Federal Court Rules Strip Search Of 13-Year-Old Student For Ibuprofen Unconstitutional (7/11/2008)
Updated:
7/16/2008
FOR IMMEDIATE
RELEASE CONTACT: media@aclu.org
SAN FRANCISCO – The
American Civil Liberties Union applauded a federal appellate court ruling today
that school officials violated the constitutional rights of a 13-year-old
Arizona girl when they strip searched her based on a classmate’s uncorroborated
accusation that she possessed ibuprofen. Today’s 6-5 ruling from an en banc
panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reverses an earlier
decision by a divided three-judge panel of the same court. Eight of the eleven judges on the en banc court held that the strip search violated Savana’s constitutional rights, and a six-judge majority further held that the school official who ordered the search is not entitled to immunity as a result of his actions.
“Students and parents
nationwide can breathe a sigh of relief knowing that adolescents cannot be strip
searched based on the unsubstantiated accusation of a classmate trying to get
out of trouble,” said Adam Wolf, an attorney with the ACLU Drug Law Reform
Project and co-counsel in the case with the law firms Humphrey & Petersen
and McNamara, Goldsmith, Jackson & Macdonald. “This ruling is a victory for our
fundamental right to privacy, sending a clear signal that such traumatizing
searches have no place in America’s schools.”
Savana Redding, an
eighth grade honor roll student at Safford Middle School in Safford, Arizona,
was pulled from class on October 8, 2003 by the school’s vice principal, Kerry
Wilson. Earlier that day, Wilson
had discovered prescription-strength ibuprofen – 400 milligram pills equivalent
to two over-the-counter ibuprofen pills, such as Advil – in the possession of
Redding’s classmate. Under
questioning and faced with punishment, the classmate claimed that Redding, who
had no history of disciplinary problems or substance abuse, had given her the
pills. Safford maintains a zero-tolerance policy toward all prescription
medicines, including prescription-strength
ibuprofen.
After escorting Redding
to his office, Wilson presented Redding with the ibuprofen pills and informed
her of her classmate’s accusations.
Redding said she had never seen the pills before and agreed to a search
of her possessions, wanting to prove she had nothing to hide. Joined by a female school administrative
assistant, Wilson searched Redding’s backpack and found nothing. Instructed by Wilson, the administrative
assistant then took Redding to the school nurse’s office in order to perform a
strip search.
In the school nurse’s
office, Redding was ordered to strip to her underwear. She was then commanded to pull her bra
out and to the side, exposing her breasts, and to pull her underwear out at the
crotch, exposing her pelvic area.
The strip search failed to uncover any ibuprofen
pills.
“The strip search was
the most humiliating experience I have ever had,” said Redding in a sworn
affidavit following the incident.
“I held my head down so that they could not see that I was about to
cry.”
In response to today’s
court victory, Redding said, “I took my case to court because I wanted to make
sure that school officials wouldn’t be able to violate anyone else’s rights like
this again. This was one of the
most traumatic experiences of my life, and I am relieved that a court has
finally recognized that the Constitution protects students from being strip
searched in schools on the basis of unreliable
rumors.”
The strip search was
undertaken based solely on the uncorroborated claims of the classmate facing
punishment. No attempt was made to
corroborate the classmate’s accusations among other students or teachers. No physical evidence suggested that
Redding might be in possession of ibuprofen pills or that she was concealing
them in her undergarments.
Furthermore, the classmate had not claimed that Redding currently
possessed any pills, nor had the classmate given any indication as to where they
might be concealed. No attempt was
made to contact Redding’s parents prior to conducting the strip
search. "As recognized by the court, this type of
overreaction on the part of school officials is simply indefensible and
unacceptable given the absence of any emergency situation," said Daniel
Pochoda, Legal Director of the ACLU of Arizona, which was part of the
legal team challenging the search. "The behavior was so far outside
established constitutional norms, the principal should have known he was
violating the fundamental privacy rights of the student."
“A reasonable
school official, seeking to protect the students in his charge, does not subject
a thirteen-year-old girl to a traumatic search to ‘protect’ her from the danger
of Advil,” the court wrote in today’s opinion. “We reject Safford’s effort to lump
together these run-of-the-mill anti-inflammatory pills with the evocative term
‘prescription drugs,’ in a knowing effort to shield an imprudent strip search of
a young girl behind a larger war against drugs.”
“It does not take a
constitutional scholar to conclude that a nude search of a 13-year-old girl is
an invasion of constitutional rights. More than that: it is a violation of
any known principle of human dignity,” the court
continued.
In addition to finding
the strip search unconstitutional, the court held that vice principal Wilson
cannot claim qualified immunity and is, therefore, financially liable in the case.
"This was the case of an
innocent student forced to endure a strip search by administrators who later
claimed that it was 'no big deal'," said Andrew Petersen, an attorney with
Humphrey & Petersen. "Strip searching a student is a very big deal, as made
clear by today's decision."
The case
is, Redding v. Safford Unified School District, No.
05-15759.
|