Media reactions to strip search case
Posted by Jeffrey Roy on June 26, 2009
The American Association for Justice put together a nice summary of media reactions to the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Safford Unified School Dist. #1 v. Redding which I have included below with links to the stories.
In the case, the court ruled 8-1 that “an Arizona middle school violated the rights of a 13-year-old girl when she was strip-searched for drugs,” as ABC World News (6/25, story 5, 2:20, Gibson) reported. On the CBS Evening News (6/25, story 5, 1:45, Couric), correspondent Wyatt Andrews called the ruling “a major victory for student privacy. The Supreme Court said the strip search of Savana Redding, then a 13-year-old eighth grader, was unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment.” Redding: “I’m glad that it’s almost finally over and I can just continue on with my life. I’m really happy, though, with the decision today.” NBC Nightly News (6/25, story 7, 2:25, B. Williams) said the case involved “just how far public schools can go to enforce those so-called zero tolerance policies that have become so popular. And the question: have they gone too far with our own children?”
The USA Today (6/26, Biskupic) reports Justice David Souter, writing for the court, “said an official must have a ‘reasonable suspicion of danger’ regarding the drugs sought and a belief they could be hidden in a student’s underwear before making ‘the quantum leap from outer clothes and backpacks to exposure of intimate parts.’”
The USA Today (6/26) editorializes, “It should be obvious to everyone, and certainly to every parent, that only the most extreme circumstances could justify strip-searching a 13-year-old girl. More extreme, surely, than suspicion that the girl possessed some prescription-strength ibuprofen tablets in violation of school rules. That logic is at least obvious to the U.S. Supreme Court. … The Redding decision could mark a welcome change in direction for the courts and schools, which retain wide latitude to inspect lockers and other student possessions with only ‘reasonable suspicion.” In a responding USA Today (6/26) op-ed, National School Boards Association general counsel Francisco Negron writes that “the court missed an opportunity to provide clearer guidance to school officials. While the court did not nullify zero-tolerance policies, it did require schools to determine the dangerousness of a drug before deciding how intrusive to make a search. It did not specify what it meant by dangerousness. How are school officials to gauge that?”Los Angeles Times (6/26, Savage) reports Justice Clarence Thomas dissented, saying the ruling “‘grants judges sweeping authority to second-guess the measures that these officials take to maintain discipline in their schools and ensure the health and safety of the students in their charge.’ It is the second time this week that Thomas alone has dissented in a major case. On Monday, the court rejected a challenge to the Voting Rights Act, but Thomas said he would have struck down the law provision in question as unconstitutional.”
AP (6/25, Holland) reports the court ruled Safford Middle School officials violated Redding’s rights “by strip-searching her for prescription-strength ibuprofen, declaring that U.S. educators cannot force children to remove their clothing unless student safety is at risk.” While the court said officials violated Redding’s Fourth Amendment rights, the court also said officials “could not be held financially liable but left it to lower courts to decide if the school district could.”
The Washington Post (6/26, A1, Barnes), the Wall Street Journal (6/26, A2, Bravin), New York Times (6/26, A16, Liptak), New York Daily News (6/26, Meek), National Law Journal (6/26, Mauro) and Christian Science Monitor (6/26, Richey) also report on the ruling.
The Washington Post (6/26, A24) editorializes, “A six-justice majority correctly balanced the privacy interests of the student with the need to preserve school officials’ flexibility to maintain order and safety. … The court — with Justices John Paul Stevens and Ruth Bader Ginsburg dissenting on this point — also rightly refused to allow lawsuits against the Arizona school officials, ruling that they should be immune from being sued unless they blatantly violated ‘clearly established law.’”
The New York Times (6/26, A24) editorializes, “In an important victory for students’ rights, the Supreme Court ruled, 8-to-1, Thursday that school officials acted unconstitutionally when they strip searched a 13-year-old girl. The majority was too willing to find that in this particular case the officials involved were immune from liability. But the decision still sends an important message to schools about the need to respect their students’ privacy when they conduct investigations.”
