Minor\'s Constitutional Rights Courts Have Recognized Some

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 known principle of human dignity" (Liptak 2009). 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 evidence of the vulnerability of minors becomes an important factor in determining the appropriateness of searches, especially nude.

The judge observed the evidence against Redding as weak with no specific reason to believe contraband was in her underwear and the medication involved was relatively harmless, concluding "these deficiencies are fatal to finding search reasonable" (Bravin 2009). Even though the school argued that kids tend to hold drugs in their underwear, there was no reasonable evidence that Redding was holding anything in her underwear. Another important issue with the evidence was that the powerfulness of the ibuprophen was not warranted as being able to cause harm to other students because the equivalency of the medication is to two Advil, which could be considered a normal dose.

The court acknowledged that 'reasonable suspicion' of wrong doing is needed for a search, but stated, "Efforts to keep drugs out of school does not justify abusive behavior (Bravin 2009). Intrusive searches require adequate investigation that brings adequate evidence to justify a search of the body, especially nude. An accusation made by another party without further investigation to verify if the accusation has any truth is not sufficient for search and seizure because validity of the accusation is not established, therefore is not sufficient evidence of proof for wrong doing. "The meaning of such a search, and the degradation its subject may reasonably feel, place a search that intrusive in a category of its own demanding, its own specific suspicions" (Barnes 2009). The degradation a search and seizure can bring, especially if it requires the subject to strip, must be taken in consideration when the decision to do the search is made.

A 1943 court decision concluded "public schools must respect students' constitutional rights, lest youth discount important principles of our government as mere platitudes" (Bravin 2009). And, a 1969 court decision gave school officials the general right to control student conduct in schools. These two court cases indicate that students have constitutional rights, even though school officials also have the right to control conduct, including drug use, on school grounds.