Master The Supreme Court held that a school strip search of a 13-year-old for non-dangerous pills violated the Fourth Amendment, though the official received qualified immunity. with this comprehensive case brief.
Safford v. Redding is a cornerstone case on students’ Fourth Amendment rights and the limits of school authority to conduct intrusive searches. Building on New Jersey v. T.L.O., the Court clarified that while school officials may search students on reasonable suspicion, the scope of such searches must be proportionate to both the suspected infraction and the student’s age and sex. In practical terms, the decision sets a high threshold for highly invasive measures such as strip searches.
For law students, the case is significant for two reasons. First, it sharpens the T.L.O. two-part reasonableness analysis by requiring a tighter “match” between the level of intrusion and the nature of the suspected contraband, especially with respect to strip searches. Second, it illustrates the interaction between constitutional violations and qualified immunity under § 1983: a right can be violated yet the official still avoid damages if the law was not clearly established at the time.
557 U.S. 364 (2009) (U.S. Supreme Court)
Savana Redding, a 13-year-old honor student at Safford Middle School in Arizona, was summoned to the assistant principal’s office during the school day after a classmate was found in possession of a few pills and stated that Redding had supplied them. The school had a strict policy prohibiting students from possessing prescription and over-the-counter medications on campus without prior permission. Assistant Principal Kerry Wilson searched Redding’s backpack and outer clothing but found nothing. Believing she might still be hiding pills, Wilson directed the school nurse and a female administrative assistant to conduct a more intrusive search. In a private office, they required Redding to remove her outer clothing and pull out her bra and underpants, exposing her breasts and pelvic area, and shake them so any pills would fall out. No pills were found. Redding and her mother sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging a violation of the Fourth Amendment and seeking damages from Wilson and the school district. The district court granted summary judgment to the defendants; the Ninth Circuit sitting en banc held the search unconstitutional and denied qualified immunity to Wilson. The Supreme Court granted certiorari.
Does a school’s strip search of a 13-year-old student, undertaken to locate prescription-strength ibuprofen and related pain relievers based on a classmate’s accusation, violate the Fourth Amendment’s reasonableness standard under New Jersey v. T.L.O., and are the involved school officials entitled to qualified immunity?
Under New Jersey v. T.L.O., searches by public school officials are governed by the Fourth Amendment’s reasonableness standard, not probable cause. A search is (1) justified at its inception when there are reasonable grounds to suspect it will reveal evidence of a violation of the law or school rules, and (2) permissible in scope when the measures adopted are reasonably related to the objectives of the search and not excessively intrusive in light of the student’s age and sex and the nature of the infraction. Highly intrusive searches, including strip searches that expose intimate areas, require particularized suspicion that the contraband is dangerous or being concealed in a manner that justifies such intrusion. Under qualified immunity, officials are protected from damages liability unless their conduct violates clearly established law that a reasonable official would have understood at the time.
The strip search of Redding violated the Fourth Amendment because, although the initial backpack search was justified, the further search requiring exposure of her breasts and pelvic area was excessively intrusive given her age, sex, and the non-dangerous nature of the suspected pills, and absent specific reason to believe she was hiding them in her underwear. Nonetheless, the assistant principal was entitled to qualified immunity because, at the time of the search, the unconstitutionality of such a strip search in comparable circumstances was not clearly established. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with this ruling.
The Court began with T.L.O.’s two-step framework. First, it found reasonable suspicion to search Redding’s backpack based on a student’s tip that she had distributed pills and the corroboration of finding pills on the tipster. That satisfied justification at inception. The key question, however, was scope. A strip search is a categorically more invasive intrusion, especially for a 13-year-old girl, and thus requires a tighter fit between suspicion and the degree of intrusion. The school officials sought prescription-strength ibuprofen and similar pain relievers—substances not inherently dangerous like hard narcotics, weapons, or explosives—and there was no evidence suggesting imminent harm, large quantities, or specific concealment in undergarments. The Court emphasized the lack of particularized facts indicating that Redding presently had pills on her person or that she was likely to hide them in her underwear. With nothing found in her backpack and no other contemporaneous evidence pointing to her underclothes, extending the search to require exposure of intimate areas was "excessively intrusive" in light of her age, sex, and the nature of the suspected infraction. Thus, the strip search violated the Fourth Amendment. On qualified immunity, the Court noted that at the time of the 2003 search, lower courts were divided on the permissibility of school strip searches under T.L.O., and the Supreme Court had not squarely addressed them. Given that legal uncertainty, a reasonable school official could have believed the search lawful. Therefore, the assistant principal was entitled to qualified immunity from damages, even though the search itself was unconstitutional. The Court remanded for further proceedings consistent with its analysis.
Safford refines T.L.O. by clarifying that the scope prong imposes real limits on intrusive student searches: strip searches require particularized suspicion tied to both danger and likely concealment. It makes clear that non-dangerous, small quantities of common medications do not justify forcing a young student to expose intimate areas absent specific reasons to think contraband is hidden there. The case also illustrates the separation between constitutional merits and qualified immunity: a right can be violated, yet damages barred where the law was not clearly established. For law students, Safford is an essential precedent in Fourth Amendment school-search doctrine, the special needs context, and qualified immunity analysis under § 1983.
Reasonable suspicion justified the initial, less intrusive search of the backpack, but T.L.O. also requires that the scope be reasonable. A strip search is especially intrusive for a 13-year-old, and the suspected contraband—prescription-strength ibuprofen and similar pain relievers—was not inherently dangerous. There were no specific facts suggesting Redding had pills hidden in her underwear. Without particularized suspicion of concealment or danger, the search’s scope was excessively intrusive.
Yes, but only under more exigent, particularized circumstances. For example, if officials had specific, credible information that a student was hiding a dangerous item (e.g., hard narcotics in significant quantities, a weapon, or harmful substances) in their undergarments, a more intrusive search might be justified. Safford teaches that the greater the intrusion, the stronger and more specific the suspicion must be, especially considering the student’s age and sex and the nature of the suspected infraction.
Qualified immunity shields officials from damages unless their conduct violates clearly established law that a reasonable official would have known. At the time of the search, there was no Supreme Court precedent squarely governing strip searches of students, and lower courts were divided. Because the law was not clearly established in 2003, the assistant principal was entitled to qualified immunity despite the constitutional violation.
Safford applies and sharpens T.L.O.’s two-part reasonableness test. While T.L.O. permits searches on reasonable suspicion and dispenses with probable cause, Safford underscores that the scope prong demands proportionality. Intrusive searches, particularly strip searches, require specific, heightened justification tied to the nature of the suspected contraband and the likelihood of its concealment.
No. Safford does not forbid all searches for medications. It permits reasonable, less intrusive searches (e.g., backpacks, pockets) based on reasonable suspicion. The case limits highly invasive searches: absent specific reasons indicating danger or concealment in undergarments, strip searches for non-dangerous medications are unconstitutional.
Safford v. Redding establishes a clear constitutional boundary for school searches: while reasonable suspicion can justify searching a student’s belongings, a strip search requires a much stronger, particularized basis in light of the student’s age, sex, and the nature of the suspected contraband. The decision thus elevates the importance of proportionality and individualized suspicion when the state’s search intrudes upon a student’s bodily privacy.
At the same time, Safford highlights the protective scope of qualified immunity for school officials operating in legally uncertain terrain. For practitioners and students, the case is a dual lesson in Fourth Amendment school search jurisprudence and the doctrine of qualified immunity, offering concrete guidance for drafting school policies and evaluating the constitutionality of student searches.