Strip search of Safford teen unconstitutional

By Diane Saunders
Staff Writer
Published on Wednesday, July 16, 2008 9:04 AM MST

The strip search of a Safford Middle School student in October 2003 was unconstitutional and Assistant Principal Kerry Wilson is not entitled to immunity from a lawsuit, according to the opinion of the federal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

In its July 11 opinion, the appellate panel stated that 13-year-old Savana Redding’s Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable search and seizure were violated when Wilson ordered administrative assistant Helen Romero and school nurse Peggy Schwallier to perform the strip search to locate ibuprofen tablets.

Another student told Wilson that Redding was passing prescription-strength ibuprofen to other students.

Ibuprofen is an anti-inflammatory drug available in over-the-counter and prescription doses.

By a 6-5 decision, a full panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco reversed a September 2007 opinion by a three-judge panel from the same court.

The opinion by the full-appellate panel characterizes the search as “grossly intrusive.” Redding was forced to strip down to her underwear and pull the undergarments away from her body in the presence of Schwallier and Romero, thus exposing her breasts and pelvic area.

“The strip search was the most humiliating experience I have ever had,” Redding said in a sworn affadavit. “Mrs. Romero and Mrs. Schwallier did not look away while I was taking off my clothes. They did nothing to respect my privacy.”

In addition, the panel found that Wilson is financially liable for damages and ordered the case back to U.S. District Court Magistrate Nancy Fiora to determine damages against Wilson.

According to the opinion, Fiora had ruled against Redding, and the appellate panel upheld Fiora’s ruling.

Court documents show that Redding had loaned her planner to a classmate, “Marissa,” who was caught with ibuprofen and other contraband. Marissa told Wilson the pills belonged to Redding.

Redding denied having any knowledge of the pills and agreed to a search of her backpack. When Wilson found no ibuprofen in the backpack, he ordered the strip search, according to court documents.

In 2005, the Safford School District adopted a policy that states: “Disrobing of a student is overly intrusive for purposes of most student searches and is improper without express concurrence from the school district counsel.”

School District Superintendent Mark Tregaskes was out of town and not available for comment.

Wilson did not return a phone call to his home made by the Courier.

The school district’s attorney, Matt Wright, was not available for comment.

Print this story Email this story Post A Comment

Comments

13 comment(s)

Attorney Melany Petrosky wrote on Apr 23, 2009 4:47 PM:

" Mr. Wilson has no business being a principal. His actions are inexcusable. Strip searching over ibuprofen tablets is completely unjustifiable. Furthermore, he is a male and should not have been in the room viewing a female student's private areas. Even if you take the view that the search was somehow justified, at the very least it should have been witnessed by a female administrator and her parents should have been present. Out of the school context it could easily be under the sex offender law. I hope he never works in any school system again for such amazing poor judgment. "

Brian Weinfurter wrote on Aug 27, 2008 10:06 AM:

" I can't imagine that poor girl. Her trust is now gone and she has to live with that for a long time. All persons involved in even the tiniest fraction should have any license or certifications revoked and have to stand in the local park nude for a weekend all while hold a bottle of aspirin!!!! Hope she gets whatever she wants. "

WHAT wrote on Jul 30, 2008 9:35 PM:

" I am a parent of a 20 yr old now. If this would of happened to my child, I would have went crazy. I dont care what that child was doing, nobody has that right to make a child strip like that. The parents should have been called first thing. I would have these school workers charged for sure. "

sam wrote on Jul 23, 2008 3:57 AM:

" Response to interested... You missed the point. It is about effective leadership, a character trait that a scared little man like Mr Wilson lacks. He lacked leadership in his classroom not just in his first year but through out his tenure as a teacher. Then another irresponsible leader appointed him Vice Principal.He had no right to compel a 13yr old girl to disrobe for his 'satisfaction'. No wait, my bad he was looking for ibuprophen based on the story of another 13yr old girl. Maybe Mr Wilson should've checked the medicine cabinet instead. "

interested wrote on Jul 22, 2008 1:16 AM:

