557 U.S. 364 (2009)
The events began when Assistant Principal Kerry Wilson called 13-year-old Savana Redding from her math class at Safford Middle School to his office.1 Wilson showed Redding an open day planner containing knives and other contraband as well as four prescription-strength ibuprofen 400 mg pills and one over-the-counter naproxen 200 mg pill.2 Redding denied knowing about the pills and explained that she had lent the day planner to her friend Marissa.3
Wilson told Redding he had received a report that she was giving pills to students.4 After Redding agreed to a search of her belongings, Wilson and administrative assistant Helen Romero searched her backpack but found nothing.5 Wilson then sent Redding to the nurse's office with Romero to search her clothes, where nurse Peggy Schwallier and Romero directed Redding to remove her outer clothing and pull out her bra and the elastic on her underpants, exposing her breasts and pelvic area to some degree, though no pills were found.6
About a week before the search, a student named Jordan told school officials that students were bringing drugs and weapons on campus and that he had become ill after taking pills from a classmate.7 On the morning of October 8, Jordan handed Wilson a white pill he said came from Marissa Glines and reported that students planned to take pills at lunch.8 The school nurse identified the pill as prescription-strength ibuprofen.9 Wilson called Marissa out of class, obtained the day planner containing contraband, and during a search of Marissa recovered a blue pill, several white ones, and a razor blade; Marissa identified Savana as the person who gave her the pills.10
Savana's mother sued the school district and the three officials alleging a Fourth Amendment violation.11 The district court granted summary judgment for the officials on qualified immunity grounds.12 A Ninth Circuit panel affirmed, but the Ninth Circuit en banc reversed the summary judgment as to Wilson while affirming as to Romero and Schwallier.13 The Supreme Court granted certiorari.14
Whether a 13-year-old student's Fourth Amendment rights were violated when school officials directed her to pull out her bra and the elastic of her underpants so that officials could observe her breasts and pelvic area?15
The Fourth Amendment generally requires probable cause for searches, but the school context permits a lesser standard.16 In New Jersey v. T.L.O., searches by school officials are governed by a standard of reasonableness that stops short of probable cause.17 Such searches are permissible in scope when measures adopted are reasonably related to the objectives of the search.18 The measures must not be excessively intrusive in light of the age and sex of the student and the nature of the infraction.19 The knowledge component of reasonable suspicion for a school administrator's evidence search should be understood as raising a moderate chance of finding evidence of wrongdoing.20
Yes. The search of Savana's backpack and outer clothing was justified by reasonable suspicion.21 Marissa's identification of Savana as the source of the pills, combined with prior reports linking the girls, created a moderate chance of finding evidence of wrongdoing.22 The further instruction to pull out her bra and underpants exceeded the permissible scope.23
Wilson knew the pills were common pain relievers with limited threat.24 He had no reason to suspect concealment in underwear, as no evidence showed students hid such pills in intimate places and neither Jordan nor Marissa suggested that Savana had done so.25 The extreme intrusiveness of exposing an adolescent's body therefore did not match the content of the suspicion under the T.L.O. framework.26
The search of Savana Redding's underwear was unreasonable and violated the Fourth Amendment.27
Related opinions on this issue
Justice Thomas agrees with the Court that the judgment regarding qualified immunity should be reversed, but he would also hold that the search did not violate the Fourth Amendment.28 Thomas argues that the majority imposes an amorphous standard on school administrators and gives judges broad authority to second-guess measures taken to maintain discipline and safety in schools.29 Thomas urges greater deference to school officials.30
He contends that under T.L.O. the search was justified at its inception and reasonable in scope because the pills at issue could plausibly be hidden on the student's person.31 Thomas asserts that the majority's requirement of an additional showing represents an unjustified departure from Fourth Amendment precedent.32 He suggests that the appropriate institutional approach would be to restore the common-law doctrine of in loco parentis.33
Whether the school officials who ordered and conducted the search are entitled to qualified immunity from damages liability?34
A school official is entitled to qualified immunity where clearly established law does not show that the search violated the Fourth Amendment.35 Although the strip search here was unconstitutional under T.L.O., lower courts have divided in their application of T.L.O. to school strip searches.36 Several circuits have sustained intrusive searches in varying factual circumstances.37 Others have found them violative.
Yes. Although the search violated the Fourth Amendment, the law was not clearly established at the time.38 Lower courts have reached differing conclusions on the application of T.L.O. to school strip searches. Several circuits have sustained intrusive searches in varying factual circumstances.
Others have found them violative. These divergent, well-reasoned decisions counsel doubt about the clarity with which the right was previously stated.39 Because reasonable jurists had reached differing conclusions, Wilson, Romero, and Schwallier are entitled to qualified immunity from damages liability.40
The school officials are entitled to qualified immunity from damages liability.41
Related opinions on this issue
Joined by Justice Ginsburg
Justice Stevens concurs in Parts I–III of the Court's opinion but dissents from the decision to grant qualified immunity to the assistant principal.42 Under the T.L.O. two-step framework, a search must be justified at its inception by reasonable grounds and must be permissible in scope, not excessively intrusive in light of the age and sex of the student and the nature of the infraction.43 The strip search of a 13-year-old honors student based on a groundless suspicion she might hide medicine in her underwear was an invasion of constitutional rights of great magnitude.44
Stevens states that this case presents clearly established law applied to clearly outrageous conduct.45 He emphasizes that a reasonable jurist could conclude that a nude search of a minor is an invasion of constitutional rights that need not await further precedent.46
Justice Ginsburg agrees with the Court that the search of Savana Redding's underwear was a humiliating stripdown search that violated the Fourth Amendment.47 She also agrees with Justice Stevens that T.L.O. clearly established the law governing such searches.48 Ginsburg stresses facts that undercut any reasonable suspicion supporting an inspection of Redding's person, including Marissa's untested accusation, Wilson's failure to ask followup questions, the lack of evidence that pills were hidden in underwear, and Wilson's retention of Savana for more than two hours without calling her parents.49
Ginsburg concludes that Wilson's conduct was abusive and unreasonable and should not be shielded by qualified immunity.50