Maintaining Order and Qualified Immunity

Name:

Course:

Institution:

Instructor:

Date:

Maintaining Order and Qualified Immunity

The school officials had reasonable facts to suspect that Miss Savana was ferrying contraband and therefore had a right to search her belongings but not conduct a body search. The search infringed on her fourth amendment right as they interfered with her privacy (Smith, 2007). The search, though conducted by female officials, was excessively intrusive on the girl’s privacy as she was asked to strip off her bra, shake it, and loosen her underwear elastic strap. However, this happened due to the gender factor as well as her age. Suspicion however, failed to match the degree of searching that was conducted on the young woman. The contraband being searched for was not dangerous although it had been banned in school and therefore it did not warrant the strip search. The search also contravened the permissible regulation on school searches since they are not permitted further than the outer clothes, an inference that the search was not justified at all (Surhone, Tennoe & Henssonow, 2010).

Qualified immunity should exist for school officials. This is because school officials bear the liability of protecting children from dangers that might face them in schooling durations, as accruing from peers, tutors or other individuals. However, in cases where school officials abuse qualified immunity, like in the case of Miss Havana, legal action should be utilized to prevent such cases from arising. The subject is however based on individual discretion from judges and jury concerning the extent to which a staff member exhibits abuse towards a given immunity (Hesse, Richard, & Mario, 2009). For instance, in the case of Miss Havana, lower courts dismissed the case after hearing the claims, stating that there was no charge against the teachers since they acted towards protecting the school and learners from illegal practices. However, an appeal accorded to the high court termed the case as being serious. Moreover, for teachers to be granted qualified immunity a notice of illegality is mandated. If a school official is aware of the illegality of their actions and proceeds, they are liable to be charged with law breaking. From the given legal scenario, it is evident that school searches are not clearly defined. Although the case may fail to outline that the student’s fourth amendment rights were broken, the law is able to determine whether the action was unlawful (Surhone, Tennoe, & Henssonow, 2010).

I agree with the precedent set by this case. This is because the fourth amendment largely serves the public interest. The reasonableness standard of suspicion in the case warranted for the search, however, the measures that were adopted were not related to the degree of danger in question and were excessively intrusive. A school administrator is supposed to have a knowledge component of suspicion that warrants a search where the search if it has a moderate possibility of discovering evidence. The head teacher, Mr. Wilson indeed had enough suspicion to order the search on Savana’s outer clothing and backpack (Wilson, 2009). This is because there was extreme verbal evidence to indicate that Savana indeed was in possession of the drugs. Note that, this was after the principal had been informed of the party that had been held in Savana’s house; alcohol had been served and other instances proved that she had the given drugs. Thus, suspicion warranted the search but not in such an intrusive manner. Moreover, the principle not only searched Savana but also Marissa, Savana’s friend.

The searches, having not been defined in the constitution or the fourth amendment, had not been clearly established, but the case offered a precedent that was later to be applied in subsequent cases. This is because there was no prior description of the case in the constitution. When the court, through Justice Souter, held that the school officials were entitled to qualified immunity, they did not make a biased opinion. However, the court also established that no further searches of the kind were to be conducted in American schools. Depending on the extent of a suspicion and the degree of concealment that a suspected contraband is to be placed, the extremities of searches have to be determined in a court of law. The strip search therefore violated Miss Savana’s Fourth amendment rights (Smith, 2007).

References

Hesse, M. L., Richard, L., & Mario, H. (2009). Juvenile Justice: The Essentials. New York, NY: SAGE.

Smith, R. (2007). Fourth Amendment: The Right to Privacy. North Mankato, MN: ABDO.

Surhone, L. M., & Tennoe, M. T., & Henssonow, S. F. (2010). Safford Unified School District V. Redding. Berlin, Germany: VDM Verlag Dr. Mueller AG & Co. Kg.

Wilson, C. C. (2009). Perfect Phrases for School Administrators: Hundreds of Ready-to-Use Phrases for Evaluations, Meetings, Contract Negotiations, and Grievances. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Professional.