Slashdot Mirror
Strip-Search Case Tests Limits of 4th Amendment
langelgjm writes "The US Supreme Court has agreed to review a case involving the strip-searching of a 13 year-old girl who was accused of possessing prescription-strength ibuprofen on school grounds, in violation of the school's zero-tolerance drug policy. The case has gained national attention because of the defining role it will play in determining which, if any, parts of the Constitution apply on school grounds. In Morse v. Frederick, the Supreme Court has already upheld the right of school administrators to restrict students' free speech at school-sponsored events that take place off school property. The school described the strip-search as 'not excessively intrusive in light of [the student's] age and sex and the nature of her suspected infraction.' The Supreme Court's last decision about searches on school property dealt only with searching a student's purse. Incidentally, the girl was found not to be in possession of any drugs, illegal or otherwise."
... so that when they're older, they'll accept this and even more serious breaches of privacy from the government. Because it's to protect the children!
No, we don't. We assume that ALL authority is a bunch of fucking moronic numskulls and shouldn't be trusted. We assume that ALL authority should be, not only questioned, but undermined and in some cases, destroyed. Authority breeds abusers and liars.
I see a badge: I see a liar and an abuser. If I see someone who has ANY power, I see someone that will do ANYTHING to keep it.
Authority and power and human beings do not mix.
That's why we need term limits for ALL politicians and in a court of law, the cops are to be considered the liars until proven otherwise. Judges cannot be trusted either.
At least, this is how I feel after all these years after being abused by people in power and authority. Yes, I vote Libertarian.
She has no business either selling or giving them to another student. Don't get hung up on the financial operation being the issue. It doesn't matter if she can't make a profit if she isn't supposed to GIVE them away, either.
Its easy, no harm, not illegal, not a distraction, should be permitted. At most the parents should be called and asked if it is ok for the girl to be taking ibuprofen.
So you would require elementary school administrators to know what drugs are "no harm", given that this decision is often gotten WRONG by even the experts and also depends on the specific person taking the drug? No, sorry. I can't see the schools making the right decisions about this. I certainly can't see them having the time to call every parent of every child who is carrying an aspirin once you remove the "no tolerance" policy, much less the ability to contact every parent.
Ibuprofen isn't directly harmful, it isn't illegal,
If you take too much of it, it certainly is harmful. And yes, having the prescription strength version without a prescription is illegal. So even you, in the calm perspective of 20-20 hindsight, have gotten two out of three criteria wrong. How do you expect a busy administrator with hundreds of kids to look out for to make the right decision in the middle of the fracas?
This makes it trivial to get out the "bad drugs" while letting people take legitimate drugs.
Cough syrup? Not illegal. OTC. Legitimate drug. Contains alcohol. Is abused. Trivial? I don't think so.
By the time a kid is 13 they should know what they are allergic to and know not to get it.
Yes, they SHOULD. But schools aren't filled with just 13 year olds. I thought that idea was so obvious that I actually deleted a paragraph in my original comment that dealt with that. Schools start at 6 or so. They run through 17 or 18. You really expect that 6 year old with a headache to understand the potential hazards of any "headache pill" he is offered by that 13 year old? Or that 13 year old to know the potential hazards to the 6 year old? I don't.
That still leaves us with SHOULD. If you've never taken a certain drug you won't know that you are allergic. Pharmacists get extensive training on drug interactions, and even they get it wrong or don't know it all. There are massive books (PDR) published listing the contraindications for drugs, even simple ones like aspirin. A 13 year old is going to know all of those? Hardly. I'm a lot older than 13 and even I don't know everything I'm allergic to.
What if the parents have told their child they should not take a certain drug, but the child at the next locker has something with a different name? If you don't know what that brand-name drug contains, you won't know that it contains something you are allergic to. You have a headache, you want it to stop, you know someone has something that can make it stop, you want it. Oops, you were allergic to it. Too bad. The sirens of the ambulance coming to rescue you won't be a distraction, nothing to see here, just move along... and those parents certainly aren't going to sue the school for allowing drugs to be distributed on campus, now are they?
Oh yes, because having someone strip searched for possible possession of ibuprofen is totally reasonable!
I didn't say it was. I said, rather clearly, that a "no tolerance" policy was better than a "some ok, some not" policy that can result in selective enforcement or worse.
BTW, you can wave it off as "possession of ibuprofen", but that ignores the distribution and prescription aspects of the specific case. Just to make this clear, I didn't say that those aspects make a strip-search reasonable. I DID say that those aspects are important considerations and ignoring them is dangerous.
In this case if you can't find the alleged ibuprofen, just admit that the source was lying and go on with you
If so, they should get a fucking warrant.
Are you completely insane? Teachers should need to get warrants to stop children dealing drugs in school? Is keeping kids in class false imprisonment/slavery too? When kids doodle on a desk should they stand trial and have to pay a fine?
There is absolutely *NO* excuse for school officials sexually abusing a 13-year-old.
So this is "sexual abuse" now? They didn't even make her take all her clothes off, and the search was done by women; some school admins suspected she had a certain drug, they checked her and found nothing. Why are you imagining some sort of sexual abuse?
// MD_Update(&m,buf,j);
Would you be saying that if she had been selling crystal meth and crack to her friends and been caught with it?
Yes, this unlawful teenage girl on the rag was dealing Midol,from her bra, in school. What a fucking terrorist!!!
"trafficing"?(I will give your stupidity the benefit of doubt, and assume you mean 'trafficking')
A 13 Year old female(human), going through puberty, having 'Midol' is trafficking in 'illegal drugs'?
You are an idiot, to say the least.(yes, the least...I did not stutter)
'Over the Counter' sales of Ibuprofen could have got us here as well.
(Stupid Git, get your act together, and shoot yourself in the face-NOW-before it is too late for the Human Race...note:DO NOT BREED FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE HUMAN RACE!...You Are Too Stupid To Propgate Human Genetics!
Down With Slashdot BETA!!! I've been around the corner and seen the oliphant; you can only abuse me from your perspecti
There are those who would say we are already slaves considering that while we own shotguns the Army owns F-16s. No militia of the people could possibly stand against the Federal government today.
That so? How's Iraq working out for you? Last time I checked the insurgency with its low-tech weaponry seems to be doing okay versus the multi-billion dollar budget forces.
"Just a fox, a whisper."