Slashdot Mirror
Middle-School Strip Search Ruled Unconstitutional
yuna49 writes "The US Supreme Court today ruled 8-1 that the strip search of a 13-year-old girl by officials in an Arizona middle school was unconstitutional. However, by a vote of 7-2, the Court also ruled that the individual school officials could not be held personally liable. A suit for damages against the school district itself is still going forward. We discussed this case at length back in March when the Court decided to hear the case on appeal."
This is America, where children are the Enemy.
Unless the district had a policy that made this a requirement of the officials, they should be held personally accountable for these horrid actions.
How exactly is this "online"?
quite as well as it does now.
I may not be the only rabid libertarian posting here that thinks this was an awful violation of 4A (yeah yeah, I know, 4A doesn't always apply in schools) but I'll go one further and say that the offenders ought to be sent off to federal PMITA prison and branded as sex offenders.
All for a fucking Advil!
In Soviet Russia jokes are formulaic and decidedly non-humorous.
I'm assuming the school district is still libel for the actions of it's employees even if the principal got a free pass.
Strip search a 13 year old girl? They better be looking for nuclear weapons or at least yellow cake.
Clarence Thomas, who 'asserted that the majority's finding second-guesses the measures that educators take to maintain discipline "and ensure the health and safety of the students in their charge."'
I can't imagine how forcing a 13-year old girl to strip ensures anyone's health and safety, especially since they were looking for IBUPROFIN, for heaven's sake.
Rhymes that keep their secrets will unfold behind the clouds.There upon the rainbow is the answer to a neverending story
Those sons-of-bitches should be fired and prosecuted for child abuse, at the very least. They humiliated and terrified a good child, who had done no wrong previously, over fucking MOTRIN.
Just because it was "clearly established law" doesn't make it right to ignore that abusive treatment. At risk of godwin-ing this early, this stinks of "just following orders."
From the article
The portion of the ruling exempting the officials from liability is likely to be greeted with relief by thousands of principals, teachers and other school officials who work to impart knowledge and maintain discipline in a fast-changing world, where children are growing up (or trying to) earlier than ever.
and whose luscious young breasts scream out to be exposed and gently carressed. Pretending they had some legit reason to strip search lolita is almost as unbelievable as the supreme court of the US letting these pervs off.
TFA says they were looking for "prescription-strength drugs", but in fact they were looking for ibuprofen, a relatively safe, over-the-counter analgesic. Basically they strip searched her on suspection of carrying aspirin. And she didn't even have the drug in her possession!
Okay, I'll admit that, like most Slashdotters, I skip the occasional article and jump straight into the comments, but people should really take the time to read this one!
For instance:
and
The discussion about wether the School Administrator should be held responsible is similarly contentious.
Its nice to know that they chose well on upholding her rights, but its sad how close a thing it seems from the article.
This space for rent. All reasonable inquiries will be entertained at proprietors discretion.
You'll get used to it by the time you hit 20 :)
A nonexistent Advil at that...
No
But current federal United States laws dictate that by seeing anybody under age of 18 nude or even hot-like you're considered a pedophile and therefore must be imprisoned for at least three years and required to register as a sex offender for the rest of your life even though you're in the same age group, no exceptions!
Does he have the same copy as the rest of us?
...I clicked on TFA to see if the girl was hot, but theres no picture. Sigh...even teenage geeks cant get love :(
Hrmm...no +1 quasi-pedo, mods?
Civil liberties are sometimes "Stuff That Matters".
Some bad (illegal) stuff happened ... but none of the people that made the decisions that resulted in the bad stuff can be held responsible for their actions. WTF?
The reason the officials were not held responsible is because of an idea called qualified immunity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualified_immunity) which essentially states that public officials cannot be held personally responsible for actions they undertake as part of their public duty and which, if illegal or unconstitutional, must clearly be illegal or unconstitutional.
It is interesting to note that the two Justices that dissented regarding whether or not the school officials were covered by qualified immunity were Justice John Paul Stevens and Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and that Justice Souter was a part of the majority. If Sotomayor is placed on the bench, it is feasible she would rule much closer to Justice Ginsburg and Stevens then to Souter on these types of matters.
A lot of nerds really like perscription Ibuprofen and are worried they'll be strip searched if they use it.
