Affidavit of Savana Redding, 3 November 2004:
I went to the nurse's office. Mrs. Romero asked me to remove my jacket, socks and shoes. [...] When the [sic] Mrs. Schwalleir came out they told me to remove my pants and shirt. I took off my clothes whule they both watched. Mrs. Romero searched the pants and shirt and found nothing. Then they asked me to pull my bra out and to the side and shake it, exposing my breasts. Then they asked me to pull out my underwear and shake it. They also told me to pull the underwear out at the crotch and shake it, exposing my pelvic area. I was embarressed and scared, but I felt I would be in more trouble is I did not do what they asked. I held my head down so they could not see that I was about to cry. [...] The strip search was the most humiliating experience I ever had.
Justice Clarence Thomas, 25 June 2009:
I agree with the Court that the judgment against the school officials with respect to qualified immunity shouldbe reversed. See ante, at 11–13. Unlike the majority, however, I would hold that the search of Savana Redding did not violate the Fourth Amendment. The majority imposes a vague and amorphous standard on school administrators. It also grants judges sweeping authority to second-guess the measures that these officials take to maintain discipline in their schools and ensure the health and safety of the students in their charge. This deep intrusion into the administration of public schools exemplifies why the Court should return to the common-law doctrine of in loco parentis under which "the judiciary wasreluctant to interfere in the routine business of school administration, allowing schools and teachers to set and enforce rules and to maintain order." Morse v. Frederick, 551 U. S. 393, 414 (2007) (THOMAS, J., concurring). But even under the prevailing Fourth Amendment test established by New Jersey v. T. L. O., 469 U.S. 325 (1985), all petitioners, including the school district, are entitled to judgment as a matter of law in their favor.
On a side note, while I'm glad that most of SCOTUS found the strip-search to be unconstitutional, I do wish that they gave Redding the right to sue her principal.
Oh well.
Update: This seems to be par for the course for Thomas, who never seemed to understand the Fourth Amendment very well:
Board of Education v. Earls, 536 U.S. 822 (2002) was a 2002 decision of the Supreme Court of the United States which ruled, 5-4, that mandatory drug testing of students in extracurricular activities was constitutional. It was brought by two students, Lindsay Earls and Daniel James, and their families against the school board of Tecumseh, Oklahoma, alleging that their policy requiring students to consent to random urinalysis testing for drug use violated the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The majority decision, written by Justice Clarence Thomas, with a concurring opinion by Justice Stephen Breyer, held that students in extracurricular activities had a diminished expectation of privacy, and that the policy furthered an important interest of the school in preventing drug use among students. This rationale was based on the precedent Vernonia School District 47J v. Acton, which allowed drug testing for athletes.