The case in one breath In October 2003, an assistant principal in Safford, Arizona, was told that 13-year-old Savana Redding was handing out pills — prescription-strength ibuprofen and an over-the-counter pain reliever, both banned at her middle school without permission. Her backpack held nothing. So two school employees had her take off her outer clothes and pull out her underwear. Nothing there either. In 2009, the Supreme Court held that the search violated the Fourth AmendmentFourth Amendment: the constitutional protection against unreasonable searches and seizures by the government — which includes public school officials.: the school’s reasonable suspicionReasonable suspicion: specific facts suggesting a search of this student will turn up evidence of a rule or law being broken. The school standard from New Jersey v. T.L.O. justified checking a backpack and outer clothing, but not going further. Then the twist: the officials still couldn’t be made to pay damages, because of qualified immunityQualified immunity: a rule that shields government officials from paying money damages unless they violated law that was already clearly established when they acted.. Savana won the rule: a strip search at school needs its own specific justification.
Decided
June 25, 2009
Vote
8–1 on the search · 7–2 on immunity
Opinion by
Justice Souter
Limits
How far a school search can go
The Story Behind Safford v. Redding
It started with a report about pills at Safford Middle School — and ended with the Supreme Court telling schools where a search must stop.THE TIPA student, Jordan Romero, tells Assistant Principal Kerry Wilson that kids are bringing drugs and weapons to campus — and that he got sick after taking some pills. About a week later, on the morning of October 8, he hands Wilson a white pill he says came from a classmate, Marissa Glines. The school nurse identifies it: ibuprofen 400 mg, available only by prescription.
MARISSAWilson calls Marissa out of class. A day planner found within her reach holds knives, lighters, and a cigarette. She turns out a blue pill, several white ones, and a razor blade. Asked where the pills came from, she names Savana Redding.
THE OFFICEWilson pulls Savana out of math class. She says the planner is hers — but that she lent it to Marissa a few days earlier, and nothing in it belongs to her. She denies knowing about the pills and agrees to let her belongings be searched. Wilson and an administrative assistant, Helen Romero, go through her backpack. Nothing.
THE NURSE’S OFFICEWilson has Romero take Savana to the nurse’s office to search her clothes. Romero and the school nurse, Peggy Schwallier, have her remove her outer clothing, then tell her to pull out her bra and the elastic of her underwear, which partly exposes her. No pills. The Court later recorded her own account of it: “embarrassing, frightening, and humiliating.”
THE LAWSUITSavana’s mother sues the district and the three officials. The trial court sides with the school, and so does an appeals panel. Then the Ninth Circuit, sitting en bancEn banc: when a larger group of an appeals court’s judges rehears a case that a three-judge panel already decided. and closely divided, reverses: the search was unconstitutional, and Wilson can be sued for it.
JUN 25, 2009The Supreme Court splits the case in two. The search violated the Fourth Amendment — eight justices agree. But the officials are shielded from damages — seven agree on that. Whether the district itself owes anything goes back to the lower courts.
The Question the Court Faced in Safford v. Redding
Since New Jersey v. T.L.O. in 1985, school officials have needed only reasonable suspicion — not a warrant, not probable cause — to search a student, as long as the search isn’t excessive for the student’s age and sex and for what they’re looking for. Wilson had a classmate’s word that Savana supplied the pills. Was that enough to go from her backpack to her underwear? And if it wasn’t, could the officials be personally sued for money — or was the law too unsettled in 2003 to hold them responsible?
What the Court Decided in Safford v. Redding
Two answers. The first one fits in a single sentence:“Here, the content of the suspicion failed to match the degree of intrusion.”— Justice Souter, for the Court
The school got the first step right. A classmate had named Savana, staff had reported the two girls were friends, and the planner tied them together. That suspicion, the Court said, “was enough to justify a search of Savana’s backpack and outer clothing.” The problem was the next step. T.L.O.’s second prong says a search must stay reasonable in scope — not excessively intrusive given the student’s age and sex and the nature of the infraction. Wilson knew what he was looking for: common pain relievers, which the Court compared to two Advil or one Aleve, with no reason to suspect large amounts were being passed around. And nothing suggested Savana was hiding pills in her underwear — he never asked Marissa when she got the pills or where Savana might be keeping them.
