Running head: STRIP-SEARCH IN SCHOOLS

Strip-Searching in Schools
Amy Jager, David Mroue, Andrea Steaban, and Kristin Weber
Oakland University
EA 742

STRIP-SEARCH IN SCHOOLS
2
In an age in which drugs on school campuses are common, no courts have said that
schools are prohibited from searching students even strip-searching students particularly in
cases that involve the suspicion of dangerous contraband on school grounds. The Fourth
Amendment states The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and
effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall
issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the
place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized (LaMorte, 2012). While the Fourth
Amendment protects against unreasonable search and seizure, many believe that because school
officials act in loco parentis this gives them the right to search students, even strip-search if
necessary, when the search is reasonable in inception and scope. However, we believe that a
strip-search would never be reasonable in scope, even if school officials were searching for very
dangerous drugs like methamphetamines, due to the age of the students involved and the adverse
and lingering effects it could have on their psychological well-being.
The opinion that we bring forward in this paper is based on the Safford Unified School
District #1 et. al. v. Redding (2009) case. In this case, a student named Savana Redding was
escorted to the office of her school after another student came forward to say that she was giving
pills to other students in the school. Savana Redding agreed to let the Assistant Principal search
her backpack, which produced no pills. After finding no drugs in her backpack, the Assistant
Principal had Savana Redding go to the nurses office to have her clothing searched by the
school nurse. Savana Redding had to remove her outer clothing, which again produced no pills,
and then had to pull her bra out, shake it and pull out the elastic from her underwear. After all of
this searching, the school officials still did not find any pills. Savana Reddings mother filed suit
in U.S. District Court alleging that her daughters Fourth Amendment rights were violated when

STRIP-SEARCH IN SCHOOLS
3
the school officials conducted the strip-search. The District Court found that there was no Fourth
Amendment violation during the search. However, the case was appealed to the 9th Circuit
Court of Appeals, where the decision was reversed. Finally, the case was appealed to the U.S.
Supreme Court where the Court decided to uphold the ruling of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.
Based on the Supreme Court ruling in this case, we feel that this ruling would be upheld even if
the school district was searching for something much more dangerous, like methamphetamines.
We feel that the two-prong test for a reasonable search is essential in determining whether
or not to search a student in a school. This test was established based on the ruling from New
Jersey v. T.L.O. (1985). In this case, a principal of a high school found two girls smoking in the
bathroom. One girl admitted to smoking, and the other girl denied the accusations, which led
school officials to search her purse. During the search, the administrator found a package of
cigarettes, drug paraphernalia, money, and an index card that contained names of students who
owed her money. The principal then notified T.L.Os mother of what happened and turned the
evidence over to the police. Once T.L.O. was brought to the police headquarters, she admitted
that she was selling marijuana at the high school. The State of New Jersey filed delinquency
charges against T.L.O in the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court of Middlesex County. This
court sided with New Jersey. As a result, T.L.O. appealed to the New Jersey Appellate Division.
The Appeals Court upheld the decision of the Juvenile Court that the search was reasonable.
T.L.O appealed to the New Jersey State Supreme Court where the ruling was overturned.
Finally, the State of New Jersey appealed to U.S Supreme Court. The ruling of the Supreme
Court of New Jersey, which said the search was unreasonable, was reversed because the search
that resulted in the evidence of T.L.O dealing marijuana was found to be reasonable because of
the two-prong test. The two-prong test for a reasonable search says that in order to conduct a

STRIP-SEARCH IN SCHOOLS
4
search of a student in a school the search must be 1) justified at its inception; and 2) reasonably
related in scope to the circumstances. In the T.L.O. case, the Supreme Court found that school
officials had the right to search T.L.O.s purse based on reasonable suspicion that she had
cigarettes in her belongings. This search resulted in finding drug paraphernalia in her purse.
The two-prong test, which states that a search must be justified in its inception and
reasonably related in its scope, can be applied to any search and seizure situation that occurs in a
school. Any search of a student by a staff member or school administrator is justified at its
inception when there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that the search will turn up evidence
that the student has violated a rule within the schools handbook or code of conduct. In addition,
the court must determine whether the search, as it was conducted, was reasonably related in
scope to the circumstances that justified the intrusion of the students privacy in the first place.
A search is acceptable in its scope when the measures implemented and used are reasonably
related to the intent of the search and are not excessively intrusive with consideration of the age
and sex of the student and the nature of the infraction. We argue that, based on the two prong
test, strip-searching a student will always be a 4th Amendment violation because the search would
not be reasonable in scope. Strip-searching a student is excessively intrusive, especially
considering the students that are searched are very impressionable and could be permanently
damaged psychologically because of the search.
It is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment that, in a school setting, reasonable
suspicion would be cause for searching a students locker, backpack or other belongings.
However, upon completion of these searches, if no contraband is found, the search has no reason
to go further. This idea is supported by the case of Kelly Phaneuf v. Dorene M. Fraikin (2006),
Kathleen Binkowski, Plainville Bd. of Ed., Town of Plainville and Rosemarie Cipriano where the

