Retrieved from https://studentshare.org/education/1668655-reflect-on-your-reading
https://studentshare.org/education/1668655-reflect-on-your-reading.
Reflection On Safford Unified School District v. Redding The case provides a broad perspective over which a number of issues can be drawn based on law. Wilson did not have the right to strip Savana in the sense that the constitution did not provide for such tendencies. Essentially, Savanas rights as a thirteen-year-old were grossly violated. The search done on the bags and other areas were enough to convince Wilson that there was nothing unusual in the issue. I do not agree with the manner in which the young girl was treated.
Wilson should have answered to some charges because there was an open demonstration of the constitutional violation against Redding (Safford Unified School District v. Redding 1). Wilson knew that the Drugs were not harmful as initially thought and should have suspended the search and looked for other prudent ways of asking the girl why she carried the prescriptions to school. I agree with the judges finding that there was no need to be suspicious of Savanas acts based on the drug issues. However, I agree that carrying out a search was essential only to the extent to which evidence could be derived.
The suspicion was necessary because it could have been possible that Savana carried other hard drugs to school and using the prescriptions only as collateral. The fourth amendments findings on the search issues were correctly observed (Safford Unified School District v. Redding 4). Case in point is that a search requires a higher threshold and reasonable causes. In order to conduct a search, there has to be reasonable facts leading to a particular action. I agree with the findings that Savanas rights based on the fourth amendment were grossly violated even though the school officials did not live within the confines of the amendment at the time of their actions.
Work CitedSafford Unified School District v. Redding. Supreme Court Of The United States. 2009. Available at: < http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/08pdf/08-479.pdf>
Read More