No Justice For Savana Redding, But At Least They Can’t Do It To Your Kids

Jun 25, 2009

By Patrick.

Law

We’ve written previously about the horrifying case of Savana Redding, the thirteen year old girl who was strip-searched by officials of the Safford Arizona Unified School District. Redding’s teachers were searching for ibuprofen, under a “zero tolerance” no-drugs policy.

They found nothing.

The earlier Redding post has been among our most popular, not because it was well-written or because it provides a good analysis of the legal issues (it doesn’t), but because it was written in a tone of anger and outrage that reflects the feelings many Americans had on reading that school officials felt they could strip-search a teenaged girl as part of their routine duties.

As predicted, the case went all the way to the Supreme Court. The Court has just issued its opinion, which we’ve uploaded here: safford-v-redding

Short holding: the strip search did violate the Fourth Amendment (which surprises me – I thought they’d hold it constitutionally permissible), but because Redding’s assailants, Kerry Wilson, Helen Romero, and Peggy Schwallier, didn’t know under clearly established law at the time that their conduct was illegal, they have qualified immunity and will not face damages.

I maintain that regardless of what Wilson, Romero, and Schwallier knew of the law, common decency should have guided them to the right action, but that’s between them and their consciences now, rather than a matter for a court.

Ms. Redding gets nothing but vindication, which she richly deserves. The brighter side is that in the future, school officials who decide to strip search children looking for trivial contraband such as ibuprofen cannot say that they didn’t know their conduct was illegal. From now on, such child abusers will have to explain themselves, before a jury of parents and fellow citizens.

Of course, for everyone else the maxim that ignorance of the law is no excuse stands, but in this case Redding’s assailants get a pass.

Last 5 posts by Patrick

I Felt A Great Disturbance On Facebook, As If Millions Of Perverts Suddenly Cried Out In Embarrassment, And Were Suddenly Shamed. - March 19th, 2010
This Is Not A Funny Lawsuit Story, Even Though It Includes Parrotnapping. - March 12th, 2010
I Take Back All That Crap About People Who Wear Che T-Shirts - March 11th, 2010
Rhode Island Achieves The Impossible - March 10th, 2010
The District Attorney Isn't There To Create Disorder; The District Attorney Is There To Preserve Disorder. - March 10th, 2010

8 Comments

asshats

6 Comments

Ken • Jun 25, 2009 @8:11 am

In a more just world, Kerry Wilson, Helen Romero, and Peggy Schwallier would be registered sex offenders now.
Charles • Jun 25, 2009 @9:19 am

Redding isn’t wholly without remedy yet; the case was remanded for an examination of the liability of the school district. The factual recitation is pretty interesting, actually, and made me a lot more sympathetic to the Vice-Principal’s decision than I expected to be. Not as sympathetic as Justice Thomas, mind you, but more than Justices Ginsburg and Stevens.
Patrick • Jun 25, 2009 @9:26 am

Go back and read the Ninth’s en banc decision, if you want a compelling factual narrative. It’s linked at the earlier post.
Charles • Jun 25, 2009 @10:15 am

The thing I find most striking about the 9th Circuit decision is the tone of the dissent. As opposed to Thomas, who doesn’t seem like he’d mind if random strip searches were used in conjunction with metal detectors as kids entered the building, the en banc dissent at least seems sympathetic to the Savana Reddings of the world, even if they have an exaggerated sense of fear at the dangers of ibuprofen.
David Schwartz • Jun 26, 2009 @1:11 am

Your honors, this search falls under the drugs exception to the fourth amendment. It’s an emanation from a penumbra.
Greg • Jun 26, 2009 @12:44 pm

Re: “Of course, for everyone else the maxim that ignorance of the law is no excuse stands, but in this case Redding’s assailants get a pass.”

Well, of course. The principle that ignorance of the law is no excuse only applies to private citizens, whom we very reasonably expect to have a lawyer-level expertise in every aspect of every law on the books. Public servants, on the other hand, cannot possibly be expected to be cognizant of the laws that apply to them in their professional capacity.