Arizona School's Search for Drugs Becomes all Too Personal

Brendan Morse
News Editor

At what point does a schools search for drugs become nothing short of absurd? Here’s when: The U.S. Supreme Court is currently reviewing the case Safford United School District No. 1 v. Redding, in which 19 year old Savana Redding claims that her constitutional rights were violated in 2003 when the Arizona middle school forced her to undergo a strip search on the suspicion that she possessed “prescription strength” ibuprofen.

So now, after a mere two year hiatus, the controversy of students rights once again demands the full attention of the nation’s highest court.

Across the country, any school with a conscience has realized that cracking down on student drug use should be a forefront priority. According to the U.S. Department of Justice, a 2005 study estimated that twenty five percent of students grades nine to twelve admitted that “someone had offered, sold, or given them an illegal drug on school property.”

But out of the ten drug categories the Department of Justice lists as “illicit,” one would have to make a serious stretch to fit in prescription Ibuprofen - especially considering that one tablet is about as dangerous as two Advil.

So what caused the Arizona Safford Middle School to deem a strip search necessary? What blatant evidence was there that convicted Redding of possessing illegal Ibuprofen? This is what makes the case stand out in such a troubling manner.

According to statements released by both sides, Vice Principal Kerry Wilson investigated Redding after a fellow peer accused Redding of giving her Ibuprofen pills. Redding had had no previous record for misbehavior, while the accuser – along with the ibuprofen - was found in possession of a cigarette and numerous small knives. Despite this, Redding’s backpack was immediately searched. When the the school found nothing, she was escorted down to the school nurse’s office and forced to strip down to her underwear while the nurse and two other female assistants inspected her for signs of possession.

In the end the school was unable to confiscate any pills, or come across any piece of evidence that would imply that Redding had done anything wrong.

In this day and age, where frivolous lawsuits have become engrained in our culture, administrators are undoubtedly going to do whatever it takes ensure that illegal drug trafficking be put to a complete stop - especially among the twelve and thirteen year old demographic.

In what frame of mind should the “he-said, she-said” quarrelling apparent in every middle school be taken as serious grounds for any invasive student investigation, let alone a strip search? Had this been Redding’s fifteenth drug bust in the last two months, one might have arguable grounds for declaring search justified. But treating a student with no prior record in this manner due to accusations by a fellow peer is not only unwarranted – but utterly ridiculous.

The other question that needs to be asked is where were the parents? It shouldn’t matter if Redding had stepped onto the campus intoxicated with pills falling out of her pockets – the reason ‘adolescent’ and ‘adult’ are two different words is that the first implies some sort of parental guardianship. How hard should it be for school administrators to pick up the phone and state; “Your daughter has been suspected of possessing prescription drugs, which is against school policy. Do we have your permission to (insert unconstitutional act here)?” As simple a task as this may seem, the Safford Middle School’s administrators are apparently far too incompetent to do so.

Going beyond the school, the Supreme Court itself should take some of the blame for Redding’s accusation. Over the last fifty years, the Court has been increasingly aggressive in limiting the rights of the student, while at the same time giving legal leeway for schools to conduct investigations without substantial evidence. The last major ruling came in 1985, when the court decided that public schools’ were allowed to search a student’s backpack or purse without reasonable cause.

In setting precedents such as the 1985 ruling, the court should realize that they have blown the door wide open for schools across the country to encroach on student rights without having to worry about the legal ramifications. Unless the court decides to make a stand, student’s rights cases will unavoidably continue to remain an active part of Supreme Court judicial rule for the foreseeable future. As for Safford United School District No. 1 v. Redding, the Supreme Court is expected to reach a resolution in the upcoming months.

Maybe they’ll get it right this time.