The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures by the federal government, and the Fourteenth Amendment extends this prohibition to state governments under the incorporation doctrine.

[30] The Court remanded the case back to the lower courts in order for them to consider the Monell claim. The school officials moved for summary judgment, arguing that they were entitled to qualified immunity.

But the clarityof a well-established right should not depend on whether jurists have misread our precedents. of Social Servs. However, on rehearing before the entire court, the court of appeals held that Ms. Redding's Fourth Amendment right to be free of unreasonable search and seizure was violated. [31] He disagreed that the "seemingly divergent views" among lower courts of appeals about T. L. O.’s application to strip searches justifies extending qualified immunity, stating that "the clarity of a well-established right should not depend on whether jurists have misread our precedents". When Wilson asked Glines about the day planner, she denied knowledge about its contents.

The judgment of the Ninth Circuit is thereforeaffirmed in part and reversed in part, and this case isremanded for consideration of the Monell claim.

On October 8, 2003, the assistant principal of Safford Middle School in Safford, Arizona, called 13-year-old Savana Redding down to his office, where he informed her that another student had accused her of distributing prescription and over-the-counter pain medication, which were disallowed without prior permission by school rules.

Wilson then enquired about the day planner and its contents; Marissa denied knowing anything about them. She argues that a decision for Petitioner would enable school officials to conduct highly invasive searches based on only minimal, vague suspicion. The U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona granted this motion, holding that the school officials did not violate the Fourth Amendment, and a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed on September 21, 2007. A number of our cases on probable cause have an implicit bearing on the reliable knowledge element of reasonable suspicion, as we have attempted to flesh out the knowledge component by looking to the degree to which known facts imply prohibited conduct, see, e.g., Adams v. Williams, 407 U. S. 143, 148 (1972); id., at 160, n. 9 (Mar-shall, J., dissenting), the specificity of the information received, see, e.g., Spinelli v. United States, 393 U. S. 410, 416–417 (1969), and the reliability of its source, see, e.g., Aguilar v. Texas, 378 U. S. 108, 114 (1964). Safford Unified School District v. Redding. It then applied the test. "[33] In Ginsburg's view, "'the nature of the [supposed] infraction,' the slim basis for suspecting Savana Redding, and her 'age and sex', establish beyond doubt that Assistance Principal Wilson's order cannot be reconciled with this Court's opinion in T. L. O. Wilson's treatment of Redding was abusive, and it was not reasonable for him to believe that the law permitted it.

3. Learning that the pill was prescription strength, Wilson called Marissa out of class and was handed the day planner. Except in patently arbitrary instances, Fourth Amendment analysis takes the rule as a given, as it obviously should do in this case.

5Arizona’s law is not idiosyncratic; many States have separatelycriminalized the unauthorized possession of prescription drugs.

[37], Dennis D. Parker, the Director of the ACLU Racial Justice Program, wrote an article published in the New York Law School Law Review, in which he commented that "the Redding majority elected not to provide unbridled discretion to school authorities in the name of establishing school safety, and by doing so, provided for a means of examining the reasonableness of individual decisions by school administrators".

It acknowledgesthat school officials had reasonable suspicion to look inRedding’s backpack and outer clothing because if “Wilson’sreasonable suspicion of pill distribution were not under-stood to support searches of outer clothes and backpack, it would not justify any search worth making." [31] Justice Stevens would have affirmed the Ninth Circuit's decision "in its entirety". And Justice Thomas has filed an opinion concurring in the judgment in part and dissenting in part. 59, §353.24(2) (Supp.

[4], On October 8, 2003, Kerry Wilson, the assistant principal of Safford Middle School in Safford, Arizona, asked 13-year-old student Savana Redding to come to his office. He asked Savana if she knew anything about the pills.

The distinc-tion between a strip search and the search at issue in this case may beslight, but it is a distinction that the law has drawn. Savana Redding, a 13-year old student at Safford Middle School was identified by a fellow student as having brought forbidden prescription and over-the-counter drugs to school. On the morning of October 8, the same boy handed Wilson a white pill that he said Marissa Glines had given him.

531, F. 3d 1071, 1091, n. 1 (CA9 2008) (opinion of Hawkins, J.). of Social Servs., a claim the Ninth Circuit did not address". 2008).

It also grants judges sweeping authority tosecond-guess the measures that these officials take tomaintain discipline in their schools and ensure the health and safety of the students in their charge.

T.L.O. (1985) that the public interest in maintaining the school environment "'is best served by a Fourth Amendment standard of reasonableness that stops short of probable cause'".

Savana’s actions in their presence necessarily exposed her breasts and pelvic area to some degree, and both subjective and reasonable societal expectations of personal privacy support the treatment of such a search as categorically distinct, requiring distinct elements of justification on the part of school authorities for going beyond a search of outer clothing and belongings. I agree with the Court that the judgment against theschool officials with respect to qualified immunity shouldbe reversed.

Safford Unified School District v. Redding (2009) was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States on June 25, 2009.The Supreme Court decision held that a strip search of a female middle school student violated the Fourth Amendment where the school lacked reasons to suspect either that the drugs involved presented a danger or that they were concealed in her underwear.

Second, the search must be “permissible in its scope," which is achieved “when the measures adopted are reasonably related to the objectives of the search and not excessively intrusive in light of the age and sex of the student and the nature of the infraction."

.

By doing so, the majority has con-firmed that a return to the doctrine of in loco parent is is. T. L. O., supra, at 341–342 (footnote omitted). This case concerns whether the school violated Redding's Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches and, if so, whether qualified immunity shields the school officials from liability. 469 U. S., at 342 (internal quotation marks omitted). [9], Wilson then took Marissa Glines out of class and, in the presence of Helen Romero, asked her to "turn out her pockets and open her wallet", which "produced a blue pill, several white ones, and a razor blade". Several weeks later, another student, Jordan Romero, reported that Redding had hosted a party before the dance where she served whiskey, vodka, and tequila. A student who is reasonably suspected of giving out contraband pills is reasonably suspected of carrying them on her person and in her back-pack. Hope v. Pelzer, 536 U. S. 730, 741 (2002). . The vote in the case was 8–1 with respect to the holding that the search of Redding violated the Fourth Amendment and 7–2 with respect to the holding that the school officials were entitled to qualified immunity. to Pet. We have thus applied a standard of reasonable suspicion to determine the legality of a school administrator’s search of a student, id., at 342, 345, and have held that a school search “will be permissible in its scope when the measures adopted are reasonably related to the objectives of the search and not excessively intrusive in light of the age and sex of the student and the nature of the infraction," id., at 342. The U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona granted this motion, holding that the school officials did not violate the Fourth Amendment, and a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed on September 21, 2007.

Jefferson cited an example — a case heard by the Supreme Court in which a 13-year-old girl was forced to undergo a strip search (Safford Unified School District v. Redding, 2009). 47 Bergen St--Floor 3, Brooklyn, NY 11201, USA, Service itself. After escorting 13-year-old Savana Redding from her middle school classroom to his office, Assistant Principal Wilson showed her a day planner containing knives and other contraband.

Justice Stevens wrote separately, concurring in part and dissenting in part, and was joined by Justice Ginsburg. [24], Quoting Pearson v. Callahan (2009), Souter stated that "a school official searching a student is 'entitled to qualified immunity where clearly established law does not show that the search violated the Fourth Amendment'".