Supreme Court on Strip Searches – No Surprises Here

As a former school official, I read with interest today’s Supreme Court ruling on strip searches. But while many are heralding the decision as major, the facts say otherwise.

For years the standard for school officials has been to support reasonable suspicion for searches based on the need to protect students from harm. Strip searching a 13-year-old girl who may or may not have been sharing ibuprofen with fellow students certainly does not conjure up images of extensive risk to students.

Of course, the naysayers are already posturing that today’s ruling will simply lead more youngsters to hide drugs and drug paraphernalia in their inner clothing and underwear. And that action will only make it more difficult for school officials to enforce fundamental levels of discipline in the school setting.

But asking a 13-year-old girl to remove her clothes in the presence of strange adults goes far beyond the enforcement of fundamental levels of discipline in the school setting. Therefore, based on today’s ruling, nothing has ultimately changed for school administrators moving forward.

The Ruling

In ruling that the school acted illegally, Justice David Souter offered the following assessment:

…. “there were no reasons to suspect the drugs presented a danger or were concealed in her underwear” …. and so therefore “we hold that the search did violate the Constitution.”

Pundits were quick to point out that the ruling speaks specifically to the drug involved, a painkiller. Clearly, the idea of a strip search for painkillers does seem to be a bit over the top. The Supreme Court agreed with that notion while still seemingly noting that schools could take such actions when more serious drugs or weapons were involved. Of course, critics will wonder aloud, which drugs would be needed for school officials to act in such a way.

In addition, the Court noted that there had to be some information that the drugs might have been concealed in the student’s underwear. In simplest terms, the concept of reasonable dictates that such an intrusive step must be warranted. Searching a backpack or a student’s jacket is one thing, moving to their inner person simply because you did not find what you were looking for is certainly a step that would not necessarily be deemed reasonable.

In other words, strip searching is incredibly far more intrusive than searching a backpack or coat. This line is so clear that many schools and entire states have banned such searches completely, insisting they are never reasonable in the school setting.

The Opposing View

Surprisingly, one Justice, Clarence Thomas, dissented making the ruling one short of unanimous. It seems that Justice Thomas saw the ruling as a deep intrusion into the administration of public schools. Instead, school administrators and teachers should be allowed to set and enforce rules that maintain order.

Critics pointed out that Justice Thomas essentially believes that students should not have any rights in school. Those same critics noted that a strip search is actually a tad beyond the routine business of school administration despite Thomas’ contention otherwise.

Still, Thomas asserted that a “search of a student by a teacher or other school official will be ‘justified at its inception’ when there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that the search will turn up evidence that the student has violated or is violating either the law or the rules of the school.”

For Thomas, under such criteria, the search would be considered justified because there were reasonable grounds to suspect that Redding had violated school rules. In this case, it would seem that the term reasonable, in Justice Thomas’ eyes, must only be applied minimally.

In his view, if there is reasonable suspicion that warrants a search, then any type of search should be permitted. Accordingly, providing students fundamental protection against excessive humiliation apparently is not part of Justice Thomas’ belief.

While Thomas seems lost on the distinction between painkillers and say a drug like crack cocaine, he does rightly note that parents do have the right to petition school boards regarding search policies. Ultimately, parents could take the step of approaching the school board so as to do what seven other states have done, outlaw such searches in their entirety.

Attentive Students

The real key aspect of the ruling is the impact it will have on student actions moving forward. Clearly, students now understand that they have been granted certain protections regarding searches and therefore can more safely carry contraband simply by placing it in their underwear.

That said, little has ultimately changed. School administrators must have reasonable suspicion to search a student and such suspicion also includes a reasonable assessment as how far to go with that search.

Lastly, one final, simple distinction is the school safety element. If weapons are involved, then administration is in a different position than when the matter involves drugs, especially when the issue involves misusing drugs that are legal.