Appeals court says Whitmore Lake students strip search illegal

AP ^ | 4-5-05

[Dan from Michigan]

Appeals court says Whitmore Lake students strip search illegal
4/5/2005, 7:18 a.m. ET
The Associated Press

WHITMORE LAKE, Mich. (AP) — Teachers and a police officer acted illegally when they strip-searched 25 students after a theft at Whitmore Lake High School in 2000, a federal appeals court has ruled.

"The searches performed on the students in this case were unconstitutional," the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati said in a decision Monday.

But the court said the teachers and officer need not pay damages to the students.

"At the time the searches were performed, the law did not clearly establish that the searches were unconstitutional under these circumstances," it wrote.

The decision by Judges Ralph Guy Jr., John Rogers and U.S. District Judge David Dowd said the search was unreasonable because it was done without consent or reason to suspect that a particular student was at fault.

Both sides said they were generally satisfied with the decision.

"The primary goal of the students and the ACLU was to make sure these kinds of outrageous strip searches in public schools don't ever happen again," American Civil Liberties Union lawyer Matthew Krichbaum told the Detroit Free Press. His group represented the students.

"The whole situation was unfortunate," said schools Superintendent Scott Menzel. "I think the decision means that the teachers were acting in good faith and were therefore protected under the qualified immunity laws."

He added, "This won't happen again in Whitmore Lake."

The search happened on May 24, 2000, after a student told her gym teacher that $354 in prom money had been stolen during class. The money was not found.

[af_vet_rr]

That's surprising to say the least (the courts ruling a search unconstitutional). Almost gives one hope...

[muawiyah]

Amazingly the court took 5 years to decide that an unlawful "strip search" by a school was, in fact, unlawful.

Wonder how many times the judge worked that one over in his mind, eh?!

Then these guys wonder why no one cares when they get hurt on the job.

[NRA1995]

"That penis had a mole on it, I'd recognize it anywhere...."

[Just another Joe]

But the court said the teachers and officer need not pay damages to the students.

"At the time the searches were performed, the law did not clearly establish that the searches were unconstitutional under these circumstances," it wrote.

OK, the first part is just ludicrous.
You strip search 25, probably minor, students without parental consent and no one get's fines or jail time.

The second part is just newspeak.
Were there new laws enacted to MAKE it against the law to perform these types of searches?
Enquiring minds want to know.
If there were NOT new laws enacted then it was against the law THEN also.

[Dan from Michigan]

ROFL! Porky's.

[NRA1995]

Confound it, there was once an animated GIF of the neon sign; can't find it now

[Montfort]

Perhaps the courts enacted the new "law" by judicial fiat, and are merely recognizing the unfairness of holding someone liable for something that the courts only recently made illegal.

[Sandy]

But the court said the teachers and officer need not pay damages to the students.
"At the time the searches were performed, the law did not clearly establish that the searches were unconstitutional under these circumstances," it wrote.

OK, the first part is just ludicrous.
The second part is just newspeak.

It's courtspeak. The second line explains *why* no damages need to be paid, i.e., because the school officials have qualified immunity. It's a two part test that the courts use when determining whether a government agent is protected from suit by qualified immunity. First, the court determines whether a right has been violated. In this case, the court said yes. Then--since the court answered yes to question one--the court determines whether the right was "clearly established" at the time of the offense. The court said no in this case. The officials are therefore protected by qualified immunity since both questions weren't answered affirmatively.

The upside is, *now* the right *is* clearly established by this decision. Meaning, next time the officials have no excuse. It's pretty much a One Free Pass rule.

[An.American.Expatriate]

Your right, newspeak - but - in this case it means the

"We the judicial overlords had not yet stated whether it was legal or not. We have rectified this with this ruling. It is now THE LAW"

[RushLake]

I find it very interesting that the ACLU did not push hard for monetary damages. If a teacher were strip searched I bet they'd be a little more demanding.

[An.American.Expatriate]

So the Forth Amendment was not clear on this until our judicial overlords decided to tell us what it meant??

You REALLY believe this?

[Lazamataz]

I *never* get strip searched.

(pout)

(kicks pebble)

[An.American.Expatriate]

Yeah, but with your luck (and mine!!) we'd get searched by:

[Sandy]

So the Forth Amendment was not clear on this until our judicial overlords decided to tell us what it meant??

The question is whether a reasonable official should have known that a search as performed in this particular situation was a violation of the Fourth Amendment. This will be the question on appeal.