... if I was her brother or father I'd probably *still* be in jail for assault.
There is a war going on for your mind.
There, fixed that for ya.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
They are the ones that pushed to pass these zero-tolerance and no exception rules.
That voted, that yes, this was constitutional?
This person should be tarred and feathered.
Hi, I Boris. Hear fix bear, yes?
Do you really think that "We were just following orders" would be a legitimate exuse?
FRA: STFU GTFO
Has nothing to do with being libertarian. Even in the USSR - which most slashdotters associate with complete absence of civil rights - a strip search of a teen girl by a school official never could have happened.
P.S. just for your information, the only two parties here in Germany really acting for civil rights are the pirate party and the communists. German libertarians are only pro civil rights when they are in the opposition. When they are in the ruling coalition they happily stamp civil rights to the ground.
"It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
However, by a vote of 7-2, the Court also ruled that the individual school officials could not be held personally liable
What good is the ruling if there's no consequence? It seems to me that the biggest problem with government is that there's almost no accountability, and that leads to corruption & abuse of power.
Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
My parents check my undies every day before I go to work. Just like all good parents should!
"The Y chromosome is genetic. The odds are very good that if you are male then your father was too." -Internet Commenter
Two things, there has to be a happy medium as to what is expected from school officials(these were obviously wrong). 1.) Administrators need to be able to search(strip searching is off the table IMO). 2.) If you think the kid has something(dangerous) hidden there should be a trained police officer on site aka School Resource Officer(SRO) who can make the call as to get the proper authorities involved. Also I concur any administrator who thinks they have the right to strip search a 13yr old student should be pinned to the wall. The extent of their all powerful positions is to expel pupils not strip search them.
I'm stunned that Sam Alito did not dissent. But I suppose his claim-to-fame is never finding a police-search that he didn't like. Since the search was conducted by a nurse and not the police, his record remains untarnished.
Although what if they actually did find drugs in the girl's underwear. Would Alito overturn the search then?
the new Catholic priests.
Hope is the currency of fools
When I was in K-12, I did not have anything near "helicopter parents". They were happy to be proactive and supportive and happy to let me choose my own classes, happy to keep tabs on my performance in school, but they didn't go to the school complaining every time I got an "undesirable" grade.
I must say, however, that there are a few situations that would have had my parents on the principal and school board like hawks, quite likely with a lawyer in tow:
- If I were ever disciplined for refusing to say the pledge or non-disruptively having an opinion that a teacher or administrator did not agree with,
- Malicious, abusive, or harassing teacher behavior,
- Being strip searched.
Fortunately, it never happened. My sister faced sexual harassment from high school boys yelling sexual comments at her, and my mother wrote a long, scathing letter to the school's excuse-for-a-principal, who reluctantly had an "intercom fireside chat" with the student body about the topic--fortunately, not dropping my sister's or mother's name.
Eh, I don't know how much common sense is going on here.
1. The fact that it needed to go this high up tells us that there isn't exactly an "outbreak" of commonsense.
2. Clarence Thomas is insane. When you start making Scalia look like he might not be the most insane person on the SCOTUS that's impressive, but in a very bad way.
3. Despite saying the girl's rights were violated only two, count'em two, justices thought it would be acceptable to prosecute the boneheads in charge of this. On the rare occasion you can get the government to admit any wrongdoing it's always followed up with, "Well, they were just doing their job..." or "Well, yeah her rights were violated but you can't really expect people working for the government to be liable for anything." I guess you're only allowed to hold people morally accountable for their actions if they're Nazis. Apparently anyone else can just say, "I was just following orders" or "I was just following the law" no matter how obviously grotesque and clusterfuck batshit nuts their actions are.
The only thing to like about this ruling is that it ISN'T the worst possible ruling they could have made and that it wasn't divided by much.
German libertarians are only pro civil rights when they are in the opposition. When they are in the ruling coalition they happily stamp civil rights to the ground.
Just like every political party in the world...
I am the richest astronaut ever to win the superbowl.
A lot of nerds really like perscription Ibuprofen and are worried they'll be strip searched if they use it.
Worried or hopeful?
