uit ▁agreed . ▁ ▁But ▁in ▁an ▁en ▁b anc ▁re he aring , ▁the ▁N inth ▁Circ uit ▁revers ed ▁the ▁panel : ▁it ▁found ▁that ▁Sav ana ' s ▁Four th ▁Am end ment ▁rights ▁were ▁viol ated , ▁and ▁further ▁rejected ▁the ▁individual ▁defend ants ' ▁claims ▁of ▁qualified ▁imm unity . ▁ ▁The ▁defend ants ▁( now ▁pet ition ers ) ▁appe aled ▁to ▁the ▁Supreme ▁Court , ▁which ▁granted ▁cert ior ari ▁and ▁approved ▁her ▁appeal . ▁ ▁Op in ion ▁of ▁the ▁Court ▁Justice ▁S outer , ▁writing ▁for ▁an ▁ 8 - 1 ▁majority ▁vote , ▁held ▁that ▁the ▁strip ▁search ▁viol ated ▁Sav ana ' s ▁Four th ▁Am end ment ▁rights , ▁but ▁that ▁the ▁individual ▁school ▁officials ▁were ▁entitled ▁to ▁qualified ▁imm unity , ▁because ▁the ▁search ' s ▁un const itution ality ▁was ▁not ▁clearly ▁established ▁at ▁the ▁time ▁of ▁the ▁viol ation . ▁▁ 1 . ▁Sum mary ▁of ▁ 4 th ▁Am end ment ▁juris pr ud ence ▁related ▁to ▁school ▁searches ▁First , ▁the ▁court ▁laid ▁out ▁the ▁established ▁Four th ▁Am end ment ▁juris pr ud ence : ▁ ▁school ▁searches , ▁to ▁be ▁valid , ▁merely ▁require ▁" reason able ▁susp icion ", ▁not ▁" prob able ▁cause "; ▁in ▁terms ▁of ▁the ▁knowledge ▁required ▁to ▁meet ▁that ▁threshold , ▁this ▁calls ▁for ▁only ▁a ▁" mod er ate ▁chance " ▁of ▁finding ▁the ▁expected ▁evidence , ▁not ▁at ▁" f air ▁probability " ▁or ▁" subst