On April 21st, the United States Supreme Court heard oral arguments in connection with the fruitless strip search by Safford Township, Arizona school officials of 13 year-old Savana Redding  They were looking for Ibuprofen, based on another students claim that they got if rom Redding.  The following conversation occurred between Justice Scalia and Mr. Wright, the attorney for the school.

MR. WRIGHT: Once you had reason to suspect a student is possessing any contraband that poses a health and safety risk, then searching any place where that contraband may reasonably be found is constitutional, and --

JUSTICE SCALIA: Any contraband, like the black marker pencil that -- that astounded me. That was contraband in that school, wasn't it, a black marker pencil?

MR. WRIGHT: Well, for sniffing.

JUSTICE SCALIA: Oh, is that what they do?

MR. WRIGHT: It's a permanent marker.

JUSTICE SCALIA: They sniff them?

MR. WRIGHT: Well, that's the -- I mean, I'm a school lawyer. That's what kids do, Your Honor, unfortunately, Your Honor.

JUSTICE SCALIA: Really?

"The world is a mess, and I just need to rule it." --Dr. Horrible.

The Supreme Court has ruled in this case.  You can read the decision here:  http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/08pdf/08-479.pdf

To summarize, the court held that the search, under the very particular circumstances, violated the students rights because it went beyond what was reasonable.  The search of the student's bag and outer clothes was reasonable, but extending it to the underwear was not when the administrators had no evidence the contraband was hidden there. 

However, the court ruled that the individual administrators who conducted the search could not be held individually liable because the law was ambiguous at the time and they could not have had clear notice that their actions would be deemed improper.  Whether the school district itself is liable was remanded back to the lower courts.  I'd expect a settlement of that question with the Plaintiff. 

The decision on whether the search violated the 4th Amendment was apparently 8-1 with only Thomas dissenting.  Thomas argued that the standards set by the court were too vague for school administrators to comply with. 

Justices Ginsburg and Stevens concurred that the search violated the students 4th Amendment rights.  They dissented on the court's decision to let the individual administrators who conducted the search off the hook.  I thought their arguments in this regard were particularly weak.

By the way, the Plaintiff, who was 13 at the time, is now in college.