Jul 12th, 2008
Posted by Jag Davies, Drug Law Reform Project at 10:02am	Drug Law Reform

Strip Search of 13-Year-Old for Ibuprofen Ruled Unconstitutional

If you have a problem with school officials strip searching 13-year-olds for Advil — or if you care about the government’s standards for informant use and invasive searches — you can take relief in yesterday's ruling by a full panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, which ruled 6-5 that students cannot be strip-searched based on the uncorroborated word of another student who is facing disciplinary punishment.

“A reasonable school official, seeking to protect the students in his charge, does not subject a thirteen-year-old girl to a traumatic search to "protect" her from the danger of Advil,” the federal appellate court wrote in today’s opinion. “We reject Safford’s effort to lump together these run-of-the-mill anti-inflammatory pills with the evocative term ‘prescription drugs,’ in a knowing effort to shield an imprudent strip search of a young girl behind a larger war against drugs.”

“It does not take a constitutional scholar to conclude that a nude search of a 13-year-old girl is an invasion of constitutional rights. More than that: it is a violation of any known principle of human dignity,” the court continued.

In addition to finding the strip search unconstitutional, the court held that the school official who ordered the strip search, Vice Principal Kerry Wilson, is financially liable in the case and cannot claim qualified immunity.

The ACLU co-represented the student, Savana Redding, before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, which decided to reconsider the case after a three-judge panel ruled 2-1 that the strip-search was legal.

For a case like this, it’s hard to understand how the unconstitutionality of strip searching Redding could even be up for debate. Consider how flimsy the government’s case was:

• No physical evidence suggested that Redding — an honor roll student with no history of substance use or abuse — might be in possession of ibuprofen pills or that she was concealing them in her undergarments.
• The strip search was undertaken based solely on the uncorroborated claims of a classmate facing punishment, who was caught with prescription strength ibuprofen — the equivalent of two over-the-counter pills of Advil. (And why on earth might a teenaged girl have ibuprofen?)
• No attempt was made to corroborate the classmate’s accusations among other students or teachers.
• The classmate had not claimed that Redding currently possessed any pills, nor had the classmate given any indication as to where they might be concealed.
• No attempt was made to contact Redding’s parents prior to conducting the strip search.

If you want to get some background information on the abundance of scientific literature describing the serious psychological repercussions of being strip-searched at age 13, you should check out the briefs of support that were also filed by the National Association of Social Workers and the Rutherford Institute.

“The strip search was the most humiliating experience I have ever had,” said Redding in a sworn affidavit following the incident. “I held my head down so that they could not see that I was about to cry.”

As Reason’s Jacob Sullum insightfully observed in his article on the case, “The School Crotch Inspector”:

"There are two kinds of people in the world: the kind who think it's perfectly reasonable to strip-search a 13-year-old girl suspected of bringing ibuprofen to school, and the kind who think those people should be kept as far away from children as possible … Sometimes it's hard to tell the difference between drug warriors and child molesters.”

The same safeguards and regulations on informant use that we have been advocating in the context of criminal drug proceedings apply even more so to the context of school, where young people are particularly vulnerable to unsubstantiated rumors and finger-pointing by vindictive peers.

Permalink |	Drug Law Reform

1. Niki Says:
   Jul 16th, 2008 at 1:46pm

   @Bob

   I'm confused. I was under the assumption that this young lady had NO history of substance use or abuse.

   And as far as a vice-principal is concerned, give me a break. He's exactly that: A vice principal. Not a government official, justice, or police officer.

   The only thing that perv did was take advantage of a child who was afraid to say no. He BANKED on the idea that she would go along with it without a fight, which means that the act was calculated.

   He abused the grunt of his power against a another human being, in a manner that ENABLED the lewd knowledge of a minor, no less a minor in his care.

   He should apply for priesthood. I hear they're hiring.

2. JetpackAngel Says:
   Jul 16th, 2008 at 3:24pm

   What in the sweet name of all that's holy...?

