*1 #1 еt al. DISTRICT SAFFORD UNIFIED SCHOOL REDDING FOR COURT OF APPEALS CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES THE NINTH CIRCUIT Argued April 200 9 Decided June No. 08-479.
Souter, J., Court, opinion Roberts, delivered the in J., which C. Scalia, Kennedy, JJ., and Breyer, Alito, joined, and and in Ste- which Ginsburg, JJ., joined vens and as Stevens, J., to Parts I—III. filed an opinion concurring part dissenting part, Ginsburg, J., in in in which joined, post, p. Ginsburg, J., opinion 379. filed concurring part an in part, post, p. dissenting Thomas, J., opinion 381. filed an concurring in part, post, p. judgment part dissenting 382. argued Wright petitioners. Matthew W. the cause for With him on the briefs was David K. Pauole. argued
David A. O’Neil the cause for the United States urging as amicus curiae reversal. With him the brief then-Acting were Acting Solicitor Kneedler, General As- Attorney Deputy sistant Hertz, General Solicitor General Katyal, Schaitman, Leonard Kamenshine, Robert Mark Philip Pennak, Jurith, Edward H. Linda V. Priebe, H. Ro- Stephen senfelt, Freid, Dell’Orto, H. Daniel J. and Karen L. Lambert. argued respondent.
Adam B. the cause for With Wolf Boyd, Hopper, him on the brief were Graham A. M. Allen *4 Shapiro, Steven R. Macdonald, Bruce G. Pe Andrew J. * Joseph and tersen, Daniel Pochoda. Jr., R. Day, Negrón, *David Francisco M. and Thomas E. M. Hutton filed a for as amici brief the National School Association et al. Boards curiae urging reversal. Briefs of amici curiae urging the affirmance were filed for Juvenile Law Levick; L. by
Center al. Marsha et for National Social the Association of Carolyn Polowy, Carpenter, Julia M. I. D. by Workers et al. Michael and Simpson; Whitehead, for John Clint by the Rutherford Institute et al. W. Bolick, Dranias, Timothy Lynch, Ilya Shapiro; Nicholas C. and and H. Raymond Brescia. by the Urban Justice Center et al. the Court. opinion
Justice Souter delivered 13-year-old Fourth The issue here is whether a student’s subjected right to she a Amendment was violated when was acting underpants of her school officials search bra and pre- brought suspicion that forbidden reasonable had she drugs scription to Because and over-the-counter school. suspect presented a dan- there were no reasons to ger underwear, hold or were concealed her we is but there rea- Constitution, search did violate the because clarity right question with which was estab- son search lished, the the unconstitutional officialwho ordered liability. qualified immunity entitled to from I question immediately prior The events search 13-year-old Redding’s began math class Safford Savana prin- day in The assistant Middle School one October 2003. Kerry cipal of the came into the room and school, Wilson, go her There, to his he showed a asked Savana to office. day planner, unzipped open in which desk, and flat on his lighters, permanent marker, and knives, there were several cigarette. planner asked whether the was Wilson Savana days had lent she said it but that a few before she hers; was, that none of to her stated Mend, it Marissa Glines. Savana belonged planner items in to her. prescription- then showed Savana four white Wilson 400-mg strength ibuprofen pills, one over-the-counter 200-mg pill, pain naproxen inflammation blue all used permission. school rules without advance but banned under pills. anything Sa- about the He asked Savana if she knew then told Savana that she did not. Wilson vana answered pills giving report these that she that he had received agreed to let Wilson it and fellow Savana denied students; belongings. as- Romero, Helen an administrative her they together Wilson office, with sistant, came into the backpack, finding nothing. Savana’s searched *5 point, At that Wilson instructed Romero to take Savana to the pills. school nurse’s office to search her clothes for Peggy Romero and the nurse, Sehwallier, asked Savana to jacket, leaving remove her socks, and her in shoes, stretch (both pants pockets), and a T-shirt without which she was Finally, then pull asked remove. Savana was told her bra pull out and to the side and shake it, and to out the elastic underpants, exposing on her pelvic thus her breasts and area degree. pills to some No were found. against
Savana’s mother suit filed Safford Unified School conducting District #1, Wilson, Romero, and Sehwallier strip search in violation of Savana’s Fourth Amendment (hereinafter rights. petitioners) The individuals moved for summary judgment, raising qualified immunity. a defense of granted The District Court for District of Arizona ground motion on the there was no Fourth Amendment panel violation, and a of the Ninth Circuit affirmed. 504 (2007). F. 3d 828 closely sitting
A divided Circuit bane, however, en re Following two-step protocol evaluating versed. qualified immunity, claims of see Saucier v. Katz, 533 U. S. (2001), strip 194, the Ninth Circuit held that the unjustified was under Fourth Amendment test for Jersey searches of children school set out in officials New (1985). v. T. L. O., U. S. 531 F. 3d 1081-1087 (2008). applied qualified The Circuit then test for immu nity, right clearly and found that Savana’s established at “ '[tjhese personal privacy the time of the search: notions of “clearly they par are all established” in that inhere in of us, ticularly teenagers, middle are inherent in the privacy proscription component of the Fourth Amendment’s against (quoting Id., unreasonable searches.’” 1088-1089 Cty. Bd., Brannum v. Overton 516 F. 3d School (CA6 2008)). summary judg upshot was reversal of affirming judgments Wilson, ment as to in favor while the administrative Sehwallier, nurse, Romero, the school *6 370 they independent decision- not acted as
assistant, since had 3d, makers. F. at 1089. 531 (2009), granted and now af- S. 1130 certiorari,
We U. part, part, firm in reverse in and remand.
II “right people the to be secure The Fourth Amendment persons against sei- searches and in their . . unreasonable . generally requires officer to have zures” a law enforcement conducting probable ex- a search. “Probable cause cause for [an officer’s] within ists where ‘the facts and circumstances trustworthy reasonably knowledge [he] in- and of which had [are] a man of in themselves to warrant formation sufficient has belief that’ an offеnse been reasonable caution Brinegar being States, 160, 338 U. S. is v. United committed,” (1949) (quoting States, 267 U. S. 175-176 Carroll v. United (1925)), bearing on that offense and that evidence 132, place to will be found in the be searched. “requires recognized setting
In T.L. we that the school O., activity suspicion of illicit modification of the level of some justify at and held that search,” S., needed to 469 U. balancing govern- by “a careful for searches school officials public private suggests in- mental and interests standard of served a Fourth Amendment terest best probable stops id., cause,” at short of reasonableness that suspi- applied thus a standard of reasonable 341. We have legality of a school administrator’s cion to determine have at held student, id., search of a scope permissible when the in its school search “will objectives reasonably adopted to the related measures are light age excessively intrusive the search and not infraction,” nature of and the and sex student id., 342. at implicit probable an cause have on
A number of our cases
knowledge
sus-
bearing
of reasonable
element
reliable
knowledge com-
attempted
picion,
out the
to flesh
as we have
ponent by looking
degree
imply
to the
to which known facts
prohibited
g.,
e.
conduct, see,
Williams,
Adams v.
407 U. S.
(1972);
(Marshall,
143, 148
dissenting),
id., 160, n.
J.,
specificity of the
g., Spinelli
received,
information
see, e.
v.
