Posted on 06/25/2009 8:32:37 AM PDT by Hawk720
The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that a school's strip search of an Arizona teenage girl accused of having prescription-strength ibuprofen was illegal.
The court ruled that school officials violated the law with their search of Savana Redding, who lives in Safford in rural eastern Arizona.
Redding was 13 when officials at Safford Middle School in 2003 ordered her to remove her clothes and shake out her underwear because they were looking for pills. The district bans prescription and over-the-counter drugs and the school was acting on a tip from another student.
The high court, however, said the officials cannot be held liable in a lawsuit for the search. The justices also said the lower courts would have to determine whether the school district could be held liable.
During court arguments last April, Redding's lawyer argued to the Supreme Court that such a "intrusive and traumatic" search would be unconstitutional in every circumstance if school administrators were not directly told the contraband was in her underwear.
"A school needs to have location-specific information" to put a child through such an embarrassing search, lawyer Adam Wolf said.
Wolf said school officials violated the Fourth Amendment, which prohibits unreasonable searches. School officials didn't bother to search her desk or locker, or even question additional students to find out if anyone thought Redding could be hiding drugs in her underwear, he said.
(Excerpt) Read more at msnbc.msn.com ...
Good grief, this case had to go all the way to the Supreme Court for this decision?!
That's one of the things that's whacked about the government today. The actors are not considered liable for their acts.
Lack of responsibility breeds irresponsible behavior.
Again, note, the attackers used thie pills thing as an excuse for doing what they wanted to do which was to pull the panties off a young girl. They didn't even bother to cover their actions by searching elsewhere ~ desk, locker, and so forth.
These people really do need to be put down, and there's no excuse whatsoever for waiting around.
The USSC was mentioning liability for a lawsuit ~ not criminal charges. It’s time for the criminal charges. The lawsuit can follow that.
I agree with the Court that the judgment against theschool officials with respect to qualified immunity shouldbe reversed. See ante, at 11–13. Unlike the majority, however, I would hold that the search of Savana Redding did not violate the Fourth Amendment. The majority imposes a vague and amorphous standard on school ad-ministrators. It also grants judges sweeping authority to second-guess the measures that these officials take to maintain discipline in their schools and ensure the health and safety of the students in their charge. This deep intrusion into the administration of public schools exemplifies why the Court should return to the common-law doctrine of in loco parentis under which “the judiciary was reluctant to interfere in the routine business of school administration, allowing schools and teachers to set andenforce rules and to maintain order.” Morse v. Frederick, 551 U. S. 393, 414 (2007) (THOMAS, J., concurring). But even under the prevailing Fourth Amendment test established by New Jersey v. T. L. O., 469 U. S. 325 (1985), all petitioners, including the school district, are entitled tojudgment as a matter of law in their favor.
Yes and Thomas, who I usually like, dissented.
I disagree with Thomas here - he may just be following precedent, but it’s bad precedent.
+1
Officials had searched the girl's backpack and found nothing, Thomas said. "It was eminently reasonable to conclude the backpack was empty because Redding was secreting the pills in a place should thought no one would look," Thomas said.
Were this my kid it would be the most boring criminal trial in history as there would be no one left to prosecute save me.
For some clown school official ordering the strip search of MY daughter, a court decision would be the LEAST of his worries.
Pills seem to have not really been an objective ~ which is the motive behind their not searching her desk or locker.
Bet this case gave Ruthy a thrill though.
That’s how I meant it, too.
So much for the notion that SCOTUS needs women to come to the right conclusion when a woman’s sensibilities are involved.
The thing to do is always show up with the cops. And press charges quickly.
Dude, what ever happened to putting the burden of proof on those doing the searching? And all this for friggin' ibuprofen. This failed on three levels - bad source to justify the search, failure to meet any kind of burden of proof for the search, and failure to mesh the severity of the search with the lack of severity of the possible offense.
Hal Turner said stuff like that, and he is now charged with a federal felony. FBI says blogger threatened to kill 3 U.S. appellate judges in Chicago
"Let me be the first to say this plainly: These judges deserve to be killed," officials quoted the site.
I remember the good old days when many of my recess periods were spent widdling with the pocket knife I always carried to school. And my father remembers the good old days when he left his rifle leaning on the school house wall when he went in. Our kids will remember the good old days when they were strip searched for aspirin.
If I were the county DA those perverts would have been locked up already.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.