   No evidence? No definite statements of "I saw her with drugs" were taken? So why in the hell was this even authorized? I don't care if she's an honor roll kid or she's two steps away from dropping out; the fact that a minor was strip-searched on American soil without even notifying her parents is unconstitutional on so many levels, I don't even know where to start.

   At least law enforcement invokes the PATRIOT Act and ships suspected terrorists off to Guantanamo Bay before stripping them of their clothing and their rights.

   Just because the guy was (HOPEFULLY 'was') a Vice Principal doesn't make him law enforcement, which doesn't give him the right to conduct a strip search with or without a warrant. Lawfully he would need a badge, to be a female, be wearing latex gloves, and have both a warrant and probable cause. AND to have advised the girl of her rights, and call her parents, and have a child advocate present.

   I myself don't take Advil or Tylenol. If I'm in pain and I just can't stand it anymore, I'll take two ibuprofen. Why? Because I have a heart murmur and I don't need something that's gonna thin out my bloodstream.

3. Andy Says:
   Jul 17th, 2008 at 6:04am

   I am a State Police Officer in South Carolina and I am NEVER allowed to perform a STRIP SEARCH !!! In a PRISON environment, yes it is allowed. The US Constitution prohibits the unreasonable search and seizure of an individual. This school district and all its administrators should be charged with sexual assault as well as civil rights violations. I would see that everyone involved was either imprisoned or they would somehow mysteriously disappear.

4. AvangionQ Says:
   Jul 18th, 2008 at 7:49pm

   This is taking authoritarian dogma of `if you've done nothing wrong, then you have nothing to hide` to new lows of criminal abuse ... nothing short of an arrest and prosecution of Vice Principal Kerry Wilson for child abuse will suffice ...

5. George Says:
   Aug 16th, 2008 at 6:43am

   People in this community should keep their eyes on vice principle Kerry Wilson. Something seems funny here.

6. Hurricane Says:
   Aug 22nd, 2008 at 10:44am

   The 6-5 decision; while appearing worrisome; was more due to politics than the judges personal opinions.

   Occasionally judges agree to make a decision a "close" one to leave room for exceptions. A unanimous decision is a huge political message; and being that the currently Republican/Bush agenda is heavily proponent of laxing personal privacy and legal protection for their "wars" (Terrorism and Drugs). A unanimous decision against strip searching of anyone; even minors; would leave a precedence that other lawyers would use to invalidate other types of searches.

   I would not be surprised that the dissenting opinions in this case is littered with exceptions and reason why the state has the right to absolute search and the mental well-being of the child is a small price to pay for security and protecting the same children.

   Not that I think there is any justification for this kinda action it's just these probably old white man have absolutely no empathy and do not think about the psychological impact of this type of policy just it's ultimate goal.

   The Ends justify the Means.

7. ted Says:
   Nov 8th, 2008 at 8:42pm

   the 5 of those aholes should be forcefully strip searched in front of people of the opposite sex,just to give them an idea

8. RIGHTS! Says:
   Nov 18th, 2008 at 11:55am

   I THINK THATS SO STUPIED! yea its bad to have med's at school but if her mom or parents sign a papar saying she can have it then yea it is stupied lol. i think so was so WRONG.

9. dPgn Says:
   Jan 17th, 2009 at 2:19pm

   Instead of stating all the obvious that has already been stated in the previous comments (of which I agree with most), I have to ask this:

   Is ibuprofen really a prescription drug in the U.S.? In most countries a 13 year old could just walk into a pharmacy and buy some legally.

10. Deeptoad Says:
    Jan 18th, 2009 at 8:15pm

    I'm telling you. Mandatory drug testing before these elected and appointed officials get their first paycheck. They work for us. Bring them down a notch or 40.

    Touch my young daughter over an OTC Advil? You're a criminal -- just like the perv you read about in the newspapers.

    It's time to reign these monkeys in. They work for us -- not the other way around. Fark them all soundly and FIRE them.