(1969),
United States,
Ill A policies prohibit strictly In this the case, school’s the non- possession, any drug medical use, or sale of on school grounds, “‘[a]ny including prescription or over-the-counter drug, except permission those for which to use in school has ” granted pursuant policy.’ App. been to Board Pet. Cert. 128a.1 A week before was another searched, Savana object rule, When the a school search is the enforcement a school legiti assumes, course, legitimacy. a valid search the rule’s But macy goes it usually saying of the rule without as does here. Court O., Jersеy T. L. New (1985), plainly n. 9 that said 469 U. S. standards of for schools are for to determine conduct school administrators n without appreciate by lacking experience to second-guessing courts instances, may arbitrary Except patently Fourth what be needed. (no of the school’sadminis- Romero relation student, Jordan assistant), Principal principal Assistant and trative told bringing drugs were that “certain students Wilson taking weapons campus,” sick after that he had been got App. pills 8a. On “he from classmate.” some boy morning a white the same handed Wilson October given pill He told Wil- he had him. said Marissa Glines pills planning at lunch. to take that students were son Peggy nurse, Schwallier, the school Wilson learned from only pre- mg, pill ibuprofen 400 available that the scription. out of class. Outside Wilson then called Marissa plan- day teacher handed Wilson classroom, Marissa’s containing contra- reach, various ner, found within Marissa’s back to his office. items. escorted Marissa band Wilson requested presence Ma- Romero, In of Helen Wilson open pockets her wallet. Marissa rissa turn her out pill, produced razor ones, and a blade. a blue several white pill came and Marissa from, asked where the blue Wilson “ gave guess slipped me the IBU she answered, ‘I it in when *8 meant, whom she Id., 400s.’” asked at 13a. When Wilson Redding.’” replied, then Ibid. Wilson Marissa “‘Savana enquired day planner de- contеnts; and its Marissa about knowing anything not ask nied about them. Wilson did any followup questions to whether there Marissa determine presently pills: any neither had was likelihood that Savana asking pills nor from Savana when Marissa received might hiding them. where Savana obviously do given, it should rule as analysis Amendment takes the as imperative of explain the in this is no need here either to ease. There the school’s rule schools, explain the reasons for keeping drugs out of or permission. benign, without advance no how banning drugs, all matter identify pills powders, pharmacologists trained Teachers are not plenary The ban fast. drug ban has to be enforceable and an effective unreason- sense, that the search was basis to claim makes and there no shortcoming the rule it was aimed owing able to some defect enforcing. immediately recognize pill,
Sehwallier did the blue but provided through poison information control hotline2 indi- pill 200-mg cated antiinflammatory that the was a an dose of drug, generically naproxen, called available over the counter. subjected At Wilson’sdirection, Marissa was then to a search underpants by of her bra and Romero and Sehwallier, as Sa- vana was later pills. on. search revealed no additional juncture
It was at this that Wilson called Savana into his day planner. office and showed her the Their conversatiоn friendly established that Savana and Marissa were on terms: knowledge while she denied of the contraband, Savana ad- day planner mitted that the was hers and that she lent had it reports to Marissa. friendship Wilson had other of their from staff members, who had identified Savana Marissa part unusually rowdy as group an opening at the school’s August, during dance in cigarettes which alcohol and were girls’ found in the bathroom. Wilson had reason to connect girls with this contraband, for Wilson knew that Jordan principal Romero had told the that before the dance, he had party been at a at Savana’s house where alcohol was served. pills Marissa’s statement that the came from Savana was sufficiently plausible suspicion thus to warrant that Savana pill was involved in distribution. suspicion enough justify
This Wilson’s a search backpack clothing.3 of Savana’s and outer If a student is 2Poison control country centers across the help maintain 24-hour hot to provide poison lines exposure “immediate access to management in structions potential poisons.” and information on American Association Centers, Poison Control http://www.aapcc.org/dnn/About/ online at (all tabid/74/Default.aspx 19, 2009, Internet materials as June visited file). available in Clerk of Court’s ease *9 question justification There is no here that for the school officials’ required search was in accordаnce with the T. L. O. standard of reasonable suspicion, for ground expecta it is common had a reasonable Savana privacy covering personal carry tion of things she chose to in her S., backpack, through cf. 469 U. at and that Wilson’s decision to look it meaning “search” within of the Fourth Amendment. pills, giving is
reasonably she suspected out contraband of person carrying in reasonably suspected and them on her of in carryall of student uniform an item that has become suspicion pill today. places of If reasonable most Wilson’s support of searches not understood to distribution were any justify backpack, search it would outer clothes and pres- bag, making. in her look into Savana’s And the worth privacy was not office, of relative Wilson’s ence and subsequent any excessively Romero’s intrusive, more than clothing. of her outer search
B company, part parties with Savana’s Here it is that extending to the at behest claim that the search Wilson’s point pull making underwear was constitution- of her out her step in ally label for this final unreasonable. The exact way though strip important, fair search intrusion is not speak directed it. and Savana of Romero Schwallier “pull then underwear, to her remove her clothes down underpants. Id., on her her the elastic band out” bra and they Although stated that did 23a. Romero Schwallier anything instructions, their when followed not see Savana strip App. not define 135a, we would Pet. for Cert. way consequences in a and its Fourth Amendment looking guarantee litigation and how who was about would very pulling her un- fact of much was seen. Savana’s body away presence of the two offi- from her derwear necessarily exposed her her who were able to see cials subjective degree, pelvic to some and both breasts and area privacy sup- expectations personal and reasonable societal categorically port distinct, a search as the treatment such part justification requiring on the distinct elements clothing going beyond of outer a search authorities belongings. against privacy expectation such subjective Savana’s embarrassing, it as her inherent account search is *10 frightening, humiliating. and The reasonableness her ex standard) pectation (required by the Fourth Amendment is experiences young peo indicated the consistent of other ple similarly vulnerability searched, whose adolescent inten patent exposure. sifies intrusiveness of the See Brief for National Association of Social et Workers al. as Amici Hyman 6-14; Curiae & The Perone, Other Side School may Violence: Educator Policies Practices that Contrib Psychology ute to Student Misbehavior, 36 School J. (1998) (strip search can “result in serious emotional dam age”). simply The common reaction of these adolescents registers obviously meaning expos different of a search ing body experience from the of nakedness or near un Changing gym dress other school circumstances. is getting ready play; exposing responding for a search is suspected an wrongdoers fairly accusation reserved for degrading understood as so that a number of communities strip have decided that searches in are schools never reason may able and have banned them no matter what the facts e.g., City Dept. Reg. be, see, New York of Education, (2005), p. http://docs.nycenet.edu/docu No. A-432, online at (“Under share/dsweb/Get/Document-21/A-432.pdf no circum conducted”). strip-search stances shall of a student be indignity The of the search not, course, it, does outlaw implicate but it does the rule of reasonableness as stated actually [be] T. O., L. that “the search as conducted reason ably scope justified related in to the circumstances which (internal place.” interference the first atS., 469 U. omitted). quotation scope permissible, marks will be excessively light that is, when it “not intrusive in age and sex of the student and the nature the infraction.” Id., at 342. suspicion
Here, content of the de- failed match gree pills of intrusion. Wilson knew beforehand that the prescription-strength ibuprofen were and over-the-counter naproxen, equivalent pain Advil, common relievers two the nature been aware of must have Aleve.4 He
