# data[].attributes.body
Legal Definition of En Banc. (n.d.). Retrieved July 26, 2016, from http://www.lectlaw.com/def/e015.htm

Legal Dictionary - Law.com. (n.d.). Retrieved July 26, 2016, from http://dictionary.law.com/default.aspx?selected=2063

New Jersey v. T.L.O. Podcast. (n.d.). Retrieved July 26, 2016, from http://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/educational-resources/supreme-court-landmarks/new-jersey-v-tlo-podcast

Safford United School District v. Redding. (n.d.). Retrieved July 26, 2016, from https://www.oyez.org/cases/2008/08-479

Safford Unified School Dist. #1 v. Redding 557 U.S. 364 (2009). (n.d.). Retrieved July 26, 2016, from https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/557/364/opinion.html

http://www.wrightslaw.com/news/09/safford.redding.htm

# data[].attributes.body
Wilson believed that he was acting in accordance with the law, and according to his duties and obligations as a school administrator to protect the health and safety of his students, when he ordered a strip search of Savana Redding, a 13-year old student.

The Supreme Court found that the search was a violation of the Fourth Amendment, because Wilson did not have "reasonable suspicion" to conduct it. He didn't have reasonable suspicion because the contraband searched for was understood to be "nondangerous," was not expected to be present in large enough quantities to be dangerous, and there was no precedent at the school of students hiding such things in their undergarments.

The Supreme Court found qualified immunity warranted because Wilson believed he was acting within the confines of the law. This was a reasonable belief because a previous Supreme Court case (T.L.O) which addressed searches in schools was interpreted in so many different ways by so many different courts, as to render the intent of that decision ambiguous.

The Supreme Court takes this opportunity to clarify T.L.O.:
In order to "make the quantum leap from outer clothes and backpacks to exposure of intimate parts," "reasonable scope requires the support of reasonable suspicion of danger or of [reasonable suspicion of] resort to underwear for hiding evidence of wrongdoing." The Court states emphatically, "the meaning of such a search, and the degradation its subject may reasonably feel, place a search that intrusive in a category of its own, demanding its own specific suspicions."

# data[].attributes.body
Fourth Amendment Violation

-- Justice Souter, delivering the opinion of the court, establishes that, in New Jersey v. T.L.O. it was found that schools are not the same as non-school environments and that school officials, unlike police officers (who require "probable cause" to conduct a search), can apply a standard of "reasonable suspicion" to conduct a search. That is, "a search will be permissible in its scope when the measures adopted are reasonably related to the objectives of the search and not excessively intrusive in light of the age and sex of the student and the nature of the infraction." (Justice Souter, quoting from T.L.O. opinion)

-- Souter explains that Wilson, the administrative assistant in charge during the events in question, had reasonable suspicion that Savana had pills in her bag and/or outer clothing.

-- However, Souter goes on to explain, the further search, of Savana's undergarments, is "categorically distinct, requiring elements of justification on the part of school authorities for going beyond a search of outer clothing and belongings."

-- Souter cites evidence (studies and psychology journals and briefs) that "adolescent vulnerability intensifies the patent intrusiveness of the exposure" and that a strip search is not like changing for gym, which is "getting ready for play." A strip search is "fairly understood as so degrading that a number of communities have decided that strip searches in schools are never reasonable and have banned them no matter what the facts may be." Thus, Savana's age and experience is a significant factor in the purported propriety of the search.

-- Souter concludes, "the content of the suspicion failed to match the degree of the intrusion." Wilson was aware that the pills were relatively benign, and he also had no reason to suspect large distribution of the pills. He also had no reason to suspect that Savana was hiding painkillers in her underwear.
"[N]ondangerous school contraband does not raise the specter of stashes in intimate places, and there is no evidence in the record of any general practice among Safford Middle School students of hiding that sort of thing in underwear."

-- Souter explains that "the combination of these deficiencies was fatal to finding the search reasonable."

Qualified Immunity

--Qualified immunity is warranted because of so many different interpretations of T.L.O. Wilson was wrong to conduct (or to have conducted) the search of Savana's undergarments, but he believed at the time he was acting in the confines of the law, and that belief was reasonable.

# data[].attributes.body
1. Is this just something that administrators have to worry about?

2. How might this case change how you conduct yourself in your position at your school?

3. How might the SCOTUS decision have been different if Savana had been suspected of carrying something more serious than prescription-strength pain meds? What conditions, if any, justify a search of a student's undergarments? Is there a justification somewhere in this decision for such a search?

# data[].attributes.body
Whether "a 13-year old student's Fourth Amendment right was violated when she was subjected to a search of her bra and underpants by school officials acting on reasonable suspicion that she brought forbidden prescription and over-the-counter drugs to school."
--Justice Souter, in Safford v. Redding, SCOTUS opinion, June 25, 2009

# data[].attributes.body
summary judgment -- one party may contend that the facts of the case are so obvious and one-sided, that the case need not go to trial.
qualified immunity -- protects public servants from prosecution when they believe they are acting within the law.
en banc -- by the full court

# data[].attributes.headline
Timeline of Basic Facts of the Case, and Lower Court Findings

# data[].attributes.subject
Timeline of Basic Facts of the Case, and Lower Court Findings

# data[].attributes.body
2003 -- Officials at Safford School District in Safford, AZ receive an uncorroborated "tip" from a classmate that Savana Redding has prescription strength ibuprofen in her possession. School officials strip-search Savana, instructing her to strip down to her undergarments, and, when no contraband is found, to "pull out" the elastic on her bra and underwear. No drugs are found. Savana's mother files suit on Savana's behalf.

A district court finds that no violation occurred.

2007 -- A divided three judge panel from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit upholds a motion for summary judgment on behalf of school officials, while acknowledging in their judgment that Savana "did not freely agree to this search" and that she was humiliated and scared.

Savana's mother requests the full Ninth Circuit Court to hear her appeal.

A 6-5 en banc (that is, the full court) decision reverses the panel's finding, concluding that "school officials violated Savana's Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure. The strip search of Savana was neither 'justified at its inception, nor, as a grossly intrusive search of a middle school girl to locate pills with the potency of two over-the-counter Advil capsules, 'reasonably related in scope to the circumstances' giving rise to its initiation." (quotes are from the opinion of the en banc Ninth Circuit Court, as quoted in Wrightslaw.)

Safford United School District appeals to the U.S. Supreme Court; argues that "the Ninth Circuit created a new rule that requires public school officials to have more evidence of illegal possession of drugs or weapons at school than an unproven tip from another student.

The Supreme Court hears the case in 2009