11. AngryCitizen. Says:
    Mar 24th, 2009 at 10:32pm

    I want everyone to know that I am against it before I continue.

    People wanted a basic line up.

    Fact 1: A girl IN TROUBLE said another girl had Ibrofen. Of course a in trouble kid is going to lie.

    Fact 2: They fallowed the direction of a child in trouble who is likely to lie and called in the subject of this story to search her for the drug in question.

    PERSONNEL FACT: the drug being searched in question shows a good reason to stop it. I started to take this drug to solve my colds as a teen and it made me addicted some which gave me withdrawal headaches. So I understand the search for this drug since Teens now are stealing non prescription drugs from there parents, dealing and doing them. I just don't agree with the method here.

    Fact 3: They proceeded to strip search the subject of the story without contacting the parents for such a serous case. I agree a lot of parents would be not so happy about this, and I would be lawyering up if it was my daughter being strip searched.

    Fact 4: This is personal and NO drugs were found on the teen and of course it is going to be a violation when parents aren't contacted before strip searching them.

    Fact 5: I not to long ago graduated from school and from mine no kids have no rights. Level: Daily Jail. This is for parents who haven't been to school since Hell even the seventies.
    The principal I had stuck to his guns and took care of these situations himself. When roomer of drugs being delt in the parking lot he went out himself and delt with it. luckily the student wasn't intelegent and tried to make a sale off the principal. I do not need to suggest the outcome in the case of question.

    But here we got peer brutality, a asst. principal removing a 7th or 8th graders clothing and performing search. Your body is very private and it doesn't matter whether its a senior.

    In this case I believe parents should be contacted, permission and presence requested while a same sex or the parents themselves perform this private thing if it is needed to be done.

    But here it should NEVER gotten that far. the information was gotten from a non secure source. Reporters must see what I mean, think about it. As corrupt as a reporter is I find, they would agree with me.

    It cheeses me off that the system is trying to fire the guy for performing this search. NOT enough!!!

    The school system needs to be responsible for the brutes the run these schools.

    Mine was not perfect, had lots of flaws like sending a single bus rated for 83 elementry school children to board where it was 96 high school students. It doesn't require a rocket scientist to figure 93 students figure around 110 pounds a peace is going to be quite off.
    thats over 10,000 pounds of weight. All students were pardoned from the riot when the bus broke down and one broke out. What do you expect people were in the passage and were cramped. Students being moved like cargo??? A call was arranged to be placed by a student while a high ranking police officer stood behind the superintendent. and the option was clear. Send a bus rated for the compliment because if the smoking engine caught on fire caught out there would be no way to exit safely. A repeat of the titanic would ensue with kids trying to squeeze there bodies out the windows while others near forward and aft would run for exits. How do you think a video of that would be on U tube??? Kids trying to pop out the windows and doors like a spring loaded pop top while smoke issues from the front of the bus?

    I'm sorry to take everyone off the issue. But a girl to be stripped search in this matter is just as ok as moving students like cargo.

    I want to here these parents responding with a lawyer, and demanding cash from the system, I would love to see the court house have petitioners to be there when it goes to court.

    The angle is obvous as it should be. This 13-year-old girl should have money waiting in an account use at her discretion when she turns 18. Thoughts????

12. Richard Says:
    Apr 17th, 2009 at 1:15pm

    I don't understand why the strip searchers weren't charged with a SEX CRIME. Isn't it some sort of felony for an adult to force a 13 year old to strip in front of them?

13. Richard Says:
    Apr 17th, 2009 at 1:27pm

    It is illegal for an adult to strip search a 13 year old child. Period.

14. Scotty Says:
    Apr 21st, 2009 at 1:38pm

    I don't care if she was smoking crack cocaine...innocent until proven guilty does not mean molest a 13 year old, EVER! A child should never be touched by anyone other than their parents, not even the police, without parental permission and an attorney present.
    This is a sex crime, and the five judges who felt it was reasonable should be disbarred.

