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."
Is a teenager having a fucking ibuprofen such a monstrous and immediate security threat that we need to strip search her? Or was somebody just a little too eager to strip search a 13 year old? Hmm?
I wonder if the court would have upheld the 13-year old's right to strenously kick school officials in the balls for forcibly removing her clothing?
It seems to me that, since she *wasn't* found to be in possession of any drugs at all, she's in a good position to make somebody's life really, really uncomfortable for a while.
[b.belong('us') for b in bases if b.owner() == 'you']
why some families homeschool and believe their kids get a better education.
Don't forget, it wasn't just that it was prescription strength OTC medication (she could have taken a handful of "regular" pills for the same effect)
The entire thing was based on the accusations of another student. No one actually saw her with any pills of any kind. A strip search for what amounts to over the counter medication based on the accusations of another student.
If a student had accused the vice principal of the same thing, would they be expected to submit to a strip search?
Zero tolerance policies are the same as "I just don't want to make hard decisions" so instead you make f'ing stupid ones.
A "strip-search" performed by anyone other than a police officer acting with probable cause is a sexual assault.
People, including teens and children, have the right to defend themselves by any means necessary against such an attack, and should be trained to do so.
After some pervert principal gets his testicles crushed and his eyes gouged by a student he's trying to attack, perhaps we might see an end to this bullshit.
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
So what could excessively intrusive have been in this case? Surgically cutting her open and checking all internal organs?
The perps should be on the sex offenders' registry for the rest of their lives.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
Home schooling fucks up your social skills. We need good public schools.
No. Socializing children fucks up their social skills. Have you ever been a child before? You should remember what it was like. Children are not good at teaching each other morals or good social skills. What they do learn from each other is Human Nature, which isn't a very good thing to learn if you are being taught by human children. Go to a football game in England to see what socialization does.
Amen.
I'm glad that the Ninth Circuit had the insight to say that this was wrong, I only hope that the Supreme Court is picking this up so that they can more firmly put this in the "Not Allowed" category. Schools need to understand that these are not their children and that for anything more intrusive than a locker search the parents should be involved.
Necessity is the mother of invention.
Laziness is the father.
Agreed. Though technically(and legally) student is in the care of the school while at school, it is important to understand the distiction between this and something like a prison. Just because the student was 13 doesnt mean she doesnt have constitutional rights. I think it would be reasonable to argue a 4th ammendment violiation in this case. Posession of an over the counter medication is NOT by any means probably cause for a strip search. I mean, come on people use some common sense. Now if she was accused of having a kilo of cocaine, and there was sufficient evidence to support that claim, then call the freakin police and have her arrested. By no means whatsoever should she be strip searched on the premises, especially not by school administration.
I think it would be reasonable to argue a 4th ammendment violiation in this case.
It's not just an illegal search, it's a goddamned felony. If these assholes go free while someone like Charlie Lynch goes to jail, then the law in the USA is a complete joke.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
The accusation was that she had prescription-strength ibuprofen, which is not OTC medication.
But I agree that the police should have been involved for any form of invasive search. There also shouldn't have been a zero-tolerance policy to begin with, as the enforcement of these often removes the gray area of judgment of when to enforce a policy and moves the gray area into how to enforce the policy, often erring on the side of draconian.
You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
Agreed. I grew up with Migraines. Pre- the wonderful better drugs we have now I needed to take massive amounts of Ibuprofen to keep them in check and hell-yeah I had it with me at all times including at school. "Prescription Strength" means 800mg = 4 over the counter pills = 1/2 what I needed to bring down a bad migraine.
Their mention of the "not excessively intrusive in light of [the student's] age and sex and the nature of her suspected infraction" what.. she's a girl so we can strip search her? She's 13 so we can strip search her? She might, heaven-forbid, have *Advil* so we can strip search her?!?
Let them burn.
The problem is the "zero tolerance" mentality.
Exactly. "Zero tolerance" is newspeak for "zero common sense." Anyone who isn't capable of applying their own judgement instead of blindly following a rule in a situation like this is far too stupid to have anything to teach a child.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
As the parent of 3 homeschooled children, I can tell you that such a generic statement is complete rubbish.
Yes, if the kids a locked away and never socialize, they probably won't have good social skills.
That situation does not represent the experience of many homeschooled kids. In any area where there are significant groups of homeschooled children, there will be organizations through which these children can socialize, and there will be many, many other venues that can be found to meet other kids and socialize.
On the other hand, I expect that being strip-searched probably messes up social and other skills. While this is an unusual case, for far too many kids, being the recipient of bullying also messes up their social skills.
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
The school district does not contest that Ms. Redding had no disciplinary record, but says that is irrelevant. "Her assertion should not be misread to infer that she never broke school rules," the district said of Ms. Redding in a brief, "only that she was never caught."
I would never want anyone from a school with this attitude to be involved in the education of my children.
That's what I was thinking. If my daughter came home from school telling me she was strip searched by a school official or a police officer without a warrant, the first court case would be the one I would face for murder charges.
The perps should be on the sex offenders' registry for the rest of their lives.