one searching specific for, and he was threat limited *11 quantities anything in that will just can be taken about while large suspect to that no reason harm, had real Wilson do being drugs passed or indi- around, that were amounts pills. receiving great numbers were vidual students hiding suspected that was have Savana Wilson Nor could suggest, painkillers in Petitioners her underwear. common acknowledged, hid[e] universally that “students ... aas truth clothing,” Reply Peti- Brief for their or under contraband smattering eases of with students and cite tioners But when underwear, id., 8-9. their contraband categorically to of a search down intrusiveness extreme justification requires body in sus- some of an adolescent general background possibilities pected short; fall facts, suspicion that it search that extensive calls for reasonable pay nondangerous school contraband does will off. But places, specter is in intimate and there no raise the of stashes general any practice among in the record of Safford evidence thing hiding sort of in under- students of that Middle School suggested to that nor Marissa Wilson wear; neither Jordan preceding doing that, search of was Marissa Savana yielded nothing. never even de- that Wilson ordered Wilson pills from Savana; termined when Marissa had received days weigh heavily that would before, if it a few had been presently against any reasonable that Savana had conclusion pills person, her her much less in underwear. missing suspected from the facts that sum, In what was any danger pointed the stu- indication to to Savana drugs quantity, power or their dents from pills any carrying suppose to her that Savana was reason mg ibuprofen. tablet, caplet, gel caplet contains 200 See An Advil Drugs, Dietary Sup Nonprescription Physicians’ Desk Reference (28th 2006). caplet ed. An Aleve contains plements, and Herbs 674 id., at 675. mg naproxen mg and 20 sodium. See underwear. think We that the combination these defi- finding ciencies was to fatal the search reasonable. holding,
In so we mean to cast no ill reflection on the principal, assistant for the record raises no doubt that his throughout motive was to eliminate from his school protect gone from students what Jordan Romero had through. protect are Parents known to overreact to their danger, responsibility children from and a school officialwith safety may tend do the same. The difference places the Fourth Amendment limits on the official, even high degree pay with deference courts must professional judgment. the educator’s though, We do mean, to make it clear that the T L. O. con- scope requires cern limit a school search to reasonable *12 support suspicion danger the of reasonable of or of resort to hiding underwear wrongdoing evidence of before a search reasonably quantum leap can make the from outer clothes backpacks exposure parts. meaning of intimate The degradation subject may of such a and the search, its reason- ably place category feel, a search that intrusive in a of its demanding specific suspicions. own its own
IV searching qualified A school official a student is “entitled immunity clearly where law established does show that search violated Fourth Amendment.” Pearson v. (2009). Callahan, 555 S. 223, U. 243-244 To be established clearly, very however, there is no need that “the action in question previously [have] been held unlawful.” v. Wilson (1999). Layne, unconstitutionality 526 603, U. 615 The of S. outrageous obviously will unconstitutional, conduct this being Judge “[t]he said, as Posner has that easiest reason, Morgan, cases don’t 914 846, even arise.” K. H. v. F. 2d (CA7 1990). outrage, But even an as to action less than can “officials still be on that their conduct violates es- notice Hope v. circumstances.” law in novel factual tablished ... (2002). 536 U. Pelzer, S. limit the intrusiveness L. officials to
T. O. directed school age light of the student and “in and sex search, of a and as we infraction,” S., 469 U. the nature strip length, just said at some the intrusiveness have justifiably the cir related to here cannot be seen as search have the lower courts cumstances. But we realize divergent regarding T L. O. how the reached cоnclusions applies to such searches. standard judges mi- T L. as the en banc A number of have read O. up- nority here. Sixth Circuit Ninth Circuit did high drug, strip with- of a student for held search school body. any suspicion to her out were hidden next (1991). Ellington, 881, 882-883, 887 936 F. 2d Williams considering immunity strip qualified other courts And abstractions, have T. L. “a searches read O. as series seeming to the hand, one a declaration of deference judgments Talla- other,” Jenkins v. officials, of school on the (en (CA11 1997) dega City Ed., Bd. 115 F. 3d banc), clearly impossible con- “to establish which made it variety [in] right... the wide of a Amendment tours Fourth possible settings from those involved in different 323 F. 3d Roberts, Thomas v. T. L. O.” ibid. See also itself, (CA11 2003) immunity (granting qualified to a teacher group strip police of a officer who conducted a *13 $26). missing grade looking for a fifth class when opinion from our own are think of We these differences immunity require enough for offi- the school substantial suggest entitlement to in this would not that cials case. We guaranteed product qualified immunity of disuniform is the courts, and federal, state, the in the other views of law group judges, single judge, a of dis- or even the fact that a automatically right agrees of does not about the contours a That said, if been clear. the we have render law unclear differently strip viewing searches however, the cases way enough, from the we see them are numerous with well- majority dissenting opinions, reasoned and to counsel doubt suffiсiently prior that we were clear in the of statement law. qualified immunity We conclude is warranted.
V strip Redding search of Savana was unreasonable and petitioners a violation of the Fourth Amendment, but Wilson, protected Romero, and Schwallier are nevertheless from lia bility through qualified immunity. here Our conclusions do question liability peti not resolve, however, the of the tioner Safford Unified #1 School District under Monell City Dept. New York Servs., Social U. S. (1978), judg the claim Ninth Circuit did not address. The part ment of Ninth the is Circuit therefore in and affirmed part, reversed in and this case for remanded consideration .is of the Monell claim.
It ordered. is so Ginsbueg Justice Stevens, with whom joins, Justice concurring part dissenting part. Jersey (1985),
In O., New v. T. L. U. the Court S. two-step inquiry determining established reason ableness of school official’s decision search a student. “ explained, ‘justified First, must Court search ” inception’ by presence grounds its of “reasonable suspecting up will that the the search turn evidence violating student violated or the law or the rules has either Id., at 342. the search must be Second, school.” “permissible scope,” which the meas its is achieved “when reasonably objectives adopted ures are related to age excessively light intrusive in Ibid. sex the student and the nature the infraction.” added). (emphasis Nothing today basic frame- this Court decides alters simply applies T. It L. O. to unconstitutional work. declare *14 380 strip 13-year-old
a
of a
that was based
search
honors student
hiding
groundless suspicion
might
medicine
on
she
a
in which
in
case
is,
essence,
in her underwear. This
clearly outrageous
clearly
conduct.
meets
established law
“
require
long
‘[i]t
I
a constitu-
does not
have
believed
13-year-old
to
that a nude
tional scholar
conclude
magni-
rights of some
child is an invasion of constitutional
concurring
part
(opinion
in
Id., at
382,
tude.’”
n.
dissenting
part) (quoting
v.
The Court reaches a conclusion Appeals immunity based on fact that various Courts adopted seemingly divergent ap- T L. O.’s have views about plication strip Ante, to But the clar- searches. 377-378. ity right depend of a should on whether well-established jurists precedents. have And while our cases misread our “divergence among previously have noted the of views” deciding immunity, qualified courts whether to extend (2009) (noting g., Callahan, e. Pearson v. 555 U. S. constitutionality “eonsent- the unsettled the so-called doctrine); Layne, v. 526 U. S. once-removed” Wilson (1999) (considering constitutionality conflicting views on the allowing practice to of law the media enter enforcement’s arrests), attempted private film we home observe and only spare officialsfrom relied on that have consideration predict having law,’” “‘to course constitutional future (quoting U. Navarette, 434 S. id., at 617 Procunier added). (1978);emphasis by contrast, we chart case, In this merely path. whether the decide no new constitutional We strip Redding, facts, these decision search Savana *15 prohibited under T L. O. Our conclusion leaves the bound aries of the law undisturbed.* Appeals properly rejected
The Court of the school official’s qualified immunity defense, I and would affirm that court’s judgment entirety. in its
Justice Ginsburg, in concurring and in part dissenting part. agree
I
Principal
with the Court that Assistant
Wilson’s
subjection
13-year-old
Redding
humiliating
Savana
to a
stripdown search violated the Fourth Amendment.
