What was the legal issue?
Does the fourth amendment prohibit school officials from strip searching students suspected of possessing drugs in violation of school policy?
Are School Officials individually liable for damages in a lawsuit filed under 42 U.S.C Section 1983?
What did the court decide?
The court decided that the pills in question, no stronger than two Advils, did not justify an "embarrassing, frightening, and humiliating search."
The court reached this decision because they felt that the pills in question, no stronger than two Advils, did not justify an "embarrassing, frightening, and humiliating search."
The new precedent is
based on a reasonable suspicion, search measures used by school officials to root out contraband must be "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." Here, school officials did not have sufficient suspicion to warrant extending the search of Savanna to her underwear. The Court also held that the implicated school administrators were not personally liable because "clearly established law [did] not show that the search violated the Fourth Amendment."
Visual

By: AJ Scardine
Sources
https://www.oyez.org/cases/2008/08-479
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/26/us/politics/26scotus.html

Dose random drug testing of student athletes violate the 4th amendment's search and seizure clause?
WHAT WAS DETERMINED BY THE COURT?  NO.  it was a reasonable drug test. The privacy interests compromised by urine samples are negligible since the conditions of collection are similar to public restrooms, and the results are viewed only by limited authorities. 
WHAT PRECEDENCE WAS ESTABLISHED?
Allowed schools to be able to drug test the student population only if the drug search is reasonable.
BY: Jake Piludu   
Sources https://www.oyez.org/cases/1994/94-590
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/515/646/
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/515/646/case.html