Supreme Court Hears School Strip Search Case

And, Marcia, we heard the attorneys disagreeing over whether schools ever have a right to strip search students when they're suspected of possessing drugs. Did the school have an absolute prohibition against having even as, in this case, over-the-counter drugs?

MARCIA COYLE, National Law Journal: Yes, it did. And that's not unlike many schools in the country.

RAY SUAREZ: So haven't there been a lot of other cases about student privacy? Wasn't there a lot of precedent here? Haven't students had to go to court over searches of their bags, of their lockers, even urine tests for athletes?

MARCIA COYLE: The Supreme Court has said that students don't check their constitutional rights at the schoolhouse door, but the court doesn't provide the same degree of protection under certain constitutional amendments -- here, the Fourth Amendment -- to students that it does to adults.

The Fourth Amendment prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures, and generally it requires a warrant and probable cause before a search is done. But the Supreme Court has held, because school officials are in charge with protecting the health and safety of students, that they don't need probable cause, which is more than just a suspicion or a reasonable suspicion, or a warrant.

If they suspect a student has drugs, all they need is basically a reasonable suspicion that the student has contraband and they can search.

RAY SUAREZ: Savana Redding and her attorney were at the Supreme Court today, but how did they fare in lower courts when this was adjudicated there?

MARCIA COYLE: The main court that the Supreme Court is reviewing in this case is the Ninth Circuit. And the Ninth Circuit said that the strip search here was unconstitutional.

And the second issue is whether, being unconstitutional, do the school officials have immunity from the suit that Savana's mother brought for damages because of the violation of their daughter's rights? And they lost on that, as well.

MARCIA COYLE: The school district is asking the justices for a bright-line rule that gives them as much flexibility as possible. The school district's lawyer said what we need is, if a school official has a reasonable suspicion that a student possesses drugs, then any search where that drug or contraband may reasonably be is constitutional.

And this didn't go over totally well with some justices. For example, Justice Scalia asked: well, under that theory, you could justify searches of body cavities. And the school district's lawyer said -- well, he didn't really answer the question directly, but he said school officials aren't clinically trained to do those kinds of searches.

And this led Justice Souter to came back and say, But on the legal argument you're making, you could justify a body cavity search? And the school district's attorney said, Yes, but it would be constrained by how the local community feels.

RAY SUAREZ: What did Savana Redding's attorneys argue?

MARCIA COYLE: Her attorney's argument was very much like the United States' government argument. The United States came in here to argue in the case, and they both said that, for a strip search -- and, by the way, this is the first time the Supreme Court has faced a strip search of a student under a Fourth Amendment challenge.

But they claim, the government and her attorney, claim that, for a strip search, you need more than a reasonable suspicion that the student has drugs and the ability to search wherever those drugs may reasonably be.

This is a very intrusive search. Studies have shown that, particularly with teenagers, it causes trauma and long-lasting damage. So they argued what the Supreme Court needs to say here is that you have to have a reasonable suspicion that the contraband is located in the underwear, basically, or in the underpants.

MARCIA COYLE: Yes. Justice Kennedy asked the school district's lawyer, Does it make a difference if the drug is heroin or meth?

And, again, Ms. Redding's attorney said, you have to have -- you have to reasonably believe that the drug is located under the clothes.

This also prompted a hypothetical by Justice Souter, who said, Well, what if you have a reasonable suspicion that the student has drugs and, if you don't get those drugs, there is a risk of violent illness or death? Isn't a strip search then justified?

And, again, the attorney said, No, you have to believe that the drug is under the -- you have to have a reasonable belief the drugs are under the clothes.

And Justice Souter said, Oh, so then it's better to risk death than embarrassment?

And the attorney said, Well, no, but after you've searched everywhere -- which wasn't done here -- the school officials didn't search the student's desk, didn't search her locker. They went from her backpack to a strip search. But after you've search everywhere, he said, you may have generated a reasonable suspicion that the drugs are under her clothes.