<p>The case, Redding v. Safford Unified School District, involves the search of a middle school student by school staff.</p>
<p>The school, Safford Middle School, had adopted a policy that prohibited the use or possession of “drugs.” The school defined “drugs” as any prescription or over the counter drug, except where permission to use the drug had been granted by the school.</p>
<p>The circumstances that gave rise to this case began with a dance that was held to celebrate the beginning of the 2003 school year. During the dance, school officials noticed that some students, including Redding, and her friend Marissa, were behaving in an “unusually rowdy” manner. Officials also noticed the odor of alcohol emanating from the group. Nonetheless, no official action was taken against any of the students.</p>
<p>On October 1, 2003, another student, Jordan, and her mother, met with school officials. Jordan’s mother averred at that time that Jordan had become violently ill after taking pills that had been given to her by other students at the school. Jordan also indicated that students, including Redding, were bringing pills and weapons to the school.</p>
<p>On October 8, 2003, Jordan and her mother again met with school officials. This time, Jordan gave school officials a pill that she had received from Marissa. The school nurse looked at the pill, and identified it as an Ibuprofin 400mg tablet – a pill available only with a doctor’s prescription.</p>
<p>School officials then went to the classroom where Marissa was and asked her to accompany them and to bring her belongings. At that time, officials noticed that a black planner lying next to Marissa’s desk. Marissa denied knowing who owned the planner and denied knowledge of its contents. A search of the planner revealed knives, a lighter, cigarette, and a permanent marker. Marissa’s pockets were searched, and the search revealed several white pills and a blue pill and razor blades. The blue pill was described as an over the counter pill used to combat pain and inflammation. When asked where she got these pills, Marissa indicated she got them from Redding.</p>
<p>At this point, school officials retrieved Redding from class. Redding was asked about the planner, and Redding indicated that she owned it, but that she had loaned it to Marissa several days earlier so that Marissa could hide certain items from her parents. Redding denied any knowledge of the planner’s contents. Redding denied bringing pills to school, denied giving pills to her classmates. School officials then asked Redding if she would mind being searched. Redding agreed. After a search of Redding’s backpack proved fruitless, Redding’s person was searched. At the time of the search, Redding was wearing stretch pants without pockets and a T-shirt without pockets. Redding was asked to: (1) remove her jacket, shoes, and socks, (2) remove her pants and shirt, (3) pull her bra out and to the side and shake it, exposing her breasts, and (4) pull her underwear out at the crotch and shake it, exposing her pelvic area. The search did not produce any pills. Immediately after it had concluded, school officials returned Redding's clothes and allowed her to get dressed. At no point during the search did school officials touch Redding. Prior to the search, no attempt was made to contact Redding's mother.</p>
<p>Subsequently, Redding filed a federal lawsuit against the school, alleging that the strip-search violated Redding’s rights under the Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution to be free from “unreasonable” searches and seizures. The trial court granted the school district’s motion to dismiss the case, and Redding appealed to the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.</p>
<p>The Court began by reviewing the controlling US Supreme Court case, TLO v. New Jersey. In that case, the Court ruled that searches of public school students by school officials are permitted where the search is “justified at its inception” – i.e., there are reasonable grounds for the belief that the search will turn up evidence that the student is violating or has violated school rules or the law; and the search must be “permissible in scope” – i.e., 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.</p>
<p>As to the issue of whether the search here was “justified at its inception” the Court ruled that the search was justified by several “key” pieces of evidence, including the information provided by Jordan, the pills uncovered by Marissa, and Marissa’s statement that she had received the pills from Redding.</p>
<p>In terms of the intrusive nature of the search, again, the Court found that the search was permissible in scope. The Court looked at several factors to support this conclusion. The first being that the school has a significant interest in preventing illegal prescription drug use by students. The second factor was that the contraband itself was small enough in size to be concealed on the person, justifying a more “intrusive” search. Finally, the Court ruled that the search was carried out in a reasonable manner, in private in a locked room, and by officials who were of the same gender as Redding, and, furthermore, Redding was never touched by the officials. The Court, accordingly, voted to affirm the dismissal of the case.</p>
<p>Two points are worth noting. The first is that the case was decided by a three judge panel, and that one judge actually dissented and would have reversed the lower court’s dismissal of the case. The dissenting judge noted that Redding was an honor student with no record of discipline or involvement with drugs. The dissenting judge also chided the other two judges’ reliance on the school’s stated objective – preventing prescription drug abuse. The dissenting judge noted that the pills in issue here, 400mg ibuprofen tablets, actually were the equivalent of two “over the counter” Advil tablets.</p>
<p>The other point worth noting is that the Ninth Circuit, subsequent to this ruling, has voted to review the case again, this time with all of the judges taking part in the decision, as opposed to a three judge panel.</p>
<p>The California Drug Defense Attorneys (http://www.wklaw.com) at Wallin & Klarich have extensive experience in handling drug possession cases. Call us today for your free consultation.</p>
About the Author:
I have over twenty-nine years of experience handling all types of criminal defense matters, and currently supervise serious felonies being handled by our law firm. In addition, I have extensive experience in both juvenile crimes and juvenile dependency matters. We pride ourselves in doing all we can to put our clients at ease during a time of great personal stress in their lives when they are facing allegations of criminal misconduct. You are in good hands when you decide to retain Wallin & Klarich to assist you in your time of need.
Wed, 16 Apr 2008 05:34:26 - 100%
Article Source: Find Articles - Reprint Rights feel free to publish this article on your website but you must agree to leave all active links contained within 'About The Author' intact and "as is" and NOT hidden behind a java or redirect script.