Opinion ID: 3050150
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Search was Permissible in Scope

Text: [11] Under the T.L.O. framework, the search of a student by a public school official must also be permissible in its scope. See 469 U.S. at 341-42. A search is permissible in its scope if “the measures adopted are reasonably related to the objectives of the search and not excessively intrusive in light of the age and sex of the student and the nature of the infraction.” Id. at 342. [12] As to scope of search, courts have looked to a number of factors. Many have considered, for example, the importance of the governmental interest at stake. Compare Cornfield, 991 F.2d at 1322-23 (upholding strip search aimed at finding drugs); Williams, 936 F.2d at 887 (accord), with Beard v. Whitmore Lake Sch. Dist., 402 F.3d 598, 605 (6th Cir. 2005) (invalidating strip search aimed at finding stolen money and noting that “a search undertaken to find money serves a less weighty governmental interest than a search undertaken for items that pose a threat to the health or safety of students, such as drugs or weapons”). Others have considered the size of the contraband to be found. See Williams, 936 F.2d at 887 (“Defendants were not unreasonable, in light of the item sought . . . a small vial containing suspected narcotics, . . . in conducting a search so personally intrusive in nature.”). Some have also considered the physical setting and circumstances surrounding a search in determining the search’s overall reasonableness. See, e.g., Cornfield, 991 F.2d at 1323; Singleton v. Bd. of Educ., 894 F. Supp. 386, 391 (D. Kan. 1995). We assess each of these factors in turn and conclude that, under the facts of this case, Defendants’ search of Redding’s person was permissible. [13] We begin by assessing the importance of the governmental interest at stake: barring the unauthorized use of pre12868 REDDING v. SAFFORD USD #1 scription drugs on school premises. While the inherent risks posed by prescription drugs, particularly ibuprofen, may not be as grave as the risks posed by the illegal substances at issue in some of the other cases, see, e.g., Cornfield, 991 F.2d at 1322, it cannot be denied that prescription drugs have the potential to do great harm if misused. Wilson was specifically informed by Schwallier, the school nurse, that the pill in question was available only by prescription and thus had reason to take its potential distribution to other students seriously. Put more broadly, Defendants had a strong interest both in safeguarding students entrusted to their care from the harm posed by the misuse of prescription drugs and in enforcing the school’s official policy, which prohibited the use, possession, and distribution of such drugs without permission. In addition, because Defendants had experienced at least one prior incident involving the misuse of prescription drugs, had recently been told that Jordan had become violent and sick to his stomach after taking pills given to him by a classmate, and were told that other students were planning to take pills together, they had good reason to be extra vigilant in monitoring the drugs’ unauthorized use. The first factor, therefore, favors Defendants. [14] Next, we turn to the size of the contraband to be found. This factor favors Defendants, as well. In Williams, the Sixth Circuit held that because school administrators were searching for “a small vial containing suspected narcotics,” their “personally intrusive” search of the suspected student’s person was not unreasonable. 936 F.2d at 887. Here, Defendants were similarly searching Redding for something small: pills. Moreover, they searched Redding’s person only after receiving reliable information that Redding had pills, failing to find the pills in Redding’s backpack, and observing that she was wearing clothes without pockets. Cf. id. (noting that “[a]fter [the student’s] locker and purse were searched, it was reasonable for [the defendant] to suspect the girl may be concealing the contraband on her person”). In light of these factors, we hold that Defendants did not exceed the permissible scope of REDDING v. SAFFORD USD #1 12869 the search when they asked Redding to remove her clothing and conducted a search of her person. [15] Finally, we conclude that Defendants administered the search in a reasonable manner. The search of Redding’s person was conducted by two employees who were of the same gender as Redding, and the search took place in the privacy of the school nurse’s office with the door securely locked. Cf. Beard, 402 F.3d at 606 (noting that “[t]he fact that the search[ ] . . . did not occur in the presence of only school officials, but rather in the presence of other students, . . . supports the conclusion that the search[ ] w[as] unreasonable”). Redding was not physically touched in any way during the search, and she was not asked to remove her bra or underwear. Furthermore, Defendants returned Redding’s clothing and permitted her to get dressed as soon as the search was over. See, e.g., Cornfield, 991 F.2d at 1323 (upholding a search under similar conditions); Singleton, 894 F. Supp. at 391 (accord). Under those facts, we cannot say that Defendants’ search of Redding’s person exceeded the permissible scope prescribed by the Supreme Court in T.L.O. In a related vein, Redding argues that Defendants’ search of her person exceeded its permissible scope because Defendants failed to utilize the least restrictive means possible. Specifically, Redding argues that Defendants did not contact Redding’s mother prior to conducting the search or have Redding remove her clothing behind a screen. The Supreme Court has repeatedly held, however, that “reasonableness” under the Fourth Amendment does not require adherence to the least restrictive means. In rejecting a similar argument in Board of Education v. Earls, 536 U.S. 822 (2001), for example, the Court emphasized: “[R]easonableness under the Fourth Amendment does not require employing the least intrusive means, because ‘the logic of such elaborate lessrestrictive-alternative arguments could raise insuperable barriers to the exercise of virtually all search-and-seizure powers.’ ” Id. at 837 (quoting United States v. Martinez-Fuerte, 12870 REDDING v. SAFFORD USD #1 428 U.S. 543, 556-57 (1976)) (internal alteration omitted); see also Vernonia Sch. Dist. 47J v. Acton, 515 U.S. 646, 663 (1995) (“We have repeatedly refused to declare that only the ‘least intrusive’ search practicable can be reasonable under the Fourth Amendment.”). Because Redding’s argument in this respect has already been considered and rejected by the Supreme Court, we decline to credit it here.