Victory for Decency at the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court’s decision today in Safford Unified School District #1 et al. v. Redding was a victory for privacy and decency. The Court held that a middle school violated the Fourth Amendment rights of a thirteen-year-old girl by strip searching her in a failed effort to find Ibuprofen pills and an over-the-counter painkiller.
The Cato Institute filed an amicus brief, joined by the Rutherford Institute and the Goldwater Institute, opposing such abuses of school officials’ authority. The search in this case should have ended with the student’s backpack and pockets; forcing a teenage girl to pull her bra and panties away from her body for visual inspection is an invasion of privacy that must be reserved for extreme cases. School officials should be authorized to conduct such a search only when they have credible evidence that the student is in possession of objects posing a danger to the school and that the student has hidden them in a place that only a strip search will uncover.
Today’s decision should not come as a surprise. School officials were not granted unlimited police power in the seminal student search case, New Jersey v. T.L.O. Justice Stevens explored the limits of school searches in his partial concurrence and partial dissent, specifically mentioning strip searches. “To the extent that deeply intrusive searches are ever reasonable outside the custodial context, it surely must only be to prevent imminent, and serious harm.”
The Fourth Amendment exists to preserve a balance between the individual’s reasonable expectation of privacy and the state’s need for order and security. Unnecessarily traumatizing students with invasive and humiliating breaches of personal privacy upsets this balance. Today’s decision restores reasonable limits to student searches and provides valuable guidance to school officials.
Congress on Privacy: Schizophrenic or Lagging?
In the same bill that Congress limited the use of whole-body imaging or “strip-search machines” at airports (text of the amendment here), it required the Transportation Security Administration to study using facial and iris recognition to identify people in line for airport security checkpoints (Sec. 242 of House-passed version here).
So glimpses at de-identified bodies are a privacy outrage while massive biometric databases and records of people’s travels are good to go?
Not necessarily. Average people (and members of Congress) understand better what a look at the body is, but they don’t understand as well what biometric tracking and databasing of our movements means. So they’re quick to object to the former and lagging on the latter.
Those of us who understand the privacy consequences of government-deployed facial recognition and tracking must press to educate our less-well-versed fellow Americans.
Filed under: Law and Civil Liberties; Telecom, Internet & Information Policy
House Votes against “Strip-Search” Machines
Yesterday the House adopted an amendment to the Transportation Security Administration Authorization Act that would prohibit the TSA from using Whole Body-Imaging machines for primary screening at airports and require the TSA to give passengers the option of a pat-down search in place of going through a WBI machine, among other things.
You can read the amendment here, and the roll call vote will soon be up here. Use it to decide whether to cheer or jeer your member of Congress.
More on strip-search machines here, here, and here.
Filed under: Foreign Policy and National Security; Telecom, Internet & Information Policy
House to Consider Ban on Body Scans
. . . or at least serious limitations, NextGov reports.
Something like the bill I discussed in a previous post may be included in the TSA Authorization Act. I wrote some about “strip search machines” back in February, too.
Filed under: Foreign Policy and National Security; Telecom, Internet & Information Policy
Limiting the TSA’s Use of “Strip Search Machines”
I wrote here in February about the push and pull over “strip search machines,” also known as “whole-body imaging” and “millimeter wave scanning.”
The question is joined: How do you maintain privacy with a technology that’s fundamentally intrusive? Maybe by using it less. This week, Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) introduced a bill to limit the use of whole-body imaging.
H.R. 2027, the Aircraft Passenger Whole-Body Imaging Limitations Act of 2009, would place several limits:
- Whole-body imaging could not be the sole or primary method of screening a passenger, and it could only be used as a follow-up to other methods like metal detection.
- Passengers would have the right to opt for a pat-down search instead of whole-body imaging.
- Passengers subject to whole-body imaging would have to be provided information about the technology and the images it generates, on privacy policies, and the right to have the pat-down search instead.
- Images of passengers generated by whole-body imaging technology could not be stored, transferred, shared, or copied in any form after the passenger has passed through the security system.
Filed under: Foreign Policy and National Security; Telecom, Internet & Information Policy
School Strips Student of Clothes, Rights
A middle-school student who was caught red-handed with prescription-strength ibuprofen (in violation of the school’s drug policy) implicated another 13-year-old girl, Savana Redding. On the sole basis of this accusation, school officials searched Savana’s backpack, finding no evidence of drug use, drug possession, or any other illegal or improper conduct. They then took the girl to the nurse’s office and ordered her to undress. Not finding any pills in Savana’s pants or shirt, the officials ordered the girl to pull out her bra and panties and move them to the side. The observation of Savana’s genital area and breasts also failed to reveal any contraband.
Savana’s mother, whom Savana had not been permitted to call before or during the strip search, sued the school district and officials for violating her daughter’s Fourth Amendment rights to be protected from unreasonable search and seizure. The trial court and a panel of the Ninth Circuit ruled against her, but the en banc Ninth Circuit reversed, finding the search unjustified and unreasonable in scope, and therefore unconstitutional. The Supreme Court granted the school district’s petition for review.
Cato, joined by the Rutherford Institute and Goldwater Institute, filed a brief supporting the Reddings’ suit, arguing that strip searches, particularly of students, are subject to a higher level of scrutiny than other kinds of searches. Such searches are reasonable only when school officials have highly credible evidence showing that (1) the student is in possession of objects posing a significant danger to the school and (2) the student has secreted the objects in a place only a strip search will uncover.
In this case, there was insufficient factual basis for the strip search and the search was not reasonably related and disproportionate to the school officials’ investigation. The Supreme Court should thus affirm the Ninth Circuit and establish that such searches may be undertaken only when compelling evidence suggests a strip search is necessary to preserve school safety and health.
Safford Unified School District No. 1 v. Redding will be argued at the Supreme Court on April 21.
Cato on Facebook
Cato on Twitter
Cato on YouTube
Cato Tweets