Julia Calderon

Humanities
15 May 2015
Safford Unified School District vs. Redding
In this case, 13 year old Savana Redding is thoroughly searched for contraband leading
to the questioning of her 4th amendment rights. This thorough search began with Jordan
Romero informing Vice Principal Wilson of students whereabouts. Jordan informed Wilson that
Marissa Glines gave him a white pill that made him sick. However, pills of any form are against
school policy for students to have on grounds unless granted permission by the board of
education. This lead Vice Principal Wilson to investigate where his contraband came from.
Knowing Marissa gave Jordan pills, the Vice Principal then went to Marissa to question her.
Wilson asked Marissa for her day planner, while searching it he finds pills, knives, lighters, a
permanent marker, and a cigarette. Marissa was then asked to empty her pockets and wallet, in
doing so Marissa produced one blue pill and several white pills, and a razor blade. Marissa
replied by stating, I guess they must have slipped in when she gave me the IBU 400s.
Confused as to who she was, Wilson asked who Marissa was referring to. Marissa shared that
it was Savana Redding. When Wilson asked Marissa if she knew of the contents in the day
planner she denied knowing what was inside. Wilson did not ask any further questions to
Marissa about Savana having pills with her. Marissa was then subjected to a search of her
clothes, bra, and underwear by the school Nurse and the Vice Principals assistant, no pills were
further found. Vice Principal Wilson then called Savana Redding into his office to question her
about the planner Marissa had. Savana admitted that the planner belonged to her, however she
denied knowing of the contraband within it. Wilson still remained suspicious of Savana because
he heard from faculty and students that she was acquainted with a rowdy group at school that
may have brought alcohol and cigarettes to a dance in august. Much later on in October Wilson
called Savana into his office to be questioned about pills. Wilson presented Savana with one
blue pill and several white pills. He told Savana that he was getting reports that she was giving
them out to students, but Savana denied that the pills were hers and that she was giving them
out. Helen Romero (the Principals assistant) and Wilson then searched Savanas backpack but
they did not find pills. Wilson then instructed Helen to take Savana to the nurse so they could
search for pills in her clothes. Savana was only left with only her Bra and underwear on by the
end of the search. She was then asked the lower the elastic of her underwear and shift her bra
to check for pills, but even then no pills were found after he was stripped of their clothing.
Savanas mother then filed a suit against Safford Unified School District for conducting a strip
search in violation of Savanas 4th amendment rights. Considering the cause to search Savana
Redding, did school officials search of Savana Reddings person violate her 4th amendment
rights?
In previous events New Jersey vs. T.L.O shares a similar issue with Redding vs. Safford.
Both cases are presented with searches that are accused of violating 4th amendment rights on
school grounds. As the 4th amendment states, the right of the people to be secure in their
persons, houses, papers, and effect against unreasonable search and seizures not be violated.
Before reaching a conclusion it is essential to reflect upon the experiences of T.L.O vs. New

Jersey to see if the rule in question can be answered through the T.L.O case. First we must
understand whether the action of strip searching Savana is justified based on the information
vice Principal Wilson used. Second it must be determined if the search itself was reasonably
related to the information Vice Principal Wilson was using.
Based on the facts of this case, Savana Reddings 4th amendment rights were violated
when searched for pills. The first reason why Wilson should not have searched Savana is that
Wilson's actions were not justified at its inception, his source of information was not credible
enough to conduct a search. Principal Wilson was lead to believe Savana Redding had pills
through the information of Marissa Glines. When Marissa was searched by Wilson she stated
that the contraband in her possession was from someone else. Marissa states, I guess they
must have slipped in when she gave me the IBU 400s. Marissa was very unsure of where the
pills came from and guessed they came from Savana Redding. Due to the fact that Wilson's
primary source of information was not credible, this means that his search was not justified and
did not have a probable cause to search Savana. The second reason why Wilson's search
violated Savana's 4th amendment rights is because some of the additional information he used
to justify his search was not in scope of the circumstances to begin with. Wilson, identified
Savana and Marissa as a part of an unusually rowdy group at the school's opening dance in
August during which alcohol and cigarettes were found in the girls bathroom (page 2
paragraph 2). This information on cigarettes and alcohol had no relation to the search in
question. The alcohol and cigarettes in August had nothing to do with the pills Wilson was
looking for in October. Because Wilsons search did not have the proper information to justify his
search it violates Savanas 4th amendment rights.
Vice Principal Wilsons search of Savana Redding leads us to ask, Did the school
official's search of Savana Reddings person violate her 4th amendment rights? Considering
that the New Jersey vs. T.L.O case shared similar issues with the Redding vs. Safford case, we
must ask the following rules in question; was Wilsons actions justified by his inception and
was Wilson's search reasonably related in scope to the circumstances which justified the
interference. Wilsons search was not justified because all the evidence did not directly lead to
Savana Redding. The school officials of the Safford Unified School District did violate Savanas
4th amendment rights, because they did not have probable cause to search her and the search
did not relate to the evidence founded to frame Savana.