Minor's Constitutional Rights
courts have recognized some Constitutional rights for students attending public schools that school officials need to be aware of. Even though, school officials have been given the right to control student conduct on school grounds, school officials can cross the line when it comes to student rights. The Supreme Court case Safford Unified School District #1 v. Redding (2009) is a prime example of school officials crossing the line concerning violation of a student's Constitutional rights when the Arizona middle school had strip searched 13-year-old Savana Redding under suspicion she was hiding ibuprophen pills in her underwear (Barnes 2009).
The fact was another student had been found with prescription strength ibuprophen and told the Assistant Principal she received it from Redding. After being pulled into the office by the Assistant Principal, Redding had consented to a search of her backpack and outer clothing. When the search found no pills, she was taken to the nurse's office and told to remove her pants and shirt. She was then told to shake out her bra and pull her underwear away from her body, exposing her breast and pelvic area. After the search, she was detained for an additional two hours (Bravin 2009). Even though, there was no drugs found, the act caused humiliation to the extent, Redding never returned to the school. Redding's mother filed suit against the school for violating her Fourth Amendment rights.
The District Court ruled in the school district's favor claiming the school district did not violate Redding's Fourth Amendment right. But, the Court of Appeals reversed the decision, ruling in Redding's favor that the school did violate her Fourth Amendment right. Judge Wardlaw 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" (Liptak 2009). Judge Wardlaw went on to add, "It is a violation of any...
The judge's decision does prove that minor's do have constitutional rights that are required to be upheld by school officials.
On the other hand, the Supreme Court ruled in Redding's favor, claiming that "such searches are 'categorically distinct' for other efforts in combating drugs" (Barnes 2009). The court ruled that an intrusive search without threat of a clear danger to other students violated the constitution's protections against unreasonable search and seizure. The judge claimed the school officials overreacted to vague accusations that Redding was violating school policy of possessing the ibuprophen equivalent to two Advil tablets. The court held that the overzealous investigation based on scant evidence caused the search to violate the Fourth Amendment ban on "unreasonable searches and seizures" (Bravin 2009).
The Assistant Principal did not do further investigation to validate the accusation of the other student in accusing Redding of having the ibuprophen. The missing evidence was indication of danger to other students from the power of the drugs or their quantity, and any reason to suppose that Savana was carrying pills in her underwear. Although, the court found the Assistant Principal's suspicion was reasonable to search the backpack and outer garments.
The judges based their view on a 1985 case warning that even though school officials have leeway in deciding reasonableness of search and seizure, the officials cannot employ searches "excessively intrusive in light of age, sex, and nature of infraction" (Barnes 2009). This is an added protection where minors are concerned because of the vulnerability of the ages and sexes. The court cited social-science literature that shows strip searches causes "serious emotional damage" to adolescents as well as literature that shows an "adolescent vulnerability intensifies the intrusiveness of the exposure." The scientific…
