Safford Unified School District #1 v. Redding case brief

Safford Unified School District #1 v. Redding case brief summary
557 U.S. 364 (2009)

CASE SYNOPSIS

A student's mother filed suit against petitioners, a school district, a principal, an assistant, and a nurse, alleging that a strip search violated the student's Fourth Amendment rights. Claiming qualified immunity, the principal, the assistant, and the nurse moved for summary judgment. The motion was granted. The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed the judgment as to the principal. The Supreme Court granted certiorari.

CASE FACTS

• The school's policies strictly prohibited the nonmedical use, possession, or sale of any drug on school grounds. 
• Another student's statement that forbidden prescription and over-the-counter drugs came from the student was sufficiently plausible to warrant suspicion that the student was involved in pill distribution. 
• This suspicion was enough to justify a search of the student's backpack and outer clothing. 
• The student claimed that extending the search at the principal's behest to the point of making her pull out her underwear was constitutionally unreasonable. 
• The principal knew beforehand that the pills were common pain relievers. 
• What was missing from the suspected facts that pointed to the student was any indication of danger to the students from the power of the drugs or their quantity, and any reason to suppose that the student was carrying pills in her underwear. 

DISCUSSION

• Thus, the Supreme Court held that the strip search of the student was unreasonable and a violation of the Fourth Amendment. 
• Because there was reason to question the clarity with which the right was established, the principal, the assistant, and the nurse were protected from liability through qualified immunity.

OUTCOME
The judgment was affirmed as to the holding that the strip search of the student was unjustified. The part of the judgment that reversed the grant of summary judgment to the principal was reversed. 6-3 Decision; 2 justices filed opinions concurring in the part of the decision that affirmed the judgment, and dissenting in part; 1 justice filed an opinion concurring in the part of the decision that reversed the judgment, and dissenting in part.



Recommended Supplements for Administrative Law Examples & Explanations: Administrative Law, Fourth Edition
Administrative Law and Process: In a Nutshell (Nutshell Series)