WASHINGTON - June 25, 2009 - The U.S. Supreme Court, bolstering the constitutional protections for students, said a 13-year-old girl’s rights were violated when school officials strip-searched her in an effort to find pain relievers.

WASHINGTON - June 25, 2009 - The U.S. Supreme Court, bolstering the constitutional protections for students, said a 13-year-old girl’s rights were violated when school officials strip-searched her in an effort to find pain relievers.

The justices, voting 8-1, said that strip searches are “categorically distinct” from other types of intrusions on student privacy and are justified only in limited circumstances, as when children are in danger.

“The meaning of such a search, and the degradation its subject may reasonably feel, place a search that intrusive in a category of its own demanding its own specific suspicions,” Justice David Souter wrote for the court.

The decision is a victory for Savana Redding, who was ordered to partially disrobe and then shake out her bra and underwear in front of two female staff members at her Arizona middle school. Another student had reported that Savana was distributing prescription-strength ibuprofen.

The ruling puts limits on the broad latitude the high court has previously afforded public school administrators to search students and their belongings for drugs and other contraband. The court tempered the impact of the decision by saying that Redding can’t seek damages from the assistant principal who ordered the strip search because the right wasn’t “clearly established” at the time.

Savana was an eighth-grader at Safford Middle School when the 2003 incident took place. Assistant Principal Kerry Wilson summoned her to his office and questioned her about the allegation that she had been distributing pills.

Savana then agreed to let Wilson and his assistant search her backpack. The officials didn’t find any pills, and Wilson then instructed two female staff members to search Savana’s clothing in another room. No pills were found.

Souter wrote that the officials acted reasonably in searching Savana’s backpack and outer clothing. He said, however, that the officials shouldn’t have made the “quantum leap” of forcing her to expose her intimate parts.

“The content of the suspicion failed to match the degree of intrusion,” Souter wrote. “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.”

Souter said some communities, including New York City, had already concluded that strip searches are “so degrading” that they should be banned no matter the circumstances.

Justice Clarence Thomas was the lone dissenter from that part of the court’s decision. He said the court was making a “deep intrusion” into the administration of public schools and their efforts to fight the scourge of drug abuse.

“The majority imposes a vague and amorphous standard on school administrators,” Thomas wrote. “It also grants judges sweeping authority to second-guess the measures that these officials take to maintain discipline in their schools and ensure the health and safety of the students in their charge.”

In an interview, Redding, now 19, said she was “pretty excited” about the ruling.

“I’m just glad that they realized that what they did was wrong and it was against my rights,” she said. “It makes it so much less likely to happen to anybody else.”

Savana’s mother sued the officials involved and the Safford Unified School District.

The San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Savana and her mother could sue Wilson for damages, though not the two staff members who followed the assistant principal’s instructions.

Wilson and the school district contended that the search was a reasonable step to help ensure student safety. They said teen abuse of prescription and over-the-counter drugs had become a disturbing trend.

Souter said Wilson and the two female staff members had so-called qualified immunity, shielding them from damage claims, because they didn’t violate a “clearly established” right. Souter pointed to lower court decisions upholding strip searches.

“We think these differences of opinion from our own are substantial enough to require immunity for the school officials in this case,” he wrote.

The court split 7-2 on that question, with Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and John Paul Stevens dissenting.

“Wilson’s treatment of Redding was abusive, and it was not reasonable for him to believe that the law permitted it,” Ginsburg wrote in a dissenting opinion.

The court left open the possibility that the Reddings could win damages from the school district. Under past Supreme Court cases, they must show that Wilson was following a school district policy or practice in ordering the search.

The case is Safford Unified v. Redding, 08-479.