“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.”

So reads the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America. Proposed in 1789 and ratified in 1791; the Fourth Amendment serves to protect U.S. citizens from unjust and unnecessary search and seizures. Such as the First Amendment for free speech, the rights entitled to a students are somewhat decreased.

A 1985 Supreme Court ruling gave schools the right to search a student based solely on reasonable suspicions, not probable cause. This ruling is to be further tested in the coming weeks.

In 2003, a 13-year-old Middle School student in Arizona was forced to strip down in front of two female school officials in pursuit of the equivalent of two Advils. 

Savana Redding, then in eighth grade, was suspected of carrying prescription-strength ibuprofen pills, the equivalent of two Advils. The Safford Unified School District bans the use of prescription and over-the-counter drug use. A student was found in possession of pills, and then told Safford Middle School officials (while faced with punishment) that Redding supplied them the drugs.

Redding then was brought into the vice principal’s office, where Redding’s backpack was searched. No drugs were found, so she was told to remove her shirt and pants. No drugs were found, so she was then told to move aside her bra and stretch the waistband of her underwear, exposing her breasts and pelvic area. No drugs were found.

Redding says the school was not justified in believing she would hide pills in her underwear, saying they did not pose a serious enough public health threat to warrant a strip search.

Redding has been an honor roll student, and had no record of disciplinary problems or substance abuse. No attempt was made to corroborate the student’s claims that it was Redding. Anyway, it’s not like the student claimed that Redding had anything on her, it was that the student had received pills from her. Also, attempts were not made to contact Redding’s parents before the search.

The question raised in this situation is how far can a school go in their pursuit to crack down on banned substances? It is one thing to have been searching for a drug such as heroine or cocaine, but when the drug in question is the equivalent of Advil, did they go too far?

Reasonable suspicion is very loosely defined and enforced, but an uncorroborated claim of a fellow student hardly should fit the definition. The school officials made up their minds that they knew she had drugs on her (regardless of the amount) and that they would find them.

Safford Middle School overstepped their bounds in searching Redding they way they did. What did they hope to accomplish? An imminent threat was not present, and acting as if there was is rather unfair. It sets a very bad precedent.

What is next? Well they force a student to strip in searching for an iPod or cell phone? It may seem like comparing apples to oranges, but essentially it is the same deal. While still not allowed in school, an iPod or cell phone won’t hurt a student any more than two Advils would. This sets a precedent for schools to be able to search whenever they feel for anything that is not allowed in school, based purely on hearsay.

Safford Middle School grossly overreacted to the situation. She should not have been told to remove her clothing; there was no reason for the school to believe she was hiding them under her clothing. Also, there was no physical evidence to point to Redding hiding the pills in her underwear.

What Safford Middle School did clearly violated Redding’s rights, and if the Supreme Court does not side with Redding, more schools are sure to follow.