Lots of people are assholes. Many sex offenders are assholes. Being an asshole should not be sufficient to cause us to throw away our principles to crucify them. In this case, by all means, charge them with any applicable crimes. However, I, and many others, object to sex offender registries because they make it difficult or impossible for individuals to successfully re-enter society, by barring individuals from living in many areas, and for effectively punishing them beyond the time they serve in prison. So no, sex offender registries should not exist, and nobody should be put on them.
If I had found out that some school official strip searched my kid, regardless of age or sex; the officials involved would never have made it to trial.
For those that didn't RTFA:
After she had stripped to her underwear, "they asked me to pull out my bra and move it from side to side," she said. "They made me open my legs and pull out my underwear."
School is supposed to be a place where kids are safe. When the solution is worse then the crime you have a system out of control.
If so, they should get a fucking warrant.
There is absolutely *NO* excuse for school officials sexually abusing a 13-year-old.
While I tend to agree with you, if you're going to have people end up on registries for things that don't actually harm anyone in a meaningful way like streaking or having sex in semi-public places, surely people like these school officials who cause genuine harm to a minor by sexually humiliating them should be on the list.
I don't understand what seeing a picture of her has to do with anything. However, there is a current picture attached to the article.
There was one part of the article which I found to be particularly illuminating:
"They didn't even look at my records," she said. "They didn't even know I was a good kid."
The school district does not contest that Ms. Redding had no disciplinary record, but says that is irrelevant.
"Her assertion should not be misread to infer that she never broke school rules," the district said of Ms. Redding in a brief, "only that she was never caught."
Seriously?
The fact that teachers got a child to snitch out another child over some ibuprofen is the first thing that should worry us.
The fact that adults thought it was appropriate to strip search a 13 year old over ibuprofen is the second thing that should worry us.
The fact that the child was so used to following authority that she did not say 'fuck you' when told to strip is the third thing that should worry us.
The fact that someone will actually defend this in hindsight is the most worrying thing of all. Would a full cavity search have been OK with you as well?
Finally I'm guessing that the previous 'overdose' was an equally stupid zero tolerance/cover your ass based overreaction.
The responsible people and the school need a severe smack down in civil court. Start by taking the vice principles net worth times four from him (leave him destitute and in debt). Then hit the school for enough money to pay for the girls college after lawyers fees.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
1.There is nothing reasonable or doubtful that thinking that two advils would do serious harm, or even minor harm to a 13 year old girl.
Exactly. It's prescription medicine, no mention is made of whether she had a prescription. If the school's "zero tolerance" drug policy forbade prescription drugs, that's the stupidest fucking thing I've ever heard, and I've heard some pretty fucking stupid things.
"I'm sorry, Mrs Splodnatzki, your son died today in detention after we caught him trying to inject himself with Insulin. It was his blood testing kit and the prescription in his bag that tipped us off... They go bad so young these days, you really should consider your parenting. Just be glad he wasn't experimenting with Aspirin or antibiotics!"
Rampant carbon sequestration destroyed the Dinosaurs' tropical paradise. I'm here to help repair the damage.
Well, you're wrong. America's economy depended on slavery. Guns were necessary for slavery. Connect the dots.
Boy, those are some reeeeaaalll far apart dots to connect. Sorry, pal, but the economies of the Northern states in 1789 had nothing to do with slavery. Even the Southern states' economies weren't inextricably tied to slavery until after the invention of Eli Whitney's cotton gin in 1793.
As others have mentioned, the framers of the Constitution had just finished overthrowing England's colonial administration and had this in mind. And note that neither after the Whiskey Rebellion or after the end of slavery did the government abolish the Second Amendment, which would seem not to fit with your theory. On top of all that, the Supreme Court of the United States has held repeatedly that the framers' intent wasn't even related to militias per se, but as a purely individual right. (I don't agree with this interpretation personally, but I am willing to believe that Supreme Court justices are better qualified to interpret the Constitution than you or me.) So while it squares nicely with modern revisionist "People's History"-style historical interpretations, the whole "slavery" argument you're pushing really just holds no water.
Look, I'm not a NRA member, I haven't held a firearm since my grand-dad taught me to shoot when I was 12, and I'm all for restricting the access to guns in America. So I'm not philosophically out of line with your ideal outcome. But when you extrapolate wild things like the Second Amendment being related to slavery, you appear to abandon logic and do harm to your own cause.
"95% of all Slashdot
This case isn't about if school's can have Zero-Tolerance rules, but did they act inappropriatly when they involutarily, and without parental consent, strip-searched a 13 year-old girl, because they suspected she had ibuprofen (Advil, that's right plain, old, ADVIL ) on her.
If this case actually involved illegal possession, they should have contacted the police and let them handle it. Since it was simply a case of an over-zealous enforcement of a zero-tolerance policy, I think school administrators should have been limited to suspending the student.
And I do feel the need to mention, they didn't even find any pills.