15. Adrian Says:
    Apr 22nd, 2009 at 2:52pm

    Please note before sending the judges to sexoffender reabilitation their job is to examine the law rather than the lack of morality this vice principle who is still employed at the same school displayed.
    I highly doubt any of the judges were happy with the facts of the case.
    Regarding the comment on this being close by agreement to avoid precident earlier in the comments a 6-5 decision is just as much of a legal precident as a 11-0.

    Regarding the comment about her being caught with knives that was the other student who was caught with the pills and knives rather than her. The accusation of her parents providing alcohal to her classmates was made by a male student that cannot prove he was there much less that alcohal was served and there have been no charges brought not disaplinary actions against this student for said offences.

    Frankly I find it disheartening that the school has stood solidly behind the vice principle. The worst is he appears to genuinly feel since no drugs were found that there is no problem with striping a 13 year old student. I also question his judgement in deciding someone caught with pills and knives was more credible than an honar student with no history of disapline problems.

16. silent Says:
    Apr 22nd, 2009 at 8:39pm

    fire the teacher no child to be strip search parent should of been called When teacher and principal fired record need to follow with if leave state so if get job with school not able to get job No one has a right to strip search a child Parent should of been called. It is hard for a child to trust a teacher or principal This is a sex crime special done in school. Yes the five judges should be disbarred do to if it would have happened to one of their children they would want them jailed.

17. Confused Says:
    Apr 29th, 2009 at 11:06am

    Why is there such a question on liability for strip searching in a school when Alameda County payed $4.3 million to people sentenced to Juvenile Hall for performing the same strip search? Article sited next line
    http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/07/25/BAEU11V EPH.DTL&tsp=1

18. alarmed Says:
    May 22nd, 2009 at 2:54pm

    In Monroe County, Michigan at Jefferson High School The NJROTC Instructors accually desinged a strip tease for their students at their annual Naval Ball. Children as young as 13 or 14 are present to watch this. They are video taped and the tape sold in the school.Not only do they strip but other students are allowed to ride the cadet from the front and the back and bind him with ties. This has gone on for 14 years. The principal and school board officials are present at the time. A teacher is paid $1000.00 of cadet raised public donations to film and produce the tape. The cadets are lead in a toast to a dead secretary of the Navy "that Son Of A -----" Yes they are lead to curse a dead man for depriving them of boose. The program and the school is there to teach cadets to keep their clothes on, stay away from drugs and alcohol, deter teen pregnancy, and make good citizens of them.

    As far as I'm aware, if I threw my son a party and one of his freinds were to strip even without being lead to and I taped it and did not even sell it I would be arrested for a felony and put on a list forever. But I guess as long as a principal, two navy officers, a member of the department of corrections, two teachers, and a school board official is there it is called a proud tradition.
    when your child is possibly subject to being stripped for any reason at their school it is time to pull your child out and home school them.
    read carefully the words NEW WORLD ORDER.
    There are changes comming about and to go along with them is wrong.
    If there is that much wrong at a school where they have to strip search kids then it is not a healthy environment. PERIOD. Pull your kids and let the school close or strip kids but at least it is not your kids.
    We are going in a direction as a nation that many of us are unwilling to go. Please continue to fight.
    God Bless

19. Lyric Says:
    Oct 8th, 2009 at 9:33pm

    In my ideal world, the conductor of the strip search, the administrator who greenlighted it and all of his superiors; everyone who knew about it and did nothing to stop it would be dragged into the street and shot. Fair trials be damned. Some things are just too heinous to be tolerated or argued about for even one second. Had I been present, I would have beaten that vice principal to within an inch of his life, and whatever the consequences, I would have been proud.

• 
• 1
• 2
• 

Name

E-mail

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.

Homepage

• Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd>
• Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

More information about formatting options

CAPTCHA

This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.

What code is in the image? *

Enter the characters shown in the image. Ignore spaces and be careful about upper and lower case.