" Wow, case has been going on for a few years, and all of you had all of the info in this short article. Maybe a little more to it? Referencing Mr. Wilson's first year teaching experience as a reason for him doing something like this, is silly at best. Look at the history of the school. Look at where it is today. Huge part due to Mr. Wilson. Huge mistake?, "Yes!!" HOw many of our local drug dealers dealt in that school because there was nothing ever done about it before. Huge mistake, but don't crucifytheguy. "

Conrarian wrote on Jul 19, 2008 9:45 PM:

" Get us out from under the 9th court before they wreck this nation. "

-yr Texan wrote on Jul 19, 2008 10:58 AM:

" What a pathetic excuse for school administration! How can Safford voters and parents tolerate this kind of sicko "discipline" in their schools? Barry Goldwater would puke in his grave at this kind of spineless acceptance of official abuse in an Arizona community.

Ms Redding & family deserve apology AND compen$ation. Safford should be ashamed. "

OMG wrote on Jul 19, 2008 8:47 AM:

" I cant believe they let that idiot take over an entire school when he couldnt even keep our class in control! I can only remember him as being weird, creepy, and judgemental! Poor kids have to put up with him!!! "

Mitch A. wrote on Jul 18, 2008 3:25 PM:

" This ruling is awesome. The strip search of a middle school student is completely uncalled for. Especially without the parent's consent or even without him or her being notified.
I was appauled to read the ruling in September and am glad it has been overturned.

I don't care if she was dealing anything, or handing it out. There are ways of dealing with that addressed in the school handbook. A strip search should have always been out of the question. "

a parent wrote on Jul 18, 2008 2:41 PM:

" It was only ibuprofen tablets, its not like they where hard drugs, and Mr Wilson had no right to have this girl stripped searched, without her parents there. Is Mr Wilson AZPOST certified? NO then he should be charged with sexual misconducted of minor. If you did this to someones kid they would charge you, so why not Mr Wilson. If my kids where searched like this I would press charges. "

sam wrote on Jul 17, 2008 4:02 AM:

" I was in seventh grade and it was Kerry Wilson's first year as a math teacher at (then) SJHS. The man couldn't control his class and was most of the time frightend of his students. In later years he would make statements and compare new students to their relatives and siblings such as "you have to keep an I on him or her because their uncles/aunts/brothers/ sisters were trouble." What idiot appointed Mr Wilson as Vice Principal. "

Mama Celeste wrote on Jul 16, 2008 3:31 PM:

" The story DOES NOT say there was ever any proof that the girl was passing out pills. That's the point. Wilson took another student's word to order the strip search. I wonder why the office secretary and the nurse complied with Wilson's order? "

Confused wrote on Jul 16, 2008 11:20 AM:

" Does she get off scott free for handing out pills to the kids? That seems a little unfair too! "

WRITE A COMMENT

READER COMMENTS
* Be respectful of others, the writer and the subjects in the story.

* Be relevant. Keep your comments pertinent to the story that is being discussed.

Comment posters are responsible for the opinions they express and the accuracy of the information they provide. We urge comment writers to treat this as a public forum where manners matter. We encourage a collegial, non-insulting tone. All reader comments must be approved by our staff before posting to the Web site. Be aware, in accordance with the Communications Decency Act and provisions upheld in judicial appeal, that you are responsible for comments posted on this Web site. The Eastern Arizona Courier is not liable for messages from third parties. IP addresses can be subpoenaed and your identity established by individuals who have been hurt by your comments.

DO NOT POST:
* Potentially libelous statements or damaging innuendo.
* Obscene, explicit, or racist language.
* Personal attacks, insults or threats.
* The use of another person's real name to disguise your identity: You can be prosecuted for identity theft.
* Comments unrelated to the story.

Opinions, advice and all other information expressed in www.eacourier.com reader comments represent the individual's own views and not those of the Eastern Arizona Courier. The Courier does not endorse and is not responsible for statements, advice or opinions offered by anyone other than Eastern Arizona Courier spokespersons.

Thank you for your comments!