I live in Arizona and love my new adopted state for its scenic beauty and winters that are to die for. But our political structure is just plain nuts. We err WAY to far on the side of law enforcement!! I don't see why we have to be such legal eagles that we have eroded our own rights. Well, the school district is going to get what it deserves at the expense of the tax payer. If the school district weren't such blatant fools and thought before acting or reacting, a debacle such as this would not have occurred. I guess the AZ sun has baked some brains.
Court also ruled that the individual school officials could not be held personally liable
If the courts won't hold them liable, than the people must! If the administrators responsible don't quit, than the students need to go on strike. How can anyone consent to their peers being abused in this manner?!?!? It's time parents, teachers, and students stand up for each other and demand that the administration step down. These pigs are either power hungry megalomaniacs or contributor to sexual assault (or both).
------ Take away the right to say fuck and you take away the right to say fuck the government.
Drugs Drugs Drugs. This is still coming down as a casualty of the war on drugs. What 'worse' could the 12 year old have had? MJ? Heroin? Maybe she's the large portion of 12 year old meth heads.
Imagine a world where nothing was illegal, even for a 12 year old. They could follow the home style justice that some parents used to do with cigarettes they found: Make the kid smoke them ALL. One sitting. I know more people who have been stopped from smoking with this tactic than "Hey kids, don't smoke. It's a adult thing"
I totally agree. Given the transparency and openness of the Soviet system, it's 20 gaziliion trillion percent sure that if it had happened, we'd all know about it.
And Russia still pwnz everyone at libert[eh|ai|é] and all that shite. I mean, nosy journalists would never be assassinated by agents of the state. And even if they did, there'd never be a rigged trial to let the culprits walk away Scot-free.
Now some might say that you communidiots are as bad as the libertards, and that it would be a most excellent idea to drop you all in some irrelevant and expendable place like Somalia, Belgium or Detroit and let you slug it out, all on prime time TV. Ignore them; they're capitalist running pig-dogs, all of them, and they'll be first against the wall when the revolution comes.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Hang in there. I know how you feel. However, once you get to college, you'll do all right. There are plenty of hot girls lookin' for love there!
(-1, Raw and Uncut is the only way to read)
Um... the child in question DIDN'T bring drugs, weapons or anything of the like to school. Which is kinda the point.
"Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
What made you think they would post pictures of the girl, anyway? Have some respect.
This is true. Even if it's yourself in the mirror! No, especially if it;s yourself. Because you're most likely related to yourself, so it's also incest.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
"School officials" shouldn't be allowed to do a body search on any student, ever. Lockers, sure. Bags, maybe. But even a patdown is probably going to far for anyone that isn't a police officer.
And why on earth do kids get less rights just because they happen to be in school, anyways? Other than the fact that they can't vote, that is.
Was hearing the term 'crotch of her panties' repeated copious times by Nina Totenberg when reading the SCOTUS arguments a few weeks ago. Seriously, I think was the raciest thing ever broadcast on NPR. Very surreal.
I judt got a nre Kinesis keybiartf so please excusr ant egregiou typos.
In Ohio, they can't be a sex offender when they START the job, and they can't abuse kids in their own school, 'lest they get fired, but they can stay employed as school employees if they abuse kids from different schools. (Or on another front that is not sex offense, educator can bake babies in cars, wihtout fear of prosecution, or losing their jobs! Killing a baby in favor of bringing in a few dozen doughnuts... Have to keep your priorities in line... Hmm, some days a good doughnut does sound better than a kid...)
I think that the school official just wanted to see a hot 13 year old nude girl...
All this time, reading all these posts, I thought everyone was talking about Kate + 8
Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy.
So I guess I am ignorant on the subject, but what happens now?
If the school officials are not held liable, is it merely "Yep. Her rights were violated. See you guys later." ?
What a bunch of whiners. If you're innocent, you have nothing to hide. Your so-called "privacy" is just an excuse for lawlessness.
I'd say more, but I need to go. I have a report that several senior cheerleaders at my school may be concealing... erm... something... something really bad. Yes, that's it. Something really bad. They require strip searching immediately, for the safety of everyone!
Search 2010 Gen Con events
Letting the parents sue the school district means it's taxpayer money down the toilet, and probably less to spend on education. Letting the parents sue the individuals responsible means it's *their* asses on the line - and they damn well should have known better regardless of what the policies said.
