Posted on 06/25/2009 10:41:17 AM PDT by Darren McCarty
The US Supreme Court has ruled that school staff broke the law when they ordered a 13-year-old girl to strip while searching her for painkillers.
The Arizona school, which bans prescription and over-the-counter drugs, suspected Savana Redding, then 13, of carrying ibuprofen.
After no drugs were found in her bag, she had to remove her clothing, and then move her bra and underwear.
However, the court said individuals could not be held liable in a lawsuit.
The school principal acted on a tip-off from another student that Savana was carrying ibuprofen.
Justice David Souter said: "What was missing from the suspected facts that pointed to Savana was any indication of danger to the students from the power of the drugs or their quantity, and any reason to suppose that Savana was carrying pills in her underwear,"
(Excerpt) Read more at news.bbc.co.uk ...
Thomas dissented, which amazed me a bit. Souter wrote the decision. I wish it went a little further than this, but with the state of the 4th Amendment these days and how the rights of our children end at the schoolhouse walls, I'll take what I can get.
Thomas was the dissenter??
Didn’t see that coming, usually when it’s 8-1 it’s Ginsburg that stands alone.
It amazes me a school board would have a policy permitting this. Seems there is not a lot of common sense on most school boards
The school can’t be held liable?? So if my daughter makes a mistake and hides advil or whatever she could be strip searched? Geez, at least they give her free condoms.
Damn!
LOL!!! Post of the day!
Bill Clinton is deeply saddened.
She should have just refused. Demand to be locked up and monitored until parents come... then deal with it.
I think sometimes Thomas and Scalia take turns playing the “you have nothing to fear, if you have nothing to hide” game.
They are very, very good SC justices, but sometimes, I wonder what they are thinking about when they vote like this.
Seems like an awful overreaction by the school. Not sure why they would feel the need to ban NSAIDs.
Thomas needs his head examined. If this wasn’t an “unreasonable search”, then nothing is, and we should all have a right to march into Thomas’ office and strip-search him. He must be on drugs if he’s saying this wasn’t an “unreasonable search”, so we have probable cause to suspect he’s in possession of drugs that are dangerous to the nation and our Constitutionally-guaranteed freedoms when being used by a Supreme Court justice. Right?
Should have ruled that the parents could sue the underware off the principal.
Technically, the majority opinion was 6-3. Thomas dissented entirely, claiming the search was legal. Two other judges said the search was illegal AND the administrators should be held liable for their actions. Six judges said both the search was illegal, but the administrators should NOT be liable.
Guess they're of the protected class. Government employees. Wonder why they didn't taze her while they were at it.
Not in the future — the reason the majority said they shouldn’t be held liable was that the principle that this was illegal wasn’t clear until this ruling.
After this ruling, I think it should be clear what is illegal, and in the future they can be held liable.
These schools have a "Zero" tolerance policy which means NO PILLS! Even Barney vitamins would be banned. Of course you can get birth control pills from the nurse, and or condoms without parental consent. If it's too late, you can go to the principle and get an abortion without telling anybody. But leave your aspirin at home to fight drugs at school.
Possibly, but I would be much happier if the schools were teaching common sense to the students rather than having to have the students make a federal case out of the idiot decisions of their teachers and principles..
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.