Research on Rights Versus Reasonable Suspicion: The Challenge of Knowing When to Search

Law Paper - Rights Versus Reasonable Suspicion

Public school law is not always easy to follow, especially when it comes to the rights of students versus the charge of educators and principals to maintain order. As the case of Safford v. Redding illustrates, one's legal responsibilities can be particularly hard to decipher in cases of searching students for drugs. Whether one's suspicions warrant a search and to what extent a search is warranted depend on situational aspects of the case rather than clearly prescribed procedures.

In Safford v. Redding, a girl Savana Redding was strip-searched by an educator after it was discovered that she had prescription drugs in her possession, and was allegedly distributing the drugs to other students. The drugs in this case were ibuprofen and naproxen, relatively harmless drugs. However, another student had alleged he had become sick from pills given to him by Savana and another girl. After the pills were found in her day planner, her outer clothes were searched, including her shoes, socks, and packet, before she was asked to strip to her underwear and lift her bra and underpants to prove she was not hiding any more drugs on her person.

Because student health was at risk and Savana was found to be in possession of drugs which, while not necessary illegal, were not allowed on school grounds without prior administrative approval, it was found in this case by the U.S. Supreme Court that the principal involved had reasonable suspicion to conduct a search of the student, including her "outer clothes." However, it was further decided that the more extensive strip search of the student was unconstitutional. While they ruled in favor of the defendant in this case due to the possibility that the principal might not have known that "the strip search of Savana Redding violated her established constitutional rights...the next principal who orders a strip search for pills without reasonable and specific suspicion...may not be so fortunate" (Stader et al., 2010, p. 112).

The principal's suspicion was not regarded as reasonable or specific in Safford v. Redding because, firstly, the drugs in question were not harmful enough to warrant such an extensive search. However this does point to the need for training for principals and educators regarding prescription drug use and abuse in schools, as the principal did hear that one student had became sick from pills provided to him by Savana, further complicating the question of how significant prescription-strength but relatively harmless pills should be viewed in the school setting. Secondly, there was no evidence suggesting that students were hiding drugs in their underwear. If witnesses had suggested otherwise or if students at the school had previously been found to hide drugs in their underwear, Savana's constitutional right to not undergo a strip search if harmful illegal drugs were suspected would have been more tenuous.

The case of Safford v. Redding reminds us that whether and to what extent searching students is reasonable for drugs, including prescription drugs, is not always easy to know. Students have an important right to dignity and from unwarranted searches in schools that principals and educators must be made aware of and provided training on, to prevent situations where students are humiliated or disrespected simply because they brought prescription-strength ibuprofen to school. On the other hand, principals and educators would be wise to develop systems and policies for handling such predicaments generally in order to avoid liability and legal entanglements. It is not always easy to know where students rights end and educators rights begin when drugs are involved.

References

Stader, D. L., Greicar, M. B., Stevens, D. W., & Dowdy, R. (2010). Drugs, strip searches, and educator liability: Implications of Safford v. Redding. The Clearing House, 83(3), 109-113.