Hey, here's a thought. The child Did Not have the suspected drugs on her person, and was searched on suspicion of such. The parents, in your argument, did the correct thing and ensured that their child did not carry the inappropriate item to school, but they administrators did the search anyways.
Would you like to review your argument and get back to us a little later?
CNN had her picture - she's 19 now and in college. (You didn't think the strip search was last week, did you?)
Don't underestimate the power of The Source
....aaaand the FBI just opened an investigation on you.
..and by the time that you're 40....
As Justice Stevens said, "it does not require a constitutional scholar to conclude that a nude search of a 13-year-old child is an invasion of constitutional rights of some magnitude." But it took Justice Thomas to get to the heart of it, when he said, "Whadda ya mean, no one took pictures?"
You can't be serious about branding them as sex offenders. Sex offenders do truly vile things like text naked pictures of themselves to their boyfriends.
Slashdotters can't be old enough to be parents?
Even if you still live with your mom doesn't mean that other Slashdotters didn't grow up!
hah! good one.
In Soviet Russia jokes are formulaic and decidedly non-humorous.
It's cool if I forcibly strip-search a 13 year-old girl as long as I'm a school official working on "official business." I can't be held accountable.
But if that same girl willingly texts me a cellphone pic of herself in a bikini, I'm looking at time in hard prison and branded a sex offender for life.
Seems perfectly logical to me.
Was it Hubertus Strughold, by any chance? That sounds like him.
I'm not saying that what they did is right, or warranted for the situation; they handled it very poorly. But in this day an age where lawsuits or fear of them restrict most into inaction when it comes to a gray area like this, you almost have to admire their gumption- that is if it was not instead complete stupidity.
Justice Clarence Thomas was the only member of the court to conclude that the strip search of Savana Redding did not violate the Fourth Amendment. He asserted that the majority's finding second-guesses the measures that educators take to maintain discipline "and ensure the health and safety of the students in their charge."
5 years from now: To ensure the health and safety of students and faculty, all children must attend school in the nude. In addition, the principal will going the extra mile in ensuring the safety and security of our precious children by taking pictures of them and posting them on his website for... review... by various experts. His site, he claims, will have a very reasonable monthly access fee and discreet billing. And Justice Thomas gets in free.
Did Stevens have Thomas in mind when he wrote "it does not require a constitutional scholar to conclude that a nude search of a 13-year-old child is an invasion of constitutional rights of some magnitude.â
When Thomas was nominated to Brennan's seat, the biggest complaint I remember was not Anita Hill or his ideology, but his skills. To be on the Supreme Court ou're supposed to be a scholar.
I barely read TFA but I really hope that the most that comes from this is a wrist slap. Yes, 4th amend was broken. It was done with everyone's safety in mind. The school should not be conducting strip searches and now knows this. If anything the school should develop a proceedure to deal with a situation where a child is suspect of hiding something not allowed on school grounds.
Look at the Tennessee case. If they want to strip search your children they will just paste a picture of an adult's face over your kid's face.
Thomas also has a history of siding against any rights for students. In Morse v. Frederick he suggested that the Court should do away with the Tinker v. Des Moines precedent altogether. (Tinker affirmed that students do not shed their constitutional rights at the schoolhouse door).
Where to hide your drugs if you are in public K-12 schools in the USA?
The supreme court says, "keep them in your underwear, not your locker or book bag."
Good to know. Thanks.
If anyone suspects something was left in the bathroom it is easy to check.
I just took a dump. If you looked in the toilet, you wouldn't be able to tell. Yet I could hear the "sploosh" as the water surface was broken.
Also, when cleaning toilets, it's remarkable how well you can push water "uphill" with a brush.
Think about where you can stick your arm. Seriously, there's got to be some way to hide something in a toilet. Heck, hide the stuff *inside* your poop.
"We herd u like shit, so we put some shit in your shit so you can hide yo shit in yo shit while u shit shitbricks over your shit." Or some shit like that...
This is still a stupid search and should be ruled as such. However the facts are: 1. The (male) administrator did NOT perform the search. 2. A (female) nurse performed the search. Stupid yes, but it seemed from the various comments that this needed to be stated.
is that one judge actually dissented. This has to be one of the biggest "NO DUH" cases I've ever heard of. How did this make it to the Supreme Court again?
