Strip-search of US girl illegal (SCOTUS 8-1 decision)

BBC ^ | 6-25-09

[Smogger]

Strange I posted this same thread hours ago and it got yanked I think???

[GovernmentShrinker]

Also, the individuals who actually carried out the search obviously had the support of their superiors, as evidenced by the fact that the school district pursued this in the courts, arguing that it had a legal right to do this. The school district employees who carried out the search were, to use a cliche, “just following orders”, and relying on their superiors in the school district to have determined the legality of school district policies and procedures. I’d have had a lot more respect for them if they’d had the good sense to “just say no” to doing something so blatantly idiotic and harmful, but they and their families shouldn’t be financially wiped out for it. The school district, on the other hand, SHOULD be financially wiped out — yes, the taxpayers will end up footing the bill, but perhaps this will help the taxpayers/voters to remember to be more careful in the future, about putting complete whackjobs in charge of their school district.

[americanophile]

JUSTICE THOMAS, concurring in the judgment in partand dissenting in part. 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 majorityimposes a vague and amorphous standard on school ad-ministrators. It also grants judges sweeping authority tosecond-guess the measures that these officials take tomaintain discipline in their schools and ensure the health and safety of the students in their charge. This deepintrusion into the administration of public schools exem-plifies why the Court should return to the common-law doctrine of in loco parentis under which “the judiciary wasreluctant to interfere in the routine business of school administration, allowing schools and teachers to set andenforce rules and to maintain order.”

[Darren McCarty]

I should have read further in. Ginsburg and Stevens dissent on individual liability.

All agreed on the unconstitutionality except Thomas (although it was a partial dissent). I haven't gotten that far on reading yet.

[GovernmentShrinker]

She should have just refused. Demand to be locked up and monitored until parents come... then deal with it.

She was probably afraid (and with good reason) that she'd get tasered if she refused. Common sense was obvsiouly lacking in this school district. I expect she'll be getting a bundle of money from the district via a civil suit. She'll be able to afford to send her own children to private school or stay home and homeschool them.

[Oregon Betsy Ross]

I just did this as a moot court in a college class. I was assigned the role of Kennedy. I did my homework on NSAID’s. You should know the girl who implicated Redding had Naprosyn as well. Side effects in adults for first time use is intestinal bleeds. It gets worse when this drug is mixed with other NSAID’s. This school also had a student nearly die from taking OTC drugs within the past year. This is a complicated case.

[Bushwacker777]

I wonder how the lady that Obama wants on the court would have voted since she has sided with schools being able to curtail studetn’s freedom of speech rights.

[EnigmaticAnomaly]

"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.."

Yeah, I would be pretty upset if MY principAL lost his principLES and condoned something like this as well...;-)

[DesertRhino]

Exactly,, My daughter knows she is authorized to resist by force. Thats why they make lawyers. First of course, she will tell them that any attempt to forcibly remove her clothes will cause an immediate violent meeting with her dad.

Thomas is usually good. But i do not care what his reason is, he is dead wrong on this. A girl should never be subject to being strip searched by the public schools. A cop on the street couldnt DARE do this, but a principal can?

[Oregon Betsy Ross]

That’s what they just ruled.

[Steve_Seattle]

From Thomas's dissent:

"The analysis of whether the scope of the search here was permissible . . . is straightforward. Indeed, the majority does not dispute that "general background possibilities" establish that students conceal "contraband in their underwear . . . Redding would not have been the first person to conceal pills in her undergarments . . . Nor will she be the last after today's decision, which announces the safest place to secrete contraband in school."

I like the humor there. By the way, Thomas outlines numerous facts - not disputed by the majority - that were ommitted by the news story: the Ibuprofen was prescription grade; the girl had a history of alcohol and drug possession; her possession of drugs in that specific instance was quite likely, given the known facts; the school had ongoing problems with drug abuse, and had recently had to send a student to the hospital after the student overdosed on OTC drugs obtained from another student.

[Aevery_Freeman]

As a teacher, I believe strip-searching a (female) child for drugs would be more a criminal rather than an educational function. There are usually police on site and, if not, one could call.

I agree with Justice Thomas and regret the precedent.

[WayneS]

If Thomas dissented, then Thomas is wrong on this one.

[Steve_Seattle]

Read Thomas’s dissent. It makes a pretty good case, if not an indisputable one. At the very least, there was probable cause to believe that the girl possessed illegal drugs, and that is the basis for a legal search, which not even the majority disputed.

[montanajoe]

Personally, I wish conservatives from school boards on up would start running on a platform of no more elected idiots and no more idiot decisions. Just say no to a lack of common sense..

[DesertRhino]

Its not the least bit complicated. The primcipal stripped a teen without notifying parents. Why the rush, watch her and call the cops, amd parents. Of course, had they done that, the cops would have correctly stated that they didnt have the right to strip search her, and a parent would have sanely refused.

Principal is power-drunk. Kid’s Dad should have stripped her and marched her into the hallway.

[Abathar]

Interesting, they made the girl out to be a perfect honor role student who was never in trouble.

Perhaps having all the facts of the story would be nice, seems the local news left out some information.

[Oregon Betsy Ross]

The argument was made during oral arguments that the police could have gotten involved. You should know, one of the Justices suggested that the police could have handled it and at that point it becomes a cavity search. He wanted to know which search Redding would have preferred. At times the oral argument got both testy and humorous. Still, I think you get the point.

[DM1]

“The school can’t be held liable?? “

i think that the school itself can be held liable just not the individuals like principal or teachers themselves so any lawsuit would be against the school system itself

[Steve_Seattle]

If not sure what difference it would make if the cops did the search rather than the teachers. Thomas’s dissent cited the long-standing doctrine that teachers act “in loco parentis,” and that this gives them a unique kind of authority in administering discipline. If the kid were a Muslim youth suspected of having anthrax hidden in his underwear, would Thomas’s critics object to a strip search?