On June 25, 2009, the US Supreme Court decided that a strip-search conducted on thirteen year-old Savana Redding by the Safford Unified School District in Safford, Arizona was illegal. Although the Court maintained that it stands by strip-searches in the most extreme and potentially dangerous situations, it did not consider Redding’s case to be one of them.
When a fellow student accused Savana Redding in 2003 of giving out prescription strength ibuprofen at school, she was required to remove her clothing to complete a search for the drugs in question. The court ruled that the school officials had no evidence that students were in any immediate danger, nor did they have any grounds to strip-search the teen, as there was nothing suggesting that the pills may have been in her bra or underwear except that they were nowhere else to be found.
Many people are shocked that it took the US government six long years to decide that forcing an eighth-grader to strip in school, without first contacting her mother, is an unjust and humiliating act, making this a “moral victory” for many.
The Court has laid down limitations on school officials regarding the use of strip-searches, something that worries Justice Clarence Thomas, the one Supreme Court member who ruled against Redding. Thomas feels that the court has now signaled to all wrongdoing students the “safest place to secrete contraband in school.” While his concern is valid, the rest of the Court felt that there was a line that should not be crossed and that Principal Wilson had done just that, demonstrating a gross “abuse of authority” according to Justice Ginsburg.
Due to Thomas’ concern and the fact that Redding’s rights were not “clearly established” in a situation such as this, the Court ruled that Wilson could not be held responsible for financial compensation. Although this is a crushing blow to the Redding family’s lawsuit, Savana is not disappointed. Because of what happened to her, the rights of students are now very “clearly established.”
-Xela Shultis