Court Says Strip Search of Child Illegal

Source: Associated Press

Court Says Strip Search of Child Illegal
Supreme Court: Officials at Arizona middle school conducted illegal strip search of teenager
By JESSE J. HOLLAND Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON June 25, 2009 (AP)
The Associated Press


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 on Thursday that school officials violated the law with their search of Savana Redding, who lives in Safford, in rural eastern Arizona.

Redding, who now attends college, was 13 when officials at Safford Middle School 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.



Read more: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=7926868

The dissenter was Clarence Thomas. Now there's a shocker.

The sicko who thought the search was a good idea can't be sued.

Check his computer and home for porn.

i`m sure she`s waiting to get her dig into him

There is something not quite right in his noggin. He appears to view his position on the Supreme Court as a tool to exact personal revenge against the world for whatever his perceived ills. He's an angry old vengeful fool and needs to go.

I doubt she will be able to do anything with him but antagonize him more. They probably all just pretty much ignore him and I'm guessing she will too.

I'm so happy to see this ruling.

I have kids in school...

I had a few disputes with them over the years. They get truly offended when you tell them they have to follow Federal law and are not a law unto themselves in "their building"

of in loco parentis but this is surprising even for him

sometimes this "zero tolerance" approach to schooling is over the line and I think this is one of those times.

I know schools are concerned with drugs and violence but there has to be something short of zero tolerance to address it. In any case to strip search anyone, especially a kid, without the parents and the police involved is IMO pathetic and really really stupid. I'd like to know who thought this was a good idea to begin with.

The search is illegal, but the school officials who authorized and participated in the search are immune from suit, even though they should have known the search was unreasonable. Case goes back to tthe trial court to determine whetehr the suit can go forward against the school district.

dipshit. :rant:

by this. I really think there is something not mentally stable about Thomas. He just comes across as a total fucking lunatic.

Fuckhim.

If W had still been fouling up the White House, they'd have ruled differently, I betcha. Fat Tony is probably running a bit scared these days.

the rights of minors are violated daily in schools across the country.

:puke:

to some inner city schools were they might bring some order where it's needed.

That's bullshit right there. Her lawyers need to come after these people from a different angle, maybe accuse them of pedophilia. The MALE principle is obviously a pedophile since he ordered the strip search; he's damn lucky he didn't stay in the room when it happened....I'm sure he wanted to. And that nurse is just as bad....that school is rampant with NAMBLA sick bastards. If she can't sue them, accuse them of child molestation......she was 13 when it happened.

Um, how about never. Is never good for you?

Source: Reuters

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A public school violated the privacy rights of a teenage girl who had to disrobe on suspicion she had ibuprofen pills, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Thursday in its first decision on student strip searches. By an 8-1 vote, the justices upheld a ruling that the school and its officials violated the U.S. constitutional right that protects against unreasonable search and seizure.

The ruling by the nation's high court was a major defeat for school officials who had defended the strip search as necessary for student safety, school order and combating a growing drug problem. School officials in Safford, Arizona, had ordered the strip search in 2003 of Savana Redding, who was 13 and in the eighth grade. It did not turn up any ibuprofen -- an over-the-counter anti-inflammatory medication used to treat fever, headaches and pain -- or any other drugs.

"Because there were no reasons to suspect the drugs presented a danger or were concealed in her underwear, we hold that the search did violate the Constitution," Justice David Souter wrote for the court majority...

Only Justice Clarence Thomas dissented from the part of the ruling that Redding's privacy rights had been violated. Thomas said the ruling "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."



Read more: http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSTRE55O48120090625

Although I expected the same from Scalia and Roberts. I'm actually surprised.

With that said, it's good to see the SCOTUS got this one right!

thomas has always been the strongest proponent of in loco parentis above all else in regards to schools.

n/t

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Thomas is a pervert plain and simple.

The way I read it, the "individuals" involved cannot be held liable separately, but the entity of the school can? Or am I being too optimistic?

they made no such ruling.

they ruled the individuals had qualified immunity.

they said nothing about the school's liability, except that it reverts to a state action.

at the hands of idiots and this ruling will hopefully begin the process to end Zero tolerance policies.

I'm glad for this ruling, it was wrong for the school do that especially over Ibuprofen of all things.

The drug war "exception" to the Fourth Amendment has gone far enough.

Of course.

:wow:

I was unfortunately so cynical about the SCOTUS that I expected a 5-4 decision the other way. This decision is reassuring in that even the current conservatives of the court (Thomas excluded) have limits. New Jersey v. T.L.O., 469 U.S. 325 (1985), would've given them a bit of precedential cover too, had they decided as I feared they would have.

I am breathing a sigh of relief that they got this one right and finally set a boundary to the ever increasing "exceptions" to the constitutional rights of students.

Thanks
:)

you can plug a legal citation into google and it'll come right up :)

469 U.S. 325 (1985)

Link to the syllabus of the case: http://supreme.justia.com/us/469/325/ and the full court opinion in that case is linked from there.