“In sum, what was missing from the suspected facts that pointed to Savana was any indication of danger to the students from the power of the drugs or their quantity, and any reason to suppose that Savana was carrying pills in her underwear.”— on the two things the school didn’t have
A search that exposes a student’s body, Justice Souter wrote, belongs in “a category of its own demanding its own specific suspicions.” Before a school moves past outer clothes and backpacks, it needs reasonable suspicion of danger, or of evidence actually being hidden in underwear. Then the second answer. Officials pay damages only if they broke law that was clearly established at the time. Lower courts had reached conflicting conclusions about how T.L.O. applied to searches like this one, and the Court concluded: “We think these differences of opinion from our own are substantial enough to require immunity for the school officials in this case.” Wilson, Romero, and Schwallier were protected. Three justices wrote separately. Justice Stevens, joined by Justice Ginsburg, agreed the search was unconstitutional but would have denied immunity — “This is, in essence, a case in which clearly established law meets clearly outrageous conduct.” Justice Ginsburg added her own opinion calling Wilson’s treatment of Savana “abusive.” Justice Thomas went the other way: he agreed the officials should not pay, but would have held the search lawful, arguing that judges are not qualified to second-guess how schools keep order.
What Safford v. Redding Means for You
✓ BECAUSE OF SAFFORD
- A strip search at school is in a category of its own — a reason to check your backpack is not automatically a reason to go further
- To go past outer clothing, officials need specific grounds: real danger, or a real reason to think the item is hidden in your underwear
- What they’re looking for matters — the less dangerous the item, the weaker the case for an intrusive search
- The rule is now written down by the Supreme Court — the clear statement the Court said was missing in 2003
✗ SAFFORD DOESN’T MEAN
- The Constitution bans every school strip search — the Court set a high bar, not a flat prohibition
- The backpack search was illegal — the Court said the school had enough suspicion for that
- The officials paid damages — qualified immunity shielded all three
- The school district was cleared — that question went back to the lower courts undecided
- Private schools are covered — the Fourth Amendment binds government schools only
If it’s ever you: stay calm and don’t physically resist. Say, clearly, “I don’t consent to this search,” and if anyone asks you to remove more than a jacket or shoes, add “I want my parent called before this goes any further.” Afterward, tell a parent or another adult you trust the same day, and write down who was there and what was said. Whether the search was legal is for your family and a lawyer to sort out later.
Questions People Ask About Safford v. Redding
Why did the Court call it a “strip search” if she kept her underwear on?
Because of what the search required. Savana had to pull her underwear away from her body in front of two school employees, which the Court said necessarily exposed her to some degree. The employees said they did not see anything; the Court did not make the label depend on that. What mattered was the kind of search — one that goes beyond outer clothing and belongings.
What was the vote, exactly?
You will see it summarized different ways, because the Court answered two questions with two lineups. On the Fourth Amendment violation it was 8–1: Justice Souter wrote for the Court, joined on that part by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Scalia, Kennedy, Breyer, Alito, Stevens, and Ginsburg, with only Justice Thomas disagreeing. On qualified immunity it was 7–2: the same group minus Stevens and Ginsburg, plus Thomas, who agreed with that result.
If the search was unconstitutional, why didn’t the officials have to pay?
Qualified immunity. To win money from a government official, it is not enough to show your rights were violated — the law also has to have been clearly established when the official acted. Judges around the country had disagreed about how T.L.O. applied to strip searches, so the Court found the law in 2003 was not clear enough to hold these officials personally responsible. That is not the Court saying the search was acceptable — only that the rule had not yet been stated clearly enough to make individuals pay for breaking it.
So what can a school search with reasonable suspicion?
In Savana’s own case, the Court said her backpack and outer clothing were fair game once a classmate had named her. That is the ordinary T.L.O. rule, and our backpack guide walks through it. Phones raise separate questions this case never touched — see can schools search your phone? Safford adds the ceiling: the more intrusive the search, the more specific the reasons must be.
