Six years ago, at the age of 13, Savana Redding was strip-searched at her school in… Six years ago, at the age of 13, Savana Redding was strip-searched at her school in Arizona. She was in eighth grade.

The assistant principal at Redding’s school suspected her of having brought prescription-strength ibuprofen pills to school, the New York Times reported. In response, two female school employees thoroughly searched Redding: She had to remove both her bra and underwear.

No pills were found, and Redding, an honors student, was left humiliated. Redding’s mother was disgusted by the school’s action and filed a lawsuit. Redding’s case — she’s now 19 — will be heard before the Supreme Court this April.

This case will ask justices to consider a difficult question: In an attempt to keep schools drug-free, just how much freedom do school officials have in policing suspected students? The prevalence of drugs stored and trafficked through schools is an issue that unquestionably warrants our attention.

Yet Redding’s case exemplifies an inappropriate overstep of authority that tarnishes the reputation of our nation’s school system.

At any age, a strip-search by school officials would be an uncomfortable occurrence. But for a 13-year-old, the experience would be markedly more traumatizing than for an older student. A younger student might not be as able to fully grasp the reasoning behind the school’s actions.

Arguments surfaced that the school’s actions violated the Fourth Amendment, which prohibits unreasonable searches. Even if the act is labeled unconstitutional, the matter remains that the school’s procedure was overwhelmingly improper.

If Redding’s school officials intended to strip-search her, they should have first sought the permission of her parents. Schools often seek parental permission before releasing students on a field trip or even showing R-rated movies. Disregarding parental consent in this situation is contradictory to such a typically circumspect system.

There are other measures to combat drug exchange and storage that don’t blatantly invade students’ privacy. Random locker searches could be used frequently because lockers are, after all, school property. Some might regard students’ backpacks and their very pockets as private property. But at least a search of these items doesn’t violate personal privacy to the extent of a full strip-search.

In addition to causing personal trauma, such searches would damage a student’s relationship with the school system. Any falsely suspected student subjected to a strip-search likely would feel cheated and violated by an institution that’s supposed to maintain an environment conducive to learning and moral development.

Drug use is a real issue, but — as in Redding’s situation — supposed prescription pills just aren’t as dangerous as a student concealing a firearm, for example. Her search marked an unfortunate example of school officials transgressing their authority, sense of dignity and trust with students.

‘