Basically, it said that schools have the right to search students with reasonable suspicion instead of probable cause. Reasonable suspicion is quite a flimsy standard that allows administrators to come up with any bullshit justification for a search that they want. Granted, in hindsight, this case is quite distinguishable from TLO because of the unreasonably invasive nature of the Safford search, but I was afraid that the school could easily persuade five conservative-leaning justices to vote in their favor.

There are so many problems with the idea of strip-searching a young girl suspected of carrying OTC ibuprofen that I hardly know where to start my rant. The two that stand out most prominently:

Menstrual cramps: If it's not illegal to deny a girl an education because she might be uncomfortable (read: in excruciating agony) part of the month, it should be.

Sexual abuse of a minor: Who says it's okay for an adult in a position of authority to forcibly remove a child's clothing?

Now they need a good lawyer who will sue the pants off them. They should be in jail..just like the off duty cop who beat up the female bartender.

read the frigging article.

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY

the school/district may be sued. that is an issue sent back ot the state courts. the individuals cannot be

reading the description of the case. That's why he dissented. Anything that gives Thomas a woody is a-ok as far as he's concerned.

"grants judges sweeping authority to second-guess the measures that these officials take"

Well duh.

What a dumb-ass.

Clarence Thomas coddles child molesters.

it makes Scalia, Alito, and Roberts look reasonable, when theyre not.

You can always depend on Uncle Thomas though lol

1. The people who ordered it are protected from further actions
2. They all agreed that if illegal drugs had been mentioned, that it would have been ok

if there's GOOD reason to believe that a student had hard drugs like heroine or cocaine then Id say a search would be ok, by the police though, not school officials. I wouldnt say thats ok for something like marijuana though or alcohol and definitely not ibuprofen, thats just... nutty.

I agree that only Stevens and Ginsberg got it, at least partially, right. I think the school and principal should be sued.

:toast:

And I have issues with the idea of strip searching people at someone else's (suspect) word, as in this case. All the other girl had to do was say "She's carrying pot" and what they did would have been sanctioned by SCOTUS. While I normally would have said the police would have been a better idea, how much more would they have botched things up, I wonder?

Geez, I'm glad I don't have kids...I'd have to worry about the school basically raping them with legal sanction.

The Court held that while there was a violation of the Fourth amendment, the defendants were entitled to qualified immunity because it was not amply clear that their conduct violated established constitutional law, notwithstanding the fact that the conduct was, according to the dissent, arguably "outrageous." Thus, the plaintiff was allowed no recovery, apart from perhaps her attorney's fees pursuant to 42 USC 1988.

I don't necessarily think this is a bad result, as the plaintiff's rights were vindicated, the scope of the Fourth Amendment has not been diminished, and I am very skeptical of any claim of lasting emotional damage.

As long as public officials and bureaucrats pay no legal price for what any thinking person knows to be misconduct they will just play games with such issues.

Money must come from their pockets.. Jobs must be lost..their Liberty must be put at hazard and they must think about that everyday when making decisions affecting the rights and liberties of others...

(not a bad approach for Police misconduct either, is it?)

Otherwise nothing will change.. they will just work around the Courts rulings smirking as they do so.

They know it costs the people $500,000 to come before the Supreme Court for each issue. It costs them nothing as they use Taxpayer Dollars to attack the peoples rights and privacy, unlimited tax payers dollars to protect themselves and justify their actions.

In that game with those rules we the people in the end will lose...

Let them be prosecuted and go to jail.. as would properly happen to anyone else if such actions occurred anywhere else.

Who can Congratulate the Court? Who can Celebrate?

When for the second most salient issue the Court specifically provided no legal recourse or consequence against their fellow state actors?

Everyone can be pleased that the young girls rights were upheld..I am.

But no recourse? No recompense, No personal individual legal accountability of the State Actors.

No true victory for the people.

:hi:

:toast:

Therein lies the problem. While the search was outrageous the courts all the way up held it was close to the line not miles from it.
I don't defend the search but...
Is it fair for us to say any thinking person knew it was illigal? Even the courts thought it was a close call. Thus the trip to the SCOTUS to begin with, And the immunity.

Furthermore when you say:
"But no recourse? No recompense, No personal individual legal accountability of the State Actors."
that has yet to be established. The school system may or may not be liable. We do not know yet.

I think Ginsberg and Stevens had it right. The school and principal should be sued.

This is just another example though of how Breyer is a bit of a disappointment.

:hi:

the qualified immunity was for the individuals.

she very well may be able to sue the school/distrct. that is an issue for the state courts at this point.

your claim is false that she is "allowed no recovery".

scotus never decided that. only that she could get no recovery from the INDIVIDUALS involved.

huge difference

n/t

And he's working with Scalia who takes a close second. :grr:

Sonia

author of Dred Scott.

One of the longest decisions of the Supreme court ever. This is remarkable for it was made 10 years before the invention of the Typewriter, so these were all hand written and then taken to a printer to print.

http://www.tourolaw.edu/patch/scott/
This directs you to both the heading BEFORE Justice Taney's decision and Justice Taney's decision. On Top are the Justice that wrote separate concurring and dissenting opinions. None of these opinion received support from more then three Justice (and that was Taney's decision).