IBut
agree
also
with Justice
ante, at 379-380 and this
Stevens,
page (opinion concurring
part
dissenting
part),
in
in
opinion
Jersey
(1985),
our
in New
O.,
T. L.
v.
Fellow student Marissa Glines, with her pocket, Redding supplying App. accused them. 13a. pill among pills Asked where the blue several white pocket guess Glines’s came from, it answered: “I Glines slipped gave in when she me the IBU 400s.” Ibid. Asked responded: Redding.” next “who is sheV’, Glines “Savana followup Ibid. As the Court observes, ante, 376, at no questions were asked. Wilson did not test Glines’s accusa- veracity by asking give Redding tion for Glines whеn did her pills, Any purpose. where, what reasonable search pills inspection Redding’s for the would have when ended backpack jacket nothing. pockets yielded Wilson had suspect, experience prior no cause to based on at the school Redding pills or clues in case, this hidden had —contain- ing equivalent two Advils one Aleve—in her under- body. wear or To make worse, matters Wilson did not re- Redding, go lease home, to return to class or to after the case, Bilbrey fact, *In in T. L. we approval O. cited with a Ninth Circuit Brown, (1984), strip performed F. search 2d which held that S., 469 U. at under similar circumstances violated Constitution. standard). 2; id., Bilbrey’s suspicion 6 (adopting n. and n. reasonable chair his office he made her sit on a outside Instead, search. attempt point to call her At he for over two hours. no did authority parent. not be of that order should Abuse of immunity. by official shielded a stu O., a teacher discovered
In T. L. where contrast smoking lavatory, con and where dent Redding purse, the search of involved fined student’s body stu of another her on the bare accusation rested Principal reliability no had reason the Assistant dent whose opinion plainly in L. stated T. O. to trust. Court’s *16 controlling A search ordered Fourth Amendment law: “justified inception,” the at crosses official, if its school even “excessively boundary intrusive if it becomes constitutional light age and the nature in of the and sеx of student (internal quotation marks S., the infraction.” 469 U. omitted). at [supposed] infraction,” the slim “the nature Here, “age Redding, suspecting sex,” and and her basis for Savana Principal beyond that Assistant Wil- ibid., doubt establish opinion in this Court’s be reconciled with son’s order cannot Redding abusive, it was L. treatment of T. O. Wilson’s permitted law believe that the was not reasonable him to dissenting join from the I in Court’s it. Justice Stevens immunity qualified plea, acceptance and would of Wilson’s respects. Appeals’ judgment in all the Court of affirm part Thomas, concurring judgment Justice in part. dissenting against agree judgment that the
I with the Court immunity qualified respect should officials with majority, how- ante, at 377-379. Unlike reversed. See Redding did of Savana that the search ever, I would hold majority imposes Amendment. not violate Fourth amorphous vague school administrators. standard on second-guess authority grants judges sweeping also It discipline in maintain officials take to that these measures their schools and ensure the health and safety students in their charge. This intrusion into the deep administration of public schools the Court should return to exemplifies why the common-law doctrine in loco under which parentis “the judiciary reluctant interfere the routine busi ness school administration, schools and allowing teachers to set and enforce rules and to maintain order.” Morse v. Frederick, (2007) U. S. J., concurring). (Thomas, But even under the Fourth es prevailing Amendment test tablished by O., New v. T. L. Jersey 469 U. S. all (1985), petitioners, the school including district, are entitled to judg ment as a matter of law in their favor.
I command of “Although underlying the Fourth Amend ment is always that searches reasonable, and seizures be what reasonable on the depends context within which a search takes at place.” Id., Thus, 337. although public school students retain Fourth Amendment under this rights Court’s id., see precedent, those 333-337, rights “are different . . . than elsewhere; the ‘reasonableness’ inquiry *17 cannot disregard schools’ custodial and tutelary responsi bility for children,” Vernonia Acton, School Disk v. 515 47J (identi U. 646, (1995); O., S. 656 see T. 469 atS., also L. U. 339 fying “the substantial interest of teachers and administra in tors the classroom and school maintaining discipline grounds”). For nearly years 25 this Court has understood that order in the classroom has never been “Maintaining but easy, recent school has often taken years, disorder forms: and violent in the ugly use crime particularly drug schools have become In social Ibid. major problems.” schools, occur are calling discipline frequent “[e]vents rences and sometimes effective action.” immediate, require O., (1975); Goss v. 419 U. S. 580 see also T. L. 469 Lopez, atS.,U. that schools have a need (explaining “legitimate learning can take an in which maintain environment place”). authority to broad reason,
For this school officials retain proper protect preserve a educa- “order and students Id., at Amendment. under the Fourth tional environment” authority requires be able to school officials 339. This that supervision engage as well as schoolchildren, in the “close perfectly against enforc[e] that would be . . . rules conduct by Seeking permissible an Ibid. if undertaken adult.” unique public with this reconcile the Fourth Amendment setting, T. in L. O.held that school Court ” “ “ inception’ ‘justified ‘rea- it is at its is “reasonable” if justified sonably scope which to the circumstances related ” (quoting place.’ at 341-342 Id., in the first interference (1968)). Terry re- The search under Ohio, v. 392 U. S. easily view meets this standard.
A A other school official “search of a student teacher or inception’ ‘justified there are reasonable will be at its when up grounds suspecting turn evidence that the search will violating either the law that the student has violated or is (footnote supra, O., T.L. at 341-342 the rules of the school.” omitted). majority rightly concedes, this search was As the inception justified reasonable at there were its because Redding possessed grounds suspect medication finding rea at A ante, rules. See 373. violated school suspicion but certainties, with hard sonable “does deal probabilities.” Cortez, 449 U. S. with United States (“[T]he require (1981); supra, O., T. L. see also requirement suspicion of absolute ment of is not reasonable satisfy a mere certainty”). more than this standard, To *18 “considerably” wrongdoing required, less is but “hunch” of “satisf[y] required suspicion a is than would needed preponderance United States standard.” of evidence 385 (2002) (internal quotation 534 Arvizu, U. S. marks omitted). evaluating
Furthermore, whether there a reasonable “particularized objective” conducting and basis a search suspected wrongdoing, government based on officials must (in- “totality consider the of the Id., circumstances.” at omitted). quotation ternal spe- marks a School officialshave understanding cialized environment, the habits community, the students, and the concerns of the which “ ‘formulat[e] enables them to certain common-sense conclu- sions about human behavior.’” Sokolow, United States v. (1989) 418). (quoting supra, U. Cortez, S. at And police like officers, school officials are “entitled to make an light [this] assessment of specialized the situation in train- ing familiarity [school].” and with the customs See supra, Arvizu, at 276. petitioners grounds suspect
Here, had reasonable Redding possession prescription nonprescrip- was in prohibition tion in violation of the school’s of the “non- possession, drug” property medical use, or sale of a on school (CA9 2008) (en or at school events. 531 F. 3d banc); (Hawkins, dissenting) (explain- id., see also at 1107 J., “ ing policy “drugs” ‘[a]ny that the school defined to include prescription drug, except or over-the-counter those ”). permission granted’ which to use in school has been As years an matter, initiаl school officials a were aware that few “seriously “spent earlier, student had become ill” and days ingesting prescription several in intensive care” after App. medication obtained from classmate. Fourth 10a. rather, Amendment searches do not occur in a con- vacuum; judicial supra, inquiry. Cortez, text inform the must See drug possession suspicion In 417-418. this instance, problems history with arose at middle school that had “a distributing illegal using prohibited sub- students campus.” App. 7a, stances on 10a. *19 problems had not abated