Does my state ban school strip searches outright?
It might. Safford is the constitutional minimum, and states are free to protect students more. California, New Jersey, Washington, and Wisconsin are among the states with laws that bar school employees from strip searching students. The wording differs from state to state, so check your own state’s law and your district’s policy.
Whatever happened to Savana Redding’s case?
She won the constitutional ruling and lost the damages claim against the three officials. The Supreme Court sent the remaining claim — against the school district itself — back to the lower courts without deciding it. According to the Student Press Law Center, the district later settled, and a judge ordered the agreement made public in 2011; the reported amount was $250,000.
Key Terms in Safford v. Redding, Explained
Reasonable suspicion — specific facts pointing at a specific student; the standard schools need to start a search under T.L.O.
Reasonable in scope — T.L.O.’s second prong: how far a search goes must fit the student’s age and sex and the suspected offense. The prong this search failed.
Strip search — the Court’s label for a search that exposes a student’s body; its own category, needing its own justification.
Qualified immunity — protection from money damages for officials unless they violated clearly established law.
En banc — a rehearing by a larger group of an appeals court’s judges; how the Ninth Circuit reversed its panel here.
Cases Connected to Safford v. Redding
New Jersey v. T.L.O. (1985)The test Safford applies. T.L.O. said school searches need reasonable suspicion and reasonable scope; Safford is the case where the Court held a school to the second half.Read the full case → J.D.B. v. North Carolina (2011)Two years later, the Court made a child’s age part of the law of police questioning. Safford and J.D.B. share one idea: being young changes what counts as reasonable.Read the full case → Tinker v. Des Moines (1969)The starting point: constitutional protections come through the school door with you. Tinker said it about speech; T.L.O. and Safford said it about searches.Read the full case →What’s Still Undecided After Safford v. Redding
Safford drew a line and left the details to later cases. As of October 2026:
- How much danger is enough — the Court tied intrusive searches to danger from the item or its quantity, or a specific reason to think it is hidden in underwear. It did not say which drugs, weapons, or amounts clear that bar.
- What counts as a strip search, state by state — some states ban school strip searches by statute, in differing words. Wisconsin, for example, amended its law in 2024 to widen its definition to cover searches down to underwear. Where there is no such law, Safford’s constitutional rule and district policy govern.
- Who pays when it happens — the Court never decided whether the Safford district itself was liable, and qualified immunity is still argued case by case.
Why this page exists: Safford is usually reduced to one line — “the strip search case, 8–1” — which skips both why the search failed and why no official paid for it. You deserve the whole picture, told plainly and without turning a 13-year-old’s school day into a spectacle. The facts of the case above come from the Court’s own opinions — linked below so you can check us.
The Bottom Line on Safford v. Redding
A few pain relievers, a classmate’s word, and a search that went too far gave students the limit T.L.O. had promised. A school with reasonable suspicion can look in your bag. To go further than your outer clothing, it needs much more: real danger, or a real reason to think that is where the thing is hidden. Savana Redding never collected from the officials who searched her — but the rule she won applies in every public school in the country. Now you know.Your practical guideCan schools search your backpack? → The test behind itNew Jersey v. T.L.O. → More casesBrowse all court case files →
Sources
Primary sources:- Safford Unified School District No. 1 v. Redding, 557 U.S. 364 (2009) — full opinion — supreme.justia.com
- Safford Unified School District v. Redding — argument audio and case summary — oyez.org
- California Education Code § 49050 — codes.findlaw.com
- New Jersey P.L. 1997, c. 242 (N.J.S.A. 18A:37-6.1) — pub.njleg.gov
- Revised Code of Washington § 28A.600.230 — app.leg.wa.gov
- Wisconsin Statutes § 948.50 — docs.legis.wisconsin.gov
- Report on the release of the settlement agreement (2011) — Student Press Law Center
LawJustic is for educational purposes only and does not provide legal advice. Laws vary by state and situation. If you need help with a specific legal issue, contact a licensed attorney.