Yes, Dred Scott was considered bad at that time, but it is also considered by some (Scalia for one) the first of the Supreme Court's decision in support of "Substantial Due Process", which the court made more of after the passage of the 15th amendment (and is the basis for applying the Bill of Rights to the States, for the Bill of Rights are only protection from the Federal Government unless the right is Incorporated through the 15th due process clause as "Substantial Due Process".

Let me quote one of the dissenters in Dred Scott about Taney:

He was indeed a great magistrate, and a man of singular purity of life and character. That there should have been one mistake in a judicial career so long, so exalted, and so useful is only proof of the imperfection of our nature. The reputation of Chief Justice Taney can afford to have anything known that he ever did and still leave a great fund of honor and praise to illustrate his name. If he had never done anything else that was high, heroic, and important, his noble vindication of the writ of habeas corpus, and of the dignity and authority of his office, against a rash minister of state, who, in the pride of a fancied executive power, came near to the commission of a great crime, will command the admiration and gratitude of every lover of constitutional liberty, so long as our institutions shall endure.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_B._Taney

Yes, Taney was the Justice that OPPOSED Lincoln's suspension of Habeas Corpus during the Civil War, ruling that the Constitution is clear, only CONGRESS can suspend the writ of Habeas Corpus NOT the President. For that decision, not Dred Scott, Lincoln refused to ask Congress to increase his Salary. This hurt Taney for he lost access to his own property in Maryland for the duration of the Civil War (He died BEFORE the War ended) and thus had no other source of Income then has salary, which was eaten up by the triple digit inflation of the Civil War).

His opinion on Habeas Corpus was the base the US Supreme Court relied on to say the prisoners in Guantanamo had the right to Habeas Corpus even if we are at war. You may oppose his decision in Dred Scott, but his Habeas Corpus decision is something we all should support and remember.

And while he did NOT write the decision in Amistad, he supported the opinion written by Justice Story.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amistad_(case)

Here is the Actual Opinion:

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/08pdf/08-479.pdf

It is a bad decision, for while it held that the search was a violation of the Fourth Amendment, it also ruled that the people who did do the search was subject to "qualified immunity" i.e. they were NOT personally liable. "Qualified immunity" is a concept developed in the Supreme Court to uphold Sovereign Immunity against claims of violation of someone's Civil Rights. i.e. you can NOT sue the state, even if the state was the one who violated your rights.

Under the clear language of the 1866 Civil Rights Act, such immunity should NOT exist, but the Supreme Court, in the 1800s and today, was reluctant to hold people liable for things they did as agents of the state. At the same time the 1871 Civil Rights act (Also known as the anti-KKK act) clearly made it a federal crime to deny someone his civil rights under the "Color of the law". The court have separated these two concepts to one where it is clear the agent of the state acted illegally and knew it, and one where the agent might not have known he was acting illegally (And thus exempt under the concept of Qualified Immunity).

Thus my problem with this decision (and one the Justice Ginsberg also stated) is this action was clearly illegal and no one should even have the protection of Qualified immunity as that term has been used by the Supreme Court. In my opinion a bad decision, the agents should be held liable for doing a strip search for over the counter medication is unreasonable.

Now I won't get in trouble for refusing to strip search any of my twelve or thirteen year old students like I did when I refused to search my student's backpacks. They were looking for ibuprofen, my dear Buddha, how ridiculous was this search. I thank her family for bringing this case to court.

but I still can't believe administrators in school corporations think that this is a good idea. There has to be a better way to resolve situations like this.

This place is becoming the outlier of outliers.

The repuke fucks who run the legislature are only about guns and low taxes and no services and...

They're mightily trying to push Arizona from 49th in school spending to 50th -- and probably will in the next budget which has MASSIVE cuts to education.

Meantime, these brainless wonders are making it possible for any yahoo to carry a concealed weapon anywhere they want including private property...

Evil, nasty, worthless fucks...

Top-down, dominator hierarchy is all they know.

This is practically sex discrimination.

Because many teenage girls (and adult women) have horrendous menstrual cramps as well as other symptoms that are disabling.

Ibuprofen was made OTC because tylenol and aspirin do very little for cramps.

And one-quarter of the girls in a junior high or high school are menstruating at any given time, and a large percentage of them will be suffering from cramps.

Completely insane and discriminatory.

Of course, I wish that our society would recognize menstrual cramps and let us take a few days off to hibernate in a "menstrual hut". No, we are supposed to drive ourselves, and never get tired, never get sick, and act like overstressed overworked MEN.

:puke:

The stupid administrators, especially the male ones, do not realize that this is a major health problem among girls and women, and they cannot ban girls from carrying purses, or going to the bathroom, and they can't strip search the girls for ibuprofen. If they followed instructions and each girl took a bottle of advil to the school nurse, and had to be excused to go take the pills, it would be chaos in the halls.

:wtf: