In the study of the “Safford v. Redding: a search and seizure case”, the school was not justified to search the student. By consideration, the manner in which the school officials carried out the search was not in good correlation with the intention of the task. Moreover, the school officials did not harbor enough suspicion to deserve such a type of a rigorous search. Consequently, the ruling of the court gave the description of the need for a just system on the basis of the fourth amendment rights. The consideration of the converse to the fundamental rights of Redding elucidates the extent of how desperate the lower courts are (Dunn & West, 2009).
Qualified immunity should exist for school officials since it is the source of getting rid of the contrabands from the institution’s fraternity. The more the school officials get acquaintance to the constitutional right of exercising qualified immunity, the more the enhancement of security systems within the institutions is. Consequently, the jurisdiction of the schooling environment is under the management of the school officials, who are qualified to administer legislative roles of the school independent from the governmental legislation. This implies that the school officials have the capacity to oversee the discretions within the institutions hence need the favors set by quality immunity (Katsh, 2007).
I strongly agree with the precedent set by this case since the final judgment was based on the fact that the fourth amendment rights was violated, while there is the need for the prevalence of qualified immunity among the school officials. Administrators need to put the safety of their institutions at high levels so that there is little influence from contraband goods that are a source of destruction. On the other hand, the officials should consider it a deviation from the expression of their rights to quality immunity if the extent of this expression infringes the subject’s fourth amendment rights (Katsh, 2007).