DISSENT

The dissent noted that some search was reasonable (such as of Redding's backpack and jacket), but not a strip search. Still, the first dissent noted the judges "can understand how school officials, even though they made an erroneous decision, should have some insulation from liability before our declaration of how these principles applied to this case."
http://www.thisistrue.com/blog-zt_v_savana_redding_a_court_decision.html

In the second dissent, the remaining three judges said that they wouldn't call what happened to Redding a "strip search", in that she was "only" stripped to her underwear -- and school officials only looked inside in her bra and panties, rather than order them removed. The majority actually addressed that point specifically. Reciting both case law and statutes which say stripping someone to their underwear in a search is a "strip search". The three judges then went on to say that essentially, the school's search did meet the requirements of the Supreme Court's rules, so on this point the court was divided 8-3, rather than 6-5.
http://www.thisistrue.com/blog-zt_v_savana_redding_a_court_decision.html

The bottom line is that such questions are hard to decide, even if you spend your day second-guessing the actions of others and have access to law clerks to do research for you, but I agree with the majority of the court: the actions of the school officials (government employees) were outrageous.

This case will almost certainly have a very positive impact in the fight against zero tolerance. The court not only paved the way for the school to be sued, but also the vice principal (who ordered the strip search) but not his assistant and the school nurse (who performed the strip search at his direction). That sends an intense no-nonsense message to school officials: chill out now -- or else you will be personally responsible for what happens, even if you order someone else to do the dirty work. No hiding behind governmental immunity. That will cause such officials to do what they're supposed to do: think about what they're doing. That is, indeed, what we're paying them to do.

Its lawyers said the ruling, if allowed to stand, would "create enormous confusion for school officials in trying to determine when and how searches may now properly be conducted." They also said that because judges do not understand the "shifting trends in drug abuse.” http://articles.latimes.com/2009/jan/17/nation/na-scotus-strip-search17