The school’ssubstance-abuse challenged year, the which is when the 2003-2004 school Redding place. al- found officials had took School search during girls’ cigarettes the first in cohol and the bathroom year group a students noticed that school dance of and including Redding of alcohol. Glines smelled and Marissa Romero, student, another Jordan later, Ibid. Several weeks Redding party reported before the dance had hosted a that tequila. whiskey, 8a, vodka, Id., at she where served provided report as to school officials this 11a. Romero had meeting with officials mother scheduled a result of a his “bec[a]me “sick to his stomach” after Romero violent” and pills night he some that “he had taken one and admitted that got[ten] At 7a-8a, a at 10a-lla. Id., had from classmate.” meeting, “certain were students Romero admitted bringing campus.” weapons Id., 8a, 11a. on at principal a the assistant later, week Romero handed One pill Id., at received from Glines. white that he said he had group planning [were] reported He “that a students 11a. taking pills at Ibid. lunch.” quick light justifiably action in took School officials pill principal took lunchtime deadline. The assistant prescription-strength it as the school nurse who identified subsequent 400-mg ibuprofen. search at 12a. A Id., belongings produced a na- razor blade, a Glines and her 400-mg ibuprofen pills. proxen 200-mg pill, Id., and several received claimed that she had asked, at 13a. When Glines Redding’s plan- Redding. pills A from Ibid. uncovered “several borrowed, which had then ner, Glines lighters, cigarette, permanent several knives, majority ac- as 12a, 14a, Thus, at 22a. Id., marker.” totality knowledges, circum- of relevant ante, 373-374, pills.1 justified Redding search of stances materials knowledge pills and the sure, Redding To be denied negate the reason- does planner. App. 14a. But her denial alone her
B remaining question is whether the search was reason- scope. permissible able L. 0., Under T “a search will be scope reasonably adopted its when the measures are re- *20 objectives excessively lated to the of search the and not light age intrusive in of the sex of and the student and the major- of nature the atS., infraction.” 469 U. 842. The ity Redding’s concludes that the school officials’ search of “‘reasonably scope underwеar not was in related to the justified circumstances which the interference the first place,’” notwithstanding ante, see at 374-377, the officials’ suspicion Redding pill reasonable “was involved dis- According majority, tribution,” ante, at 373. to the required showing “danger reasonable, this school search of power quan- to the students from the of the or their tity” suppose [Redding] carrying aor “reason was pills in her Ante, underwear.” at 376-377. Each of these requirements unjustifiable departure additional is an from setting, bedrock Fourth Amendment law in the school where this Court has heretofore read the Fourth Amendment to grant leeway considerable to school the officials. Because pills school officials searched in a location where the could scope have been hidden, the search reasonable in under L. T. O.
1 majority “subjective finds that societal reasonable expectations personal privacy support... treating]” of this “categori- type “strip search, search,” of it which labels a as cally justification requiring elements of distinct, distinct part beyond going of search school authorities O., Jersey v. T.L. New U. S. suspicion by See 469 able held school officials. (1985) 325, though L. O. had been (finding 345 reasonable even “T. possi- strongest smoking, had the accusation in accused denied all”). ble terms when stated that she not smoke at she did 388 clothing belongings.” Ante, Thus, at 374.2
outer majority’s аlthough view, had reasonable officials person, Redding pills suspicion had on her to believe that par- they greater some level ante, see needed 373-374, suspicion “strip this search.” There ticularized to conduct support of the Amendment. is contortion Fourth no this generally of a has held that the reasonableness The Court scope depends only limited to the on whether it is search’s concealing object capable search. area that is (1999) g., Wyoming Houghton, 307 See, e. U. S. (Police “may passengers’ belongings inspect found in officers object capable concealing aré the car that (1991) (“The search”); S. Jimeno, Florida v. U. expressed generally scope defined its ob of a search (1985) ject”); Johns, United States v. U. S. (search argument plausible “there is reasonable because no object concealed that the of the search could have been *21 packages”); 798, v. 456 U. 820 Ross, in the United States S. (1982) (“A generally to the entire lawful search . . . extends found”).3 may object search be area in which longstanding keeping the “nature rule, In with this proper scope L. infraction” in T. O.delineates referenced way per- to that of a of students in a identical search 2 below, ‘strip search’ for a Like the dissent “I would reserve the term required fully disrobe view of officials.” 531 subject search that its (CA9 J.). 2008) Hawkins, The 1071,1091, (opinion F. n. 1 distinction 3d may be strip slight, at issue in this еase between a search and the search Conner, See, g., e. Sandin v. drawn. but it is a distinction that the law has (1995) (“The strip 472, subjected search, to a Conner 515 U. S. 475 officer Wolfish, 441 U. S. Bell v. area”); inspection an rectal complete with (1979) body 558, (describing inspection of cavities as n. 39 visual search”). “part strip of a 3 involving an adopted has standard for searches The Court a different California, S. Schmerber v. U. body.” into the human “intrusiofn] (1966). the Court’s cases implicate The not 757, 770 search here does however, “physi involve a bodily intrusions, because it not governing did Railway Labor Skinner skin,” intrusion, penetrating cal beneath (1989). Assn., Executives’ U. S. mitted for searches outside e., the school—i. the search must object be limited to the areas where the of that infraction be could concealed. See Horton v. 496 U. S. California, (1990)(“Police may only with a warrant for a rifle search (internal places might quotation where rifles be” marks omit ted)); (“[Pjrobable supra, Ross, at 824 cause to believe that being transported undocumented aliens are in a van will not suitcase”). justify a warrantless search A search permissible scope student therefore is under T L. soO. long objectively as it is reasonable to believe that the area dissenting searched could conceal the The contraband. opinion correctly captured below this Fourth Amendment noting standard, that “if a student were rumored to hаve brought campus policy, a baseball bat on in violation of school pocket patently a search of that student’s shirt would un J.). justified.” (opinion 3d, 531 F. at 1104 of Hawkins, analysis scope of whether the of the search here was permissible straightforward. under that standard is In- majority dispute “general deed, the does not back- ground possibilities” establish that students conceal “contra- acknowledges in their Ante, band at underwear.” 376. It suspicion that school officials had reasonable to look in Red- ding’s backpack clothing and outer if because “Wilson’srea- suspicion pill sonable distribution were not understood support backpack, searches of outer clothes and it would justify any making.” at ma- Ante, worth 374. The jority proceeding any nevertheless concludes that further with the ante, search was see 374-377; unreasonable. See *22 concurring part at ante, also in J., and dis- (Ginsburg, senting part) (“Any pills reasonable search for the would inspection Redding’s backpack have ended when jacket pockets yielded nothing”). support But there is no suspicion Redding for this The reasonable conclusion. possessed dissipate pills purposes the distribution did up simply backpack noth- because the search of her turned ing. eminently It to conclude that the back- was reasonable secreting pills Redding
