ically ▁extreme ▁intr us iveness ▁of ▁a ▁search ▁down ▁to ▁the ▁body ▁of ▁an ▁ad oles cent " ▁for ▁" n ond anger ous ▁school ▁cont rab and ". ▁ ▁" In ▁sum , ▁what ▁was ▁missing ▁from ▁the ▁sus pected ▁facts ▁that ▁pointed ▁to ▁Sav ana ▁was ▁any ▁indic ation ▁of ▁danger ▁to ▁the ▁students ▁from ▁the ▁power ▁of ▁the ▁dru gs ▁or ▁their ▁quantity , ▁and ▁any ▁reason ▁to ▁suppose ▁that ▁Sav ana ▁was ▁carrying ▁p ills ▁in ▁her ▁under we ar ." ▁Con cluding ▁this ▁section , ▁S outer ▁wrote : ▁ ▁"[ T ] he ▁T . ▁L . ▁O . ▁concern ▁to ▁limit ▁a ▁school ▁search ▁to ▁reasonable ▁scope ▁requires ▁the ▁support ▁of ▁reasonable ▁susp icion ▁of ▁danger ▁or ▁of ▁resort ▁to ▁under we ar ▁for ▁hiding ▁evidence ▁of ▁wrong do ing ▁before ▁a ▁search ▁can ▁reason ably ▁make ▁the ▁quantum ▁le ap ▁from ▁outer ▁clothes ▁and ▁back pack s ▁to ▁expos ure ▁of ▁int imate ▁parts . ▁The ▁meaning ▁of ▁such ▁a ▁search , ▁and ▁the ▁de grad ation ▁its ▁subject ▁may ▁reason ably ▁feel , ▁place ▁a ▁search ▁that ▁intr us ive ▁in ▁a ▁category ▁of ▁its ▁own ▁demand ing ▁its ▁own ▁specific ▁susp ic ions ." ▁▁ 4 . ▁These ▁school ▁officials ▁were ▁entitled ▁to ▁qualified ▁imm unity ▁Finally , ▁the ▁court ▁determined ▁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