STRIP-SEARCH IN SCHOOLS
5
Appellate Court ruled that a strip search for marijuana was not reasonable at its inception or
scope. In this case school officials performed a pre-announced search of students bags for
security purposes. The search revealed a package of cigarettes in the students purse. She was
legally allowed to possess the cigarettes because she was 18 years old at the time; however,
school officials continued to strip-search Phaneuf for marijuana based on information from a
student informant. The Appellate Court decided that the strip search was not reasonable at
inception because the presence of cigarettes in a purse did not provide enough grounds to stripsearch for marijuana. We believe school officials should have stopped the search when no drug
contraband was found in the purse. Continuing to strip-search a student when no drug
contraband was found could cause emotional ramifications that could hinder the student's future
success. Instead of strip-searching the student, the school officials instead could have isolated
the student and called law enforcement to handle the search if they felt there was a need to
continue searching to maintain the security in the school. A student in isolation is not a security
risk to the rest of the student body.
In Vernonia School District 47J v. Acton (1995), the issue of searches in public versus
searches within a school is again addressed. In Vernonia v. Acton (1995), the Supreme Court
found that random drug testing of athletes did not violate the students 4 Amendment rights of
th

illegal search and seizure. This case was originally heard in District Federal Court. This court
found that the school district (Vernonia) did not violate the 4th Amendment rights of the student
(Acton) when conducting a random drug test with parental permission. Acton filed an appeal in
the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. The Appeals Court sided with Acton in this case and said that
the drug testing policy violated both the Federal and State Constitution. Vernonia then filed an
appeal with the Supreme Court where the Appeals Court decision was overturned. Parent

STRIP-SEARCH IN SCHOOLS
6
consent was given for the searches that dealt with athletes only because illegal drugs would
cause great harm to those students. The student athletes were considered leaders within the
school and thus were held to a higher standard of discipline. The Supreme Court found the
searches to be reasonable in this case as they were looking for the use of illegal drugs which
required a urine test to find. The schools interest in this case overruled the privacy expectations
of the students because the medical safety of each student was at risk. These students were not
strip-searched, as they were in a public bathroom and not in plain view of the officials
conducting the search. This was not much different from what the athletes had to do on a regular
basis because they had a common dressing area (locker room) that reduced the expectation of
privacy for these students. We feel that this case still supports our view that there would not be
reasonable suspicion to conduct a strip-search on a student for methamphetamines if the only
information was that the student had drugs in the past or had given some drugs to students in the
past. Without present knowledge that drugs were being distributed in the school or were on the
person in question, the search would not be reasonable in inception as the student in question
here was not an athlete and was not at a higher risk of injury due to his/her activities. In this case
the school was looking for illegal drugs and found another way to search the students without
resorting to a complete strip-search of the students. Therefore, we believe that it would not be
legal to strip-search a student in any case, as there are other means to finding illegal drugs on or
in the student.
In conclusion, the safety and security of schools must be considered when deciding
whether or not to search a student for drugs such as methamphetamines. If a school feels that the
safety of its student body is jeopardized they have the right to search the students belongings
and conduct a pat-down of the student, but in the event that the school decides a strip-search may

STRIP-SEARCH IN SCHOOLS
7
be necessary, law enforcement and parents should be called first. In the cases of Savana Redding,
T.L.O, Acton, and Phaneuf the Supreme Court found strip-searches to be a violation of the
students 4th amendment rights. In all of these cases, the searches were either not reasonable in
inception and/or not reasonable in scope. A better option for schools who feel that a strip-search
is absolutely necessary is to isolate the student until law enforcement arrives so that no harm can
come to any other student in the school. Once law enforcement arrives, they have the right to
investigate the schools reasonable suspicion and continue the search as they see necessary to
ensure the safety of all students. Part of the two-prong test from New Jersey v. T.L.O (1985)
specifies that the age and sex of the student being searched must be carefully considered before
proceeding with a search. Strip-searches are extreme and can be psychologically damaging to
young students, especially adolescents, and therefore should only be done as a last resort by law
enforcement if it is absolutely necessary. Administrators should be viewed as a trusted adult in
the building, and if administrators are seen as violating that trust because they are conducting
strip-searches, this may prevent some distressed students from coming forward to provide
information or to seek help. Regardless of the species of drug in question, we feel it is still a
Fourth Amendment violation to strip-search a student who is reasonably believed to have
contraband in school.

References
La Mort, M.W (2012). School Law: Cases and Concepts (10th ed.). Upper Saddle River, New
Jersey. Pearson.

STRIP-SEARCH IN SCHOOLS
8
New Jersey v. T.L.O., 469 U.S. 325 (1985)
Phaneuf v. Fraiken, 448 F.3d591 (Court of Appeals, 2nd Circuit, 2006)
Safford Unified School District #1 et. al. v. Redding, 129 S.Ct. 2633 (2009)
Vernonia School District 47J v. Acton, 515 U.S. 646 (1995)