How's this for a rule, School administrators DO NOT UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES get to strip-search anyone. Pat them down, search their bags, remove them from the general student body, call the police and let them do their thing, but you, as school administrators, do not have the authority to strip anyone naked, for any purpose.
I agree that our society is prone to hysteria about sex-offenders. However, if you think that's a basis for letting these administrators off the hook then you are entirely missing the point:
Situation 1: A school administrator strip-searches a 13 year old honor student upon the flimsiest pretext. The student is forced to show her vagina and spread her legs.
Outcome: The defiant school district defends its administrators all the way to the Supreme Court. School officials and prosecutors solemnly testify about the incalculable harm created by drugs and the necessity of a zero-tolerance policy.
Situation 2: A 13 year old girl uses her cell phone to take a scandalous photo of herself and sends it to her boyfriend. The school discovers this after confiscating the boy's cellphone when it rings in class.
Outcome: Both kids are criminally prosecuted for trafficking child pornography. School officials and prosecutors solemnly testify about the incalculable harm created by 'sexting' and the necessity of a zero-tolerance policy.
Obviously the real issue is not the sanctity of our children's bodies. The real issue is that some of our school administrators are using every possible pretext to expand and consolidate their power over students. By crassly exploiting the "think of the children" sentiment, schools institute ever more invasive and authoritarian policies. We are turning our schools into a police state. Instead of teaching our kids how to be responsible citizens, we are priming them for a totalitarian society.
Thus, the right to bear arms was in fact a concession to the South.
I'm sure that would come as a considerable surprise to the Vermont militia, who used their privately owned firearms to prevent federal troops from entering Vermont to enforce the Fugitive Slave Act. I would doubt that John Brown would agree with you, either.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
"...The practical reason for the Second Amendment is that private ownership of guns was necessary to perpetuate slavery."
I cannot let this go unchallenged.
The practical reason was that the Founders had just won a war against the most powerful nation on Earth starting with a privately-armed militia. They knew from strong, recent experience that a people well practiced with arms they owned were the first defense against tyranny.
Concorde -- "the shot heard round the world" -- was fought over a gun-control action: the British trying to confiscate privately owned arms and put them into an armory they controlled.
I agree with your comment to this extent: citizens should be able to possess the current military issue-weapon. In our times, that would be M-16s, or at least its semi-auto equivalent, the AR-15 and clones thereof.
(Hey, Mr. Obama! Want your new mandatory-volunteer corps to be actually-volunteer? Set it up as an Article 1, Section 8 militia, and let volunteers keep their issue weapon after their training hitch in high school.)
In any event, times have changed. The very first gun control measures were laws keeping guns out of the hands of slaves, indentured servants, and Indians. Many modern gun control laws were originally enacted after the Civil War to keep guns out of the hands of freed black men.
One of the reasons given in the infamous Dredd Scott decision for not accepting black people as real human beings was specifically that then they'd be allowed to possess arms under the Second Amendment.
In my own lifetime...look up Deacons For Defense and Justice, armed black churchmen who rode with other, more pacifistic civil rights activists as body guards.
In the current case, scroll down through this thread and read the comments from those who would use their arms on the school thugs who perpetrated this vile sex crime. That's what the right to keep and bear is about -- not revolution, not overthrowing the government, but checking it, returning it to its limits. Reminding officials who might otherwise think themselves above the law that there are consequences beyond the law. Yes, the citizens imposing those consequences would be in prison or dead themselves -- but that's exactly what Jefferson was talking about when he said the Tree of Liberty must occasionally be watered with the blood of tyrants and patriots.
(And, yes, I agree one hundred percent that sex-offender registries are also abominations, but if we're going to have them, the two women who actually performed the search and any school official who approved it should damn well be on one, if they survive prison.)
In the wrong hands, sanity is a dangerous weapon.
And cocaine is perfectly legal if you have a prescription.
LSD is perfectly legal if you have a DEA Schedule 1 chemicals license.
The fact that she can buy it over the counter has no bearing on whether or not it is legal for her to possess in school.
I am not supporting the rule here, I think its absolutely fucking ridiculous. However, this is the logical conclusion of the idea that the government should be in the business of regulating what people put into their own bodies.
It started with opiates, and has just slowly grown, like a cancer on our society trying to take more and more control. Now, we have girls being strip searched for midol.
Frankly, given the sins of this dangerous idea, a strip searched girl is hardly even newsworthy. Never mind a cartel in mexico has declared they will kill every day until the chief of police steps down. A cartel primarily funded by black market drug sales... a group that couldn't grow and survive in an open market, thrives under this policy.
But a 13 year old girl was strip searched.... no really THAT is where these policies have gone too far.
-Steve
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
Vietnam did pretty fucking well for themselves.
Would the school officials have used force if the student refused?
What if the student used force against the school officials to avoid the unwarranted search?
What if the school officials had search 300 girls instead of just one? How many would still see this as reasonable?
It would have been completely reasonable for the girl to beat to death anyone who tried to force her to strip.
I don't care what the circumstances are. If an adult tries to force a girl to strip, that's rape. Rape victims are free to take any measures necessary to protect themselves, as far as I am concerned