pack empty was was because supra, placе thought Ross, look. she no one would See (“Contraband plain goods rarely about in are strewn” goods very “by must be withheld their nature such view; view”). public from person
Redding the first to conceal not have been would pills undergarments. 17-Year Hicks, Man Gets in her See (Corbin, Ky.), Drug 7, 2008, Oct. Sentence, Times-Tribune [OxyContin] pp. (Drug “told officialsshe had the 1, 5 courier crotch”); Conley, pills Traffic her Whitehaven: concealed in (Mem- Hydrocodone Appeal Stop Commercial Pills, Yields (“An hydroco- Tenn.), phis, p. Aug. additional 40 3, 2007, B3 Caywood, pills pants”); done in her Police Vehicle were found (Worces- Telegram Drug Arrests, & Chase Leads Gazette “allegedly Mass.), (25-year-old p. had a ter, 2008, A7 June cigar pills of his the waistband tube stuffed with tucked into Dealing Charged pants”); Ec- Hubartt, 23-Year-Old With (Fort Ind.), p. stasy, Wayne, Aug. 8,2007, 2C Journal Gazette (“[W]hile being put squad pants car, his fell he was into orange plastic bag containing pink pills fell down Drug ground”); Sebastian Residents Arrested (Ar- Sept. p. Sting, B2 16, 2006, Journal, Vero Beach Press ”). my pants’ pills restee them he had more ‘down Nor “told today’s decision, will which announces she be last after place in school. safest to secrete contraband by reading majority compounds the “nature error its aspect aas license to of the T. L. O. test of the infraction” particular judge’s of a assessment limit searches based on a majority, scope policy. According of the to the school impermissible “must official because search was spe and limited threat have been aware of nature drugs searching no and because he “had cific he for” being large suspect were amounts of reason receiving passed were around, that individual students *23 great pills.” Ante, numbers at 376. Thus, order finding locate a rationale for a Fourth Amendment violation majority in this case, retreats from its observation that no-drug policy firm school’s “makes is sense, there no owing basis to claim that the search was unreasonable shortcoming to some defect or rule it at was aimed enforcing.” Ante, at n. 1. accepting majority’s
Even it assurances that is not at- tacking certainly attacking the rule’s reasonableness, it is importance. approach directly the rule’s This conflicts with “unwilling adopt T. L. O.in which the Court was a stand- legality dependent ard under upon which the of a search is judge’s importance evaluation of the relative of various school S., rules.” 469 at 342, Indeed, U. n. 9. the Court in expressly rejected proposition majority T. L. O. that the seemingly regarding endorses—that “some rules student justify conduct are nature too ‘trivial’ to a search based upon suspicion.” Ibid.; reasonable id., also n. 9 see (“The promulgation forbidding specified of a rule conduct presumably judgment part reflects a on the of school officials proper that such conduct is order of a destructive suggestion any environment. educational Absent that the guarantee, rule some violates substantive constitutional general judgment”). courts should, as a matter, defer majority’s departs regard The decision in this also from principle another basic the Fourth Amendment: that law vigor enforcement can all officials enforce with the same regulations irrespective perceived impor- rules and of the any long tance of cases, of those rules. “In a line of we have probable per- an said when officer has cause to believe presence, son even minor committed crime his bal- a. ancing private public interests is not in doubt. constitutionally Virginia Moore, arrest reasonable.” (2008). rule for 553 U. S. The Fourth Amendment searches entitled to search is the same: Police officers are underlying regardless perceived triviality law. *24 requiring police explained, “sensitive, to make As have we government case-by-case need,” Atwater of determinations (2001), prohi particular Lago for a Vista, S. 318, 347 v. 532 U. “place conducting police in an a search would bition before impossible spot,” at id., 350. almost “impossible placed majority officials this has school possession ibuprofen by questioning spot” whether enough naproxen to warrant investi- a threat causes severe drug, gation. suspected a street Had the infraction involved scope approved majority implies the the that it would have (relying the “limited ante, at 376 on of the search. See ibid, (re- for”); drugs searching specific was he threat involved). drugs” lying “power ef- the In limited replaced majority that a school rule draws fect, then, the has among drugs one that does. As no with new distinction person prohibited a full search of a student’s result, only agrees drug permitted will if the Court that sufficiently question dangerous. is unwork- Such a test expected to able and officials cannot be unsound. School might possibility that a court later halt searches based on the particular not find at issue is severe that infraction investigation.4 enough to warrant an intrusive Ginsburg “sit on a chair suggests requiring Redding to Justice failing principal’s] office for over two hours” [the outside assistant parents conducting “[a]buse call constitutes an her before ante, immunity.” See authority” that not be official “should shielded obligation no to call at 382. But was under constitutional parents conducting the under Redding’s “[Reasonableness before search: require employing does the least intrusive Fourth Amendment not ar means, logic of such elaborate less-restrictive-alternative because the virtually all insuperable the exercise of guments could raise barriers Independent Dist. School Board Ed. powers.” search-and-seizure (internal (2002) Earls, Cty. No. 92 U. Pottawatomie S. omitted). reason, the same Consti quotation marks brackets For the they “followup questions” after require to ask tution sehool officials did Redding possessed drugs. suspicion that already developed had reasonable Ginsburg, ante, ante, (opinion of 372,376 (majority opinion); at 381 See at J.). sit in chair suggestion requiring Redding to any event, In promulgated by represents A rule judg a school board ment of school officials that the rule is needed to maintain proper “school order” and “a educational environment.” T.L. 469O., U. n. 9. S., Teachers, administrators, and upon “protect the local school board are called both to the... safety personnel” of students and school and “maintain an learning.” (Blackmun, environment conducive Id., at 353 concurring judgment). They J., are tasked with “watch [ing] large over a number of students” who “are inclined to acceptable test the outer boundaries of conduct and to imi peer tate the misbehavior of a if that misbehavior is not dealt quickly.” with Id., at 352. In such an environment, some *25 thing simple pistol peashooter as as a or “water can wreak [havoc] away.” danger posed by until it is taken Ibid. The pills consumption prescription unchecked distribution and of by certainly students no needs elaboration.
Judges qualified second-guess are not to the best manner maintaining quiet for order school environment. judgments, concerning Such institutional like those selec- “rеstraining students] tion of the best methods for from as- saulting abusing drugs one another, alcohol, and commit- ting policy crimes,” id., other “involve a host 342, 9, n. of by representatives, locally choices that must made elected by judges interpreting rather than federal the basic charter country,” of Government for the entire Collins v. Harker Heights, (1992); Regents U. S. cf. Univ. (1985) Ewing, (observing Mich. that v. 474 U. S. fed- evaluating] eral are not to courts “suited the substance disciplinary the multitude of academic or decisions decisions” daily by faculty public “that educa- are made members of deprivation rights, for her two hours amounted to a constitutional required engage interrogations be- school officials are to detailed conducting drugs, only fore the conclusion that the searches for reinforces by pub- daily ill Judiciary equipped second-guess is to decisions made (2006) Banks, Beard 536-537 lic 548 U. S. administrators. Cf. J., concurring in judgment). (Thomas, institutions”). judges a to assume