The parody and troll sail right over the parent's head,
So a minor with a naked picture of another minor on their phone is a sex offender, but an adult in a position of power who forces a minor to strip is not.
As a rising senior at a large university, I would like to call BS on your post.
Would you like to review your argument and get back to us a little later? You (and a bunch of moderators) evidently can't see that your argument does not rebut his point, since he is arguing the general, you are rebutting the specific, case.
Of course, you will win the debate, because, in a society of the insane, the sane are modded down to nothing.
My problem with this decision is this: They violated the girls rights (which thankfully SCOTUS recognized). There is however no punishment for doing so. Will the next school go ahead and do the same thinking there will be no consequences? What's the point of having rights, if they can be violated at will, and the only thing that happens to the violator is that they are told they shouldn't have done that?
It's fact that the word 'privacy' doesn't once appear in the U.S. Constitution. Justice Douglas created it in Griswold v. Connecticut, and a majority of his colleagues voted in favor of it.
A Supreme Court ruling before Griswold v. Connecticut said there was a right to privacy, well anonymity. I couldn't find it, FindLaw used to have it, but in the early 1800s the Supreme Court ruled the First Amendment included the right anonymity. If a person did not have the right to remain anonymous then they would not be able to exercise free political speech. Other rulings said it was a right to distribute anonymous pamphlets.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
"But if as it is, I agree the decision was stupid, but non-obviously so."
Man, step back a minute and think about that.
Strip searching a 13 year old is "non-obviously" stupid. How did we get here? How has it come to this?
This is dangerously stupid, obviously dangerously stupid.
The decision making flow chart should have gone something like this...
---
Are we seeking...
A) a weapon (with or without a dead body in study hall)
or
B) a *dangerous* & *illegal* substance
If yes...
a) call Parents
and
b) call police
Are we seeking...
A) anything else
If yes...
a) call Parents
---
Strip searching does not *belong* in this flow chart. Ever. Full stop.
Anything other than a normal day at school should involve the parents, always. If necessary the police, but never the school stripping a child.
German libertarians are only pro civil rights when they are in the opposition
Libertarians are never in favour of civil rights, they are against civil rights being violated by a government. Individuals, corporations, religions, or any other non-governmental power structures violating rights is absolutely fine with Libertarians because, apparently, you have a choice (while, apparently, you don't have a choice about your government).
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
drop you all in some irrelevant and expendable place like .... Belgium ... and let you slug it out,
Fine. Come over here. We're used to other people fighting there battles here.
We can probably find some more space for another war cemetery.
"The best part? I became an ordained minister while not wearing pants." -- CleverNickName
Thank you, once again, for showing us that our system eventually works and that we do have some sanity at the highest levels of government. I give my greatest applause to this decision and am thankful I live in a country where a decision like this is made!
Here's to America!
As an aside, for all those out there who think the Federal government doesn't and can't play a role because everything should be governed by "The Locals" here is a prime example of why that just isn't good enough. Now, Fuck Off!
Over-the-top Response Guy! Giving "Over-the-Top Responses" since 1970.
Even if all cops aren't bad, if bad cops are a big of enough problem, it does call into question whether having cops at all is worth it in a free society.
So your argument is that because perfection is impossible that we shouldn't even try? Sorry but I'm not buying what you're selling. The evidence that a police force is helpful to society (free or otherwise) is overwhelming. This remains true even in the face of a fairly substantial amount of corruption and abuse by that police force. Look to the looting and violence that occurs in the aftermath of many natural disasters when police are not around. Yes it is possible for the police to become the problem rather than the solution but in the US and most other industrialized nations that is FAR from being the case. Even in ostensibly non-free countries (China) the problem isn't usually the police force but the laws and policies the police force is tasked with enforcing by the government.
Personally, I'd feel safer if I were allowed to defend myself.
Not for long you wouldn't. There are places in this world where there is no substantial police or government presence. I suggest you go to one of them and then report back on how safe you feel. Take whatever weapons you like.
But where do we draw the line?
