The legal freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures is guaranteed to all adult citizens under the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. These same legal protections from unreasonable searches and seizures are not guaranteed to today's K-12 student population. School officials are not subject to the same warrant and probable cause requirements required of law enforcement officials to constitute a legally viable search. Instead, the legal constitutionality of searches involving U.S. students is guided by the reasonableness of the search toward maintaining appropriate school discipline. Given the mounting pressures to improve school safety, today's school leaders are facing conflicting legal and ethical challenges associated with balancing the competing goals of student safety with respecting students’ legal rights. Student strip searches are one such example of a legal and ethical dilemma facing today's school leaders. This article explores the legal and ethical implications of the U.S. Supreme Court's recent case Safford United School District v. Redding, involving the strip search of a middle school student for nonprescription drugs. A central inquiry of this article is whether student strip searches are in the best legal and ethical interests of student leaders.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
ArumR. (2003). Judging school discipline: The crisis of moral authority.Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
2.
Board of Education v. Earls, 536 U.S. 822 (2002).
3.
BuberM. (1965). Education. In BuberM. (Ed.), Between man and man (pp. 83–103). New York: Macmillan.
Cornfield v. Consolidated High School District No. 230, 991 F.2d 1316 (7th Cir. 1993).
6.
Doe v. Renfrow, 451 U.S. 1022, 1027–1028 (1981).
7.
DolbeareK. (1973). The Supreme Court and the states: From abstract doctrine to local behavioral conformity. In BeckerT. L., & FeeleyM. M. (Eds.), The impact of Supreme Court decisions (2nd ed., pp. 202–210). New York: Oxford University Press.
8.
EitleT. M., & EitleD. J. (2004). Inequality, segregation, and the overrepresentation of African Americans in school suspensions. Sociological Perspectives, 47(3), 269–287.
9.
ElmoreR. F., & McLaughlinM. W. (1988). Steady work: Policy, practice, and the reform of American education.Santa Monica: RAND.
FosseyR., & RobertsN. (2009). Strip searching students in the schools: The Ninth Circuit says no to strip searching an eighth grader for prescription-strength ibuprofen. West's Education Law Reporter, 239, 801–834.
12.
GluckmanI. B. (1984). Schools searches and the 4th Amendment. West's Education Law Reporter, 73(1), 199–209.
13.
Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (1982).
14.
JohnsonC. A., & CanonB. C. (1984). Judicial process: Implementation and impact.Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly.
15.
JohnsonR. M. (1967). The dynamics of compliance: Supreme Court decisionmaking from a new perspective.Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press.
16.
Lawrence-LightfootS. (1999). Respect: An exploration.Reading, MA: Perseus Books.
17.
LevineJ. P., & BeckerT. L. (1973). Toward and beyond a theory of Supreme Court impact. In BeckerT. L., & FeeleyM. M. (Eds.), The impact of Supreme Court decisions (2nd ed., pp. 230–244). New York: Oxford University Press.
18.
MarshallT. R. (1989). Policy-making and the modern court: When do Supreme-Court rulings prevail?Western Political Quarterly, 42(4), 493–507.
19.
Mary Beth G. v. Chicago, 723 F.2d 1263 (1983).
20.
McCarthyM. (2009). Safford Unified School District v. Redding: Has the Supreme Court clarified the law governing strip searches in public schools?West's Education Law Reporter, 247, 565–580.
21.
McDonnellL. M., & ElmoreR. F. (1987). Getting the job done: Alternative policy instruments. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 9(2), 133–152.
22.
MendezL. M. R., KnoffH. M., & FerronJ. M. (2002). School demographic variables and out-of-school suspension rates: A quantitative and qualitative analysis of a large, ethnically diverse school district. Psychology in the Schools, 39(3), 259–277.
23.
MeyerJ. W., & RowanB. (1983). The structure of educational organizations. In BaldridgeJ. V., & DealT. (Eds.), The dynamics of organizational change in education (pp. 60–87). Berkeley, CA: McCutchan.
24.
Monell v. Department of Social Services of the City of New York, 436 U.S. 658 (1978).
25.
New Jersey v. T.L.O., 469 U.S. 325 (1985).
26.
O'HaraJ. U. (1984). Search and seizure analysis in school settings. West's Education Law Reporter, 13(1), 1–7.
27.
OwenS. S. (2005). The relationship between social capital and corporal punishment in schools: A theoretical inquiry. Youth & Society, 37(1), 85–112.
28.
PeltasonJ. W. (1961). Fifty-eight lonely men.New York: Harcourt, Brace, and World.
29.
PeltasonJ. W. (1972). A political science of public law. In GrossmanJ. B., & WellsR. S. (Eds.), Constitutional law and judicial policy making (pp. 8–9). New York: Wiley.
30.
Public Health and Welfare Act, 42 U.S.C. 1983 (2003).
31.
ReissA. J. (1971). Research on administrative discretion and justice. Journal of Legal Education, 23(1), 69–76.
32.
ReyesA. H. (2006). Discipline, achievement, and race: Is zero tolerance the answer?Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
33.
RosenbergG. N. (2008). The hallow hope: Can courts bring about social change?Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
34.
RossowL. F. (1984). Administrative discretion and student suspension: A lion in the waiting. Journal of Law & Education, 13(1), 417–40.
35.
Safford Unified School District v. Redding, 129 S.Ct. 2633 (2009).
36.
SalomoneR. C. (1990). Judicial oversight of agency enforcement: The Adams and WEAL litigation. In FlickerB. (Ed.), Justice and school systems: The role of the courts in education litigation (pp. 111–181). Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
37.
SanchezJ. M. (1992). Expelling the Fourth Amendment from American schools: Students’ rights six years after T.L.O. Journal of Law & Education, 21(3), 381–413.
38.
ShapiroJ. P., & StefkovichJ. A. (2010). Ethical leadership and decision making in education: Applying theoretical perspectives to complex dilemmas (3rd ed.). New York: Routledge.
39.
SkibaR. J., MichaelR. S., NardoA. C., & PetersonR. L. (2002). The color of discipline: Sources of racial and gender disproportionality in school punishment. Urban Review, 34(4), 317–342.
40.
SkolnickJ. H., & FyfeJ. J. (1993). Above the law: Police and the excessive use of force.New York: Free Press.
41.
StefkovichJ. A. (2006). Best interests of the student: Applying ethical constructs to legal cases.Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
42.
StefkovichJ. A., & O'BrienG. M. (2004). Best interests of the student: An ethical model. Journal of Educational Administration, 42(2), 197–214.
43.
StefkovichJ. A., & TorresM. S. (2003). The demographics of justice: Student searches, student rights, and administrator practices. Educational Administration Quarterly, 39(2), 259–282.
44.
Thomas v. Roberts, 261 F.3d 1160 (11th Cir. 2001).
45.
Tinker v. Des Moines Independent School District, 393 U.S. 503 (1969).
46.
TushnetM. (1990). The politics of constitutional law. In KairysD. (Ed.), The politics of law: A progressive critique (pp. 219–236). New York: Pantheon.
47.
Vernonia School District 47J v. Acton, 515 U.S. 646 (1995).
48.
WasbyS. L. (1973). Toward impact theory: An inventory of hypotheses. In BeckerT. L., & FeeleyM. M. (Eds.), The impact of Supreme Court decisions (2nd ed., pp. 214–217). New York: Oxford University Press.
49.
Widener v. Frye, 809 F.Supp. 35 (S.D. Ohio 1992).
50.
Williams v. Ellington, 936 F.2d 881 (6th Cir. 1991).
