Jacob Sigismonti

Per.1/2
5/13/15
Safford Unified School District vs. April Redding

A student attending Safford Unified School District was accused

by classmates and the principle, of dealing painkillers to other
students. The issue began when Savana Reddings friend, Marissa
Glines, was accused of handing a classmate a white pill. The Assistant
Principle, Wilson, associated Savana to the case, when Savanas
planner was found in possession of Marissa. The planner was full of
other contraband items. Wilson revealed the planner to Savana and
she denied any knowledge of it. She then was brought in to the nurses
office and was forced into a strip searched, where she removed her
clothing. There was no evidence found on Savana or Marissa. Did the
school officials search of Savana Reddings person violate her 4th
Amendment rights?
When we look at the 4th Amendment the question that rises is
whether en loco parentis applies to this case or not. The 4th
Amendment clearly states, The right of the people to be secure in
their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable
searches and seizures, shall no be violated But in a school
environment, the rights of a student are slightly modified. In a school
setting, a school official has the power over their students as their own
parents have over them. Luckily there are some boundaries placed in
order for the student not to be completely violated, Such a search will
be permissible in its scope when the measures adopted are reasonable
related to the objectives of the search and not excessively intrusive in
the light of the age and sex of the student and the nature of the
infraction. The problem with this is that there is a pretty big gray area,
most likely the judge will be the one deciding if the search was
reasonable. This was put in order during the New Jersey v. TLO case,
where a young girl was caught with the possession drugs in school
after a rather forceful search. This relates to Safford Unified School
District v. April Redding because it is also in a school setting and deals
with a search of a students belongings.
It is obvious that Wilson did not have good enough evidence to
conduct such a scandalous search and seizure. The fact that he used
only information supplied by other students is completely
unreasonable, Wilson had other reports of their friendship from staff
members, who had identified Savana and Marissa as apart of an

unusually rowdy group at the schools opening dance in August, during

which alcohol and cigarettes were found in the girls bathroom. While
it isnt hard to see how Wilson connected these events with Savana, it
is still not factual evidence of any misbehavior condoned by the girls,
not to mention that the party happened a long time ago. So it cant
be used against Savana in any way because it has nothing to do with
this incident. Also the case does not state who brought the alcohol or
cigarettes to the school event, so it could have very well been other
students that brought the items. After the strip search conducted by
Wilson, there was no evidence found on either Marissa or Savana.
So did Wilsons search of Savana Reddings person violate her 4th
Amendment rights? Yes, with out a doubt he had no clear evidence of
conducting such an intrusive search on Savana. Using only information
produced from other students, Wilson associated Savana with a
incident that could have had nothing to do with her.