At common sense for a start. If over the counter pills are against school rules, fine. It's morally and legally acceptable with sufficient suspicion for teachers to ask students to empty their pockets, search their bags and search their lockers. If nothing is found, let it go . The odds of something tragic happening because a student consumes some Advil or Motrin is so remote as to not be worth any potential further action. They are not drugs of abuse, possessing them violates no laws, and they are quite safe unless consumed in very large quantities or by people with very unusual medical conditions. Just use some common sense.
I can conceive of no situation where a strip search by a school administrator could possibly be a sensible course of action. If there is a clear and present danger to school property, other students, faculty or staff then there are resources for dealing with such situations starting with parents and police. School administrations are equipped to deal with minor behavior violations only - dress code, insubordination, maybe the odd fist fight and the like. If weapons or controlled substances or serious crimes are suspected, the faculty is not equipped to appropriately deal with those situations. When school administration starts believing that they are a police force we get abuses like the one we are discussing here.
Clarence Thomas is insane. When you start making Scalia look like he might not be the most insane person on the SCOTUS that's impressive, but in a very bad way.
I'm not going to rush to his defense, but I have actually read his dissenting opinion (PDF).
Basically, as much as I dislike saying the majority got it wrong (because I wholeheartedly agree that strip-searching students is outrageous), they got it wrong.
Schools have way too much power. The ruling should be "You cannot strip-search a student". Period. Not "You can't strip-search students unless it's a really bad drug". That's insane... and how the hell can that be enforced, anyway? (The actual criterion they used was whether the drugs "presented a danger to students". That's just much too open-ended.)
Anyway, it sucks that this issue had to go to court, because what we need isn't a court ruling. What wee need is a new law, and courts aren't supposed to make new laws. We need a law limiting the power of schools as to what's reasonable and what's not. Searching undergarments for contraband should always be unreasonable. I don't care what you're looking for, you don't do it. You call the police and let them deal with the issue.
Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
I tried. I really did. I've more or less sworn off reading SCOTUS decisions because reading legal decisions, I've found, actually erodes vital parts of my soul and there's no way get it back after the fact. However, in order to respond I read the first 8 pages of Thomas' opinion and couldn't take anymore. Unless the last bit reads, "LOL! J/K" I can't imagine reading anymore is going to do anything to affect my life in a positive or useful manner.
While I agree with you that the majority got it wrong for the reason you mentioned... Thomas managed to get it even wronger. The main problem I have with his opinion (other than the fact that it's dead wrong) is how selective all judges are about when it's okay for the judiciary to actively involve itself (here's a hint assholes: never). In this case, Thomas' opinion is:
1. The girl's rights were not violated.
2. The officials should not be punished.
3. We shouldn't dictate the details of school administration. (I'd say that it is correct in that the judiciary shouldn't legislate but is wrong in the sense that the court SHOULD rule that the administrators absolutely should have to worry and be punished when do completely insane things that BLATANTLY violate someone's rights.)
4. The search was "reasonable" based on "reasonable suspicion." (Which is a joke. Cops can't strip search you on the spot using only the standard of "reasonable suspicion" but school officials can based on a tip from another student?)
And on and on. This fucking asshole goes out of his way to justify something that is patently wrong using mountains of case law. (And this is why I say that the legal community as a whole is more or less completely disconnected with reality.)
We don't need a new law. We have a law. It's called the 4th amendment and most states have provisions in their own constitutions that are similar. More laws lead to more legal convoluted insanity. When need fewer laws and we need a system that replaces the inane concept of "case law." Protections should be broad and exceptions should be specific. However, thanks to case law we get the never ending deluge of meaningless words like "reasonable" and "substantial" and other words that really mean, "Up to the broad and sweeping decision of whatever bureaucrat happens to be making any given decision."
I don't even know where to start. I was pissed off about this decision yesterday but having read Thomas' decision I feel ill. To think that someone would write 22 pages of legal bullshit to justify STRIP SEARCHING A CHILD and that this same fucking crazy son of a bitch isn't some freak living in a cave somewhere writing this kind of crap by the boatload, but rather, in the highest court of the land is astounding. How the fuck did this happen?
I do agree that there's no excuse for a search either, which was my beef with the majority opinion. Every time I talked about this yesterday and someone emphasized "and it was just Ibuprophen" I'd say, "That's all fