch that something was wrong did not constitute reasonable suspicion justifying a search).

12. See, for example, Hill v Sharber, 544 F. Supp.2d 670 (M.D. Tenn. 2008) (rejecting a motion to suppress evidence of a search of a student's car in a school parking lot that was based on probable cause).

13. Zamora v Pomeroy, 639 F.2d 662 (10th Cir. 1981); Commonwealth v Carey, 554 N.E.2d 1199 (Mass. 1990); In Interest of Isiah B., 500 N.W.2d 637 (Wis. 1993), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 884 (1993); Commonwealth v Cass, 709 A.2d 350 (Pa. 1998).

14. In re F.B., 726 A.2d 361 (Pa.1999), cert. denied sub nom. F.B. v Pennsylvania, 528 U.S. 1060 (1999); In re Murray, 525 S.E.2d 496 (N.C. Ct. App. 2000).

15. People v Dukes, 580 N.Y.S.2d 850 (N.Y. Crim. Ct. 1992); Thompson v Carthage Sch. Dist., 87 F.3d 979 (8th Cir. 1996); Latasha W. v People, 70 Cal.Rptr.2d 886 (Cal. Ct. App. 1998); In re F.B., 726 A.2d 361 (Pa. 1999), cert. denied sub nom. F.B. v. Pennsylvania, 528 U.S. 1060 (1999).

16. State v J.A., 679 So. 2d 316 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1996), reh'g denied (1996), review denied, 689 So. 2d 1069 (Fla. 1997), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 831 (1997).

17. Zamora v Pomeroy, 639 F.2d 662 (10th Cir.1981); Doe v Renfrow, 475 F. Supp. 1012 (N.D. Ind.1979), rev'd in part on other grounds, 631 F.2d 91 (7th Cir.1980), cert. denied, 451 U.S. 1022 (1981); Myers v State, 839 N.E.2d 1154 (Ind. 2005); Hill v Sharber, 544 F. Supp.2d 670 (M.D. Tenn. 2008).

18. For cases rejecting the use of dogs, at least in part, see, for example, Horton v. Goose Creek Indep. Sch. Dist., 690 F.2d 470 (5th Cir.1982), cert. denied, 463 U.S. 1207 (1983) (rejecting the use of dogs when they placed their noses on students but allowing them to search for inanimate objects in lockers); B.C. v Plumas Unified Sch. Dist., 192 F.3d 1260 (9th Cir. 1999).

19. See, for example, State ex rel. Galford v Mark Anthony B., 433 S.E.2d 41 (W. Va. 1993); Kennedy v Dexter Consol. Schools, 10 P.3d 115 (N.M. 2000); Thomas ex rel. Thomas v Roberts, 261 F.3d 1160 (11th Cir. 2001); Bell v Marseilles Elementary Sch., 160 F. Supp.2d 883 (N.D. Ill. 2001).

20. Williams ex rel. Williams v Ellington, 936 F.2d 881 (6th Cir. 1991); Cornfield by Lewis v Consolidated High Sch. Dist. No. 230, 991 F.2d 1316 (7th Cir. 1993); Jenkins v Tallaedga City Bd. of Educ., 115 F.3d 821 (11th Cir. 1997), cert. denied sub nom. Jenkins by Hall v Herring, 522 U.S. 966 (1997); Cuesta v School Bd. of Miami–Dade County, 285 F.3d 962 (11th Cir. 2002).

21. See, for example, Williams ex rel. Williams v Ellington, 936 F.2d 881 (6th Cir. 1991); Jenkins v Tallaedga City Bd. of Educ., 115 F.3d 821 (11th Cir. 1997), cert. denied sub nom. Jenkins by Hall v Herring, 522 U.S. 966 (1997); Higginbottom ex rel. Davis v Keithley, 103 F. Supp.2d 1075 (S.D. Ind. 1999). Lamb v Holmes, 162 S.W.3d 902 (Ky. 2005). Beard v Whitmore, 402 F.3d 598 (6th Cir. 2005), reh'g and reh'g en banc denied (2005).

22. See, for example, Kennedy v Dexter Consol. Schs., 10 P.3d 115 (N.M. 2000); Oliver by Hines v McClung, 919 F. Supp. 1206 (N.D. Ill. 1995); Konop v Northwestern Sch. Dist., 26 F. Supp.2d 1189 (D.S.D. 1998); Bell v Marseilles Elementary Sch., 160 F. Supp.2d 883 (N.D. Ill. 2001); Fewless v Board of Educ., 208 F. Supp.2d 806 (W.D. Mich. 2002).

23. Redding, see note 3 at 2639–40.

24. Redding v Safford Unified Sch. Dist. # 1, 504 F.3d 828 (9th Cir. 2007).

25. Redding v Safford Unified Sch. Dist. # 1, reh'g en banc granted, 514 F.3d 1383 (9th Cir. 2008), cert. dismissed, 128 S. Ct. 1497 (2008). Eleven members of the Ninth Circuit participated in this hearing.

26. Redding v. Safford Unified Sch. Dist. # 1, aff'd in part, rev'd in part on reh'g en banc, 531 F.3d 1071 (9th Cir. 2008).

27. Cert. granted sub nom. Safford Unified Sch. Dist. # 1 v. Redding, 129 S. Ct. 987 (2009).

28. Safford Unified Sch. Dist. # 1 v. Redding, 129 S. Ct. 2633 (2009).

29. Although a bit dated see, for example, Gugliotta, Guy. 2003. Supreme court independence, by the numbers. Washington Post, July 28, A7 (noting that Justices Ginsburg and Souter voted together 90% of the time); Troy, Daniel E. 1999. The court's Mr. Right. National Review, Aug. 9, at 39-41 (reporting that Justices Breyer and Souter voted together 84% of the time and that Justices Ginsberg and Souter voted together 80% of the time).

30. Redding, see note 3 at 2641.

31. Redding at 2642 citing T.L.O., see note 1 at 341.

32. Redding at 2642 citing T.L.O., see note 1 at 342.

33. Redding.

34. Redding at 2643.

35. Redding at 2644 (Justice Stevens dissenting)

36. Redding. at 2646 (Justice Ginsburg dissenting)

37. Redding at 2646, 2646 (Justice Thomas dissenting in part, concurring in part).

38. Tinker v Des Moines Independent Community School District, 393 U.S. 503, 506 (1969 (invalidated a ban on black arm bands that students wore to school protesting American involvement in Vietnam).

39. T.L.O., see note 1 at 349.