Class Notes - Safford v

.docx

School

Southeast Missouri State University *

*We aren’t endorsed by this school

Course

506

Subject

Law

Date

Jan 9, 2024

Type

docx

Pages

4

Uploaded by ChefSnakeMaster968

Case Citation Safford Unified School Dist. #1 v. Redding, 557 U.S. 364 (2009) Parties Plaintiffs of the case were Safford Unified School District #1, Assistant Principal Kerry Wilson, Peggy Schwallier school nurse, and Administrative Assistant Helen Romero. The defendants of the case were student Savana Redding and her mother April Redding. Facts of the Case Jordan Romero is a student and told the Assistant Principal and said students are passing out drugs and they were going to take them at lunch. He also said that he had a pill on him who he got from Marissa. Marissa then was taken to the office and a planner was given to Assistant Principal Wilson. The planner had contraband in the planner and then Marissa was questioned on the contents of the planner. NEED TO ADD MORE Issue(s) Savannas 4 th Amendment Right violated by the shaking of her undergarments. Another issue of the case is qualified immunity should be granted to the school officials (AP, NURSE, ADMINSTRATIVE ASITENT) Is the school liable or should they receive qualified immunity as well? Prior Legal History A 1. District Court of Arizona and they determined that the 4 th amendment was not violated. No need for qualified immunity “moot”. (Redding v. Safford) 2. 9 th Circuit Court panel agreed (affirmed 2-1) on both accounts that were found by the District Court of Arizona. (Redding v. Safford) 3. Ninth Circuit En banc (the entire circuit/ all 9 rulled 5-4) stating the 4 th amendment was violated. Wilson didn’t get immunity, but Schwallier and Romero did get qualified immunity. Decision of the Court 3 different discission 1. 4 th amendment right was violated. 2. Qualified immunity is granted to the following nurse, AP, Assistant admin 3. The school liable should be addressed on remand (to send back to a lower court). Lower court was never decided in the 9 th circuit court.
Rationale 3 parts to match up with the three discions is needed. TOL V. New Jersey must be in there (If it is appropriate to search / intrusive search) Other What were the minority opinions. Take them each separately. (2-3 sentences on each opinion) Implications What is right and wrong and my impression. How does this case teach the lesson and set the standard going forward.
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
  • Access to all documents
  • Unlimited textbook solutions
  • 24/7 expert homework help