tional It is mistake for impor- responsibility deciding rules are which school enough and which rules tant to allow for searches invasive are not. second-guess the to
Even if this Court were authorized importance rules, assessment of Court’s policy importance It a crime of this is flawed. is district’s ibuprofen possess prescription-strength to or use without 13-3406(A)(1) § prescription. a See Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. 2008) (West ("A knowingly [pos- Supp. person . shall not . . person drug prescription-only ob- sess оr a unless use pursuant prescrip- prescription-only drug a valid tains the law]”).5 [state pursuant prescriber of a tion who licensed drugs By prohibiting prescription on school unauthorized conducting grounds abide a to ensure students —and prohibition here with schoolrule was consistent —the hardly provision It routine criminal code. state that, enforce rule seems unreasonable for school officials proscribes that amounts to crime. effect, conduct punishing valid reasons Moreover, school districts have possession prescription on school the unauthorized *26 5 many separately crimi idiosyncratic; is not States have Arizona’s law g., e. Mo. drugs. See, possession prescription nalized the unauthorized of (“No 577.628(1) (2008 person twenty-one than Supp.) § less Rev. Stat. Cum. or possess upon property comprising public a years age of shall real secondary medica elementary prescription or or school bus private medication”); Stat., for Okla. Tit. prescription tion without a valid such 353.24(2) (“It (West any person, § unlawful firm or Supp.) 2008 shall be for away sale, any for unused corporation [sjell, give to . . . offer barter pro by as otherwise quantity drugs prescription, except... of obtained §58-17b- Pharmacy”); Ann. by of Utah Code [State] vided Board (“ 501(12) (Lexis 2007) using prescription a includes:... ‘Unlawful conduct’ prac him lawfully prescribed for drug ... himself that for (2002); Ann., titioner”); §34-23-7 Tit. Del. Code see also Ala. Code §499.005(14) §4754A(a)(4) (2003); (2007); Rev. Ann. N. H. Stat. Fla. Stat. §318:42(1) 2008). (West Supp. severely possession drugs;
property of as as street “[tjeenage prescription drugs abuse of over-the-counter and poses alarming increasingly an national crisis.” Teens Get (Dec. 2006). Drugs, p. Digest, Off 72 The Education No. study ages young people noted, As one “more 12-17 abuse prescription drugs any drug except marijuana— than illicit methamphetamine cocaine, heroin, more than com- bined.” Office the Executive of Officeof President, National (ONDCP), Drug Policy Prescription Danger Control (Jan. 2008) (hereinafter Prescription Danger). ac- And (19 cording survey “nearly to a 2005 of teens, one in five million) percent abusing prescription drugs or 4.5 admit University, their lifetime.” Columbia The National Center (CASA), on Addiction and Substance Abuse “You’ve Got Drugs!” Prescription Drug V: Pushers on the Internet 2 2008); (July Dept, see also of Health Services, and Human Drug High Abuse, National Institute on School and Youth (Dec. 2008) (“In percent 12th-graders Trends 2008, 15.4 reported using prescription drug nonmedically within the past year”). reasonably
School administrators can that this conclude high drug being part, by rate abuse is fueled, least increasing presence prescription drugs on school cam puses. g., e. See, Gibson, Forks Grand Schools Rise See Prescription Drug Abuse, Herald, Grand Forks 16, 2008, Nov. pp. (explaining “prescription drug grow Al, A6 abuse is “ ing larger problem” ‘bring into a as students them to school ”). just give them or sell them their In a friends’ survey, percent drugs kept sa[id] “44 of teens used, are grounds or sold on their CASA, schools.” National Survey of American Attitudes on Substance Abuse XIII: 2008) (hereinafter (Aug. Teens and Parents 19 National Sur vey). posed by every The risks are abuse these using dangers typical drug. bit as serious as the street Teenagers myth apt to are nevertheless “believe the *27 drugs medically provide high.” these Teens ONDCP, safe 396 Analysis Prescription Drugs:
and An Trends on Recent (Feb. 2007) (hereinafter Emerging Drug Teens Threat 3 Prescription Drugs). But since there has “been a 1999, and poisonings dramatic increase in the number even prescription drugs.” abuse of deaths associated with the Prescription Danger Dept. also of Health and 4; see Report: The Nonmedi Services, Human Trends NSDUH Prescription p. 2007, cal (Feb. Pain 2002 to Use of Relievers: 2009) depart (“[Approximately emergency 324,000 5, pain ment in 2006 use re visits involved nonmedical lievers”); Diversion CASA, Under Counter: p. Prescription Drugs S., in the U. Abuse of Controlled 2005) (“In drugs (July prescription of controlled abuse drug-related implicated percent in at emer least 23 gency percent department of all sin admissions and 20.4 deaths”). gle drug-related emergency department At least injuries likely are to the some of these due fact and deaths drug poly- prescription “[m]ost are abusers controlled likely especially a habit abusers,” id., substance at that is deadly drug Furthermore, even result in combinations. by immediately prescrip if a harmed child is not the abuse drugs prescription drugs, suggests tion research have “gateway drugs Id., of abuse.” become other substances Healy, Angeles Sept. Skipping Times, Los Street, 4; (“Boomers marijuana ‘gateway’... p. their FI made 15,2008, generation prescription drugs younger an are eas but a finds score”); Survey (noting that teens ier see also National beer”). report drugs buy prescription than are “that easier naproxen Admittedly, ibuprofen at issue this prescription painkillers forefront of at the case are not Prescription problem. prescription-drug-abuse See (“Pain OxyContin Danger are like Vicodin and relievers teens”). commonly prescription drugs most abused dangers. they own As nonsteroi- But are not without their (NSAIDs), antiinflammatory they pose a risk of dal (H. Silverman The Pill Book death from overdose. *28 2008) (observing ibuprofen naproxen ed., 13th ed. and “[p]eople are and NSAIDs from have died NSAID over doses”). Moreover, the side effects caused the use of magnified they NSAIDs can if are taken in combination drugs. e.g., with Weekly, other See, 1235, Reactions No. (Jan. 2009) (“A p. 17-year-old girl developed allergic 17, nephritis receiving interstitial and renal failure while escita (Dec. lopram 2008) ibuprofen”); and id., 1232, at 26 No. (“A boy developed deficiency 16-month-old iron anaemia and hypoalbuminaemia during naproxen”); id., treatment with 2008) (Sept. (18-year-old diagnosed No. at 15 “was pill-induced oesophageal perforation” taking with after ibu profen unit]”); [intensive “and was to the id., admitted care (“A 22, 2007) (Sept. 12-year-old boy No. developed 1170,at 20 anaphylaxis ingestion following ibuprofen”). previously
If a student with a unknown intolerance to ibu- profen naproxen drug were to ill, take either become and public outrage likely would be directed toward school failing steps prevent to take the unmonitored use drug. light In involved, risks school’s deci- prohibition sion to establish and enforce a school on the possession any drug unauthorized is thus a reasonable judgment.6
[*] [*] determining scope In whether the search’s reason- able under the Fourth it is ir- Amendment, therefore suspected Redding possessing relevant whether officials significant protecting Schools have pre interest all students from abuse; scription drug young exception. female are no See Teens students commonly Prescription Drugs the most (“Prescription drugs are drug fact, among 17-year-olds, In among 12-13-year-olds”). abused 12- to likely boys prescription drugs” are females “more than to have abused drugs.” “higher involving prescription dependence have rates of or abuse Id., Thus, in undermining governmental the relevant 5. rather than here, Redding’s sex, need for a age anything, terest if increased the drugs. prevent reasonably prescription searсh suspected use of ibuprofen, nonprescription-strength prescription-strength drug. prohibited naproxen, or harder street Safford some property. suspicion possession Reasonable its poli- Redding possession in violation of these was in any extending justified area cies, therefore, pills The search did not small could be concealed. where violate Fourth Amendment.
II By declaring case, in the ma search unreasonable this “ public ‘surrender[ed] jority has of the American control by invalidating system public school students’” school to drugs equally by policies second- that treat all disciplinary by guessing made school officials. swift decisions concurring) (quoting Morse, S., J., at 421 See 551 U. (Thomas, Independent Community Dist., Tinker v. Des Moines School (1969)(Black, dissenting)). The Court’s J., 393 U. S. great to teachers, interference in concern these matters why parents, and the most constitution students illustrates ally question applying approach the Fourth sound to the public the com Amendment in schoolswould fact be local plete doctrine of loco restoration of the common-law parentis. schooling,” applied early years public
“[I]n the courts parentis to transfer to teachers the the doctrine of in loco authority parent to control obedience, of a to “'command diligence, quicken hab- and to reform bad to stubbornness, concurring) suprа, at Morse, J., its.’” 413-414 (Thomas, (1837)). Pendergrass, (quoting N. C. 365-366 State v. empowered, had al- and administrators schoolteachers So complete the rules to and enforce most discretion establish they necessary over their to maintain control were believed Law on American Kent, 2 J. classrooms. See Commentaries (“So parent power to the over law *205 allowed may delegated person instructor, to tutor of the child be education”); accomplish purpose W. the better to England Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of (1765) (“He may delegate part parental authority, also of his during his to the life, tutor or schoolmaster of his who child; parentis, portion power is then in loco and has such a of the parent charge, committed to his viz. that of restraint may necessary purposes as correction, to answer the employed”).7 perils judicial policy- which he is making applying protections inherent in Fourth Amendment public to schools counsel in of a return favor under- standing public existed this Nation’s first schools, gave which teachers discretion to craft the rules needed carry disciplinary responsibilities delegated out the to them by parents. parents delegate
If the common-law view that to teachers authority discipline their and maintain order were to be applied Redding in this case, the search of would stand. parеnt There can be no doubt that a would have had the authority to conduct the search issue in Par this ease. “immunity ents have from the strictures of Fourth *30 Amendment” when it comes searches of a child or belongings. id., child’s L. O., S., T. 469 U. at see also at 337; (A authority parent’s subject 336 is “not to the limits Amendment”); Fourth Wisconsin, v. 483 U. S. Griffin (1987) (“[P]arental authority” require 876 custodial does not room”). “judicial approval [a] search of a minor child’s acknowledged by principle As Court, this this is based on understanding superior the “societal and inferior” with respect “parent relationship. Georgia to the and child” (2006). Randolph, light 103, 114 547 U. S. In of this relation- 7 aspect judiciary discipline respect The one school with to which the physical punish at involved “imposition times became was the of excessive S., (Thomas, J., Morse, 551 U. early concurring). ment.” Some at corporal punishment long courts “as as the teacher did proper found legal permanent injury”; act or courts inter with malice cause while other Ibid, only “clearly (emphasis if punishment vened excessive.” omitted) decisions). deleted; (collecting quotation internal marks parent can authorize a ship, that a has indicated the Court consenting a by third-party search, to such of a child ibid.; see also W. his See if the denies consent. child even 2004) (4th 8.3(d), § p. ed. LaFave, and Seizure Search (“[A] responsi- head of the household with father, as the training discipline, authority bility and con- for the family superior interest in the children, has of his trol that the father’s con- son, to that of his minor so residence notwithstanding the son’s be effective to search would sent (internal quotation contemporaneous objection” on-the-scene omitted)). by Certainly, parent a search himself marks regardless or child not a would different, is no whether (“[E]ven 8.4(b), § [if] prefer id., to be left alone. See may a room as the overall ‘his,’ minor child . . . think of (some parents” quotation will be in his internal dominance omitted)). marks
Restoring parentis the common-law doctrine in loco public entirely free to not, however, leave schools im- would any they parents pose rule choose. “If do not like the rules they imposed schools, those can seek redress school they private legislatures; or their boards can send children they simply them; or homeschool can move.” schools See par- supra, concurring). Indeed, at 420 Morse, J., (Thomas, proved government and local officials have themselves ents capable challenging overly quite harsh rules or ways. enforcement of sensible rules in insensible example, community questioned policy For one a school 11-year-old [being] arrested, that resulted in “an handcuffed jail bringing plastic taken to butter knife to school.” Downey, Always Up, Zero Tolerance Doesn’t Add Atlanta *31 Apr. p. “[a]t All. In Journal-Constitution, 6, 2009, аnother, outraged” when 14 least one school board member was elementary-school suspended “imitating students were for drug activity” they sugar after combined Kool-Aid and bags. Pupils Trading plastic Grant, Sweet Mix Get Sour Discipline, Pittsburgh May Shot of Post-Gazette, 18, 2006, pp. yet Bl, B2. Individuals within another school district protested policy a weapons” “‘zero-tolerance’ toward “ rigid any force[d] had expel become ‘so that it schools to belongs military organization, student who to a a drum-and- bugle corps any legitimate group other extracurricular simply transporting and is what amounts to harmless props.’” Sparks Richardson, School Gun Case Cries For Washington “Common Sense,” Times, 2009, Feb. 13-14, pp. Al, A9.8 change policies
These local efforts to controversial school through processes proved democratic have successful many g., See, cases. e. Schools’ Zero Tolerance Postal, Apr. Could Punch, Lose Sentinel, Some 24, 2009, Orlando (“State p. B3 lawmakers want schools to dial back strict policies juvenile up zero-tolerance so do not students end ‘goofy thing’”); detention for some Richardson, Tolerance Waning Washington Apr. for Zero-tolerance Rules, Times, (“[A] p. 21, A3 few states have moved to relax their bring laws. Utah now allows students to asthma inhalers violating policy school without the zero-tolerance also, e.g., Smydo, See Decry Suspensions, Allderdice Parents Pitts Post-Gazette, (Parents burgh 16, 2009, Apr. p. one-day Bl “believe a sus pension hallway overreaction”); for a first-time infraction is an O’Brien & Buekham, Suspension, Girl’s Smooch on School Bus Leads to Buffalo (Parents News, 6, 2008, p. Jan. 6-year-old say Bl the “school officials they punished daughter “kissing overreacted” when seeond their a boy”); Stewart, Chronicle, grade Says Overreacted, Dad School Houston (“The 12,2007, p. Dec. 13-year-old... B5 father of said the school district overstepped taking its suspended daughter bounds when it his a cell phone photo of getting during another cheerleader of the shower out & sleepover home”); Dumenigo Mueller, in his Sus “Cops Robbers” (New School, pension Sayreville Star-Ledger Jersey), Apr. Criticized at (“ T p. ridiculous,’ [kinder think said of one of the it’s the mother ‘They’re boys each did garten] boys. playing [W]hen little with other.... ”). finger weapon?’ become a *32 Up Becoming Zero Fed With drugs”); Nussbaum, also see (dis- pp. Sept. 1, 8 2000, section Times, Y. Tolerance, N. “widespread report use of zero- cussing that found many problems creating discipline policies was as tolerance many solving around were cases and that there it was as harshly disciplined country students were in which the done”). no harm intended or there was infractions where amending public implementing and the task of end, In the beyond policies Parents, function. this Court’s school is politicians, аnd local state administrators, teachers, school judges the than to determine all better suited officials are by officials. appropriate conducted school limits on searches public discipline, safety in schools order, Preservation simply And, the com- is not the domain of Constitution. judicial monopoly aor constitutional sense is not a mon imperative.
Ill against drug epidemic “[T]he the nationwide makes war pressing every drugs a concern in school.” Board Ed. Cty. Independent No. School Dist. Pottawatomie (2002). yet has lim- Earls, And the Court 536 U. S. authority officials to conduct ited of school searches safety pose risk that the officials believe a serious By majority doing so, to has confirmed their students. parentis required of in loco that a return the doctrine public essentially seizing keep judiciary from control “ 'govern Only again be able to schools. then will teachers quicken spur pupils, the[ir] indolent, restrain slothful, “ ” impetuous, making 'rules, the stubborn’ and control giv[ing] punish[ing] disobedience’” without commands, judges. at 414 Morse, S., from 551 U. interference (Thomas, equipped concurring). By deciding that it is better de- J., permitted schools, the Court what should be cide behavior safety authority and undermined has undercut student Even more trou- administrators and local officials. bling, it has underlying done so in a case in which the re- sponse by justified. school administrators was reasonable and *33 join regrettable I cannot respect- this I, decision. therefore, fully dissent from the Court’s determination that this search violated the Fourth Amendment.