Posted on 04/02/2008 3:39:20 PM PDT by neverdem
There are two kinds of people in the world: the kind who think it's perfectly reasonable to strip-search a 13-year-old girl suspected of bringing ibuprofen to school, and the kind who think those people should be kept as far away from children as possible. The first group includes officials at Safford Middle School in Safford, Arizona, who in 2003 forced eighth-grader Savana Redding to prove she was not concealing Advil in her crotch or cleavage.
It also includes two judges on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, who last fall ruled that the strip search did not violate Savana's Fourth Amendment rights. The full court, which recently heard oral arguments in the case, now has an opportunity to overturn that decision and vote against a legal environment in which schoolchildren are conditioned to believe government agents have the authority to subject people to invasive, humiliating searches on the slightest pretext.
Safford Middle School has a "zero tolerance" policy that prohibits possession of all drugs, including not just alcohol and illegal intoxicants but prescription medications and over-the-counter remedies, "except those for which permission to use in school has been granted." In October 2003, acting on a tip, Vice Principal Kerry Wilson found a few 400-milligram ibuprofen pills (each equivalent to two over-the-counter tablets) and one nonprescription naproxen tablet in the pockets of a student named Marissa, who claimed Savana was her source.
Savana, an honors student with no history of disciplinary trouble or drug problems, said she didn't know anything about the pills and agreed to a search of her backpack, which turned up nothing incriminating. Wilson nevertheless instructed a female secretary to strip-search Savana under the school nurse's supervision, without even bothering to contact the girl's mother.
The secretary had Savana take off all her clothing except her underwear. Then she told her to "pull her bra out and to the side and shake it, exposing her breasts," and "pull her underwear out at the crotch and shake it, exposing her pelvic area." Sometimes it's hard to tell the difference between drug warriors and child molesters.
"I was embarrassed and scared," Savana said in an affidavit, "but felt I would be in more trouble if I did not do what they asked. I held my head down so they could not see I was about to cry." She called it "the most humiliating experience I have ever had." Later, she recalled, the principal, Robert Beeman, said "he did not think the strip search was a big deal because they did not find anything."
The U.S. Supreme Court has held that a public school official's search of a student is constitutional if it is "justified at its inception" and "reasonably related in scope to the circumstances which justified the interference in the first place." This search was neither.
When Wilson ordered the search, the only evidence that Savana had violated school policy was the uncorroborated accusation from Marissa, who was in trouble herself and eager to shift the blame. Even Marissa (who had pills in her pockets, not her underwear) did not claim that Savana currently possessed any pills, let alone that she had hidden them under her clothes.
Savana, who was closely supervised after Wilson approached her, did not have an opportunity to stash contraband. As the American Civil Liberties Union puts it, "There was no reason to suspect that a thirteen-year-old honor-roll student with a clean disciplinary record had adopted drug-smuggling practices associated with international narcotrafficking, or to suppose that other middle-school students would willingly consume ibuprofen that was stored in another student's crotch."
The invasiveness of the search also has to be weighed against the evil it was aimed at preventing. "Remember," the school district's lawyer recently told ABC News by way of justification, "this was prescription-strength ibuprofen." It's a good thing the school took swift action, before anyone got unauthorized relief from menstrual cramps.
© Copyright 2008 by Creators Syndicate Inc.
Oh I’ve been known to lose my temper but of the two of us he would be the one to get really violent. I would just call our lawyer on the way to the school. I might even call the cops & tell them my child’s rights were violated. Its so good to have a lawyer as your child’s Godfather. I think the school is going to give a BIG sigh of good riddance at the end of this year.
In a nutshell, rp got banned and mojave stepped up to fill the void.
RP and Mojave have no problem with government employees coercing a 13 year old girl into exposing her privates in search of nonexistent Advil tablets because of another girl's uncorroborated accusation. RP was ZOTted because he blew a fuse and has sent Mojave here to defend his defenseless and ridiculous position.
Okay. I’ll bite. What job are you hunting?
That works.
Yada, yada, yada!
Yes it does & I am going to tell that vp & nurse just what I think of them too while I am at it. Freedom of speech ya know, however I will be very polite as I am doing it.
Your town’s school is doing it the right way- if drugs are suspected it is a problem for parents and LEOs, not the school. These schools that have lost their minds on witch hunts for contraband should be concerned about the education aspect and let the parents and LEO handle anything that is truly criminal.
Thanks :)
I went to bed last night, and to work today so I missed much more than you did- but I agree, all of you have done great!
The truly sad thing is it is not just a couple (or same) people on this thread that think schools have every right to do things like this- usually the court backs up the school in these incidents, so the schools just get farther and farther out there. I feel like a voice in the wilderness when I say "the school's job is to educate and leave the rest for parents and LEO unless there are very extreme circumstances" to me it is just common sense and schools did work that way for many years before all this foolishness.
If my child went to Safford schools I would ask them when was the last time they strip searched a teacher to see if they had advil? I'd be willing to bet many teachers, the secretary and nurse likely have advil or some thing in their purse that is against the zero tolerance.
Some school nurses are another problem area at schools. The nurse at my grandson’s school flipped out one day- called every one on his list to say he had a temp of 102 and needed to go to the ER, she didn’t even tell us that she had already contacted others in the family. It is amazing that the entire family didn’t show up at her office. My daughter raced to the school and the nurse brought out the wrong child to her while lecturing her about sending her son to school that sick. When my daughter unloaded on her about calling her about the wrong child- the secretary defended her by saying there were a lot of sick children that day and it was hard to keep track. What? If the nurse can’t keep her patients (students) straight she is not much of a nurse.
I have often thought that if so many normal people can be drug & alcohol tested in their jobs then those in the government & school systems etc jobs ought to be tested too.
“C’mon, metmom. No one has actually asked those questions.
They were all typed and you know it. /Mojave logic”
“...and Bingo was his name-o”
I agree! Some nurse aren’t able to deal with their jobs. Our nurse is not able to deal with the inhaler treatments for our daughter. It is against the school rules for Sassy to carry her inhaler. Since the school couldn’t treat her as she needed to be treated we got a doctor’s note, I copied it & sent it to the school. Sassy now carries her inhaler. My big problem with this nurse was the day Sassy was hit in the face with a hockey stick & I was not called. By chance I had to call the nurse & she told me Sassy was down there . I asked if she was getting inhaler treatment but she said no she fell into a wall & had a bloody lip. I got my child on the phone & she said I was hit by a hockey stick. I got the nurse on the phone & said I am picking her up. She told me I think not. Said it was no big deal. I am thinking she just got adult teeth & called my husband. He called the school & said her sister was coming to get her. I got a appt with her doctor & sent her sister to get her. Thankfully I wrote a note because Desiree’s name wasn’t on the list. She refused to let her take her until the note was shown. Sassy didn’t have loose teeth but her lips & inside of her mouth were cut up. I asked the nurse why she didn’t call me & she said some parents don’t want calls & this is minor. My husband called the nurse & straightened her out. When asked why she LIED about what happened to Sassy she had no answer... I called the BOE and told them I had a lawyer ready because I felt that my child was not getting proper care by this nurse. I’ve had it with the school & they know she is leaving. But if my child is injured again & I am not called I will have issues with that nurse & school.
My fundamental question here is what underlying view of the world, what principle, what overwhelming issue requires that, can only logically stand if we support strip searching young ladies on the grounds that we might find an illicit Advil? None of my cherished principles require it, and if I discovered one that did, I would abandon it forthwith, forswear it on the spot. My cherished principles require that this not go on in our country, in our society.
What public enterprise founders when we abandon the power of school officials to strip search girls?
I do not understand it. Clearly if you had any sense of public relations, you would have understood that you endanger anything you stand for by standing for this.
If you came to me and said the survival of the Republic stands on the power of school officials to strip search students, I would tell you that then you have already lost the Republic. Such a Republic is not one that we want to live in. Such a principle as the 4th ammendment is one we fight for, and its abandonment is not something we fight with. Not even to counter terrorism. Not even -- especially not, for this is what distinguishes us from the terrorists, and from Muslims who believe that a women are just property and have but a second place position in society with no rights and less freedom that stray dogs wandering the streets. Nothing could have done more to encourage our enemies and defeat out ability to counter terrorism that the spectacle of Abu Ghraib which was built on the same fundamental lack of decency and principle as was displayed in this school with this incident. Decent people don't treat people this way. Our friends, or our enemies.
Not only are you immoral, and dumb, you have destroyed whatever cause you stood for or stand for again. The next time you take a stand on an issue I will look at the issue and say, why would an enabler of child molesters take this position or support this cause. I will be agin' it on impulse, no rather through the repellent force of your argumentation here on this subject.
In brief, you are one sick puppy, no that insults puppies. You are one sick monster.
Now that's a "fact," Jack! ;^)
"Is that a fact?"
"Just the facts, Ma'am."
"The fact of the matter is..."
"We're on a fact finding mission here."
"Separating fact from fiction."
"Facts are stubborn things."
"But those are the simple facts of the case and I guess I ought to know."
I believe it refers to an old-time disruptor named Ash. Others would know better, but I think he kept popping up under different user names, and every time he was identified was known as an “ash alert”.
The left loves for local public schools to be administered by federal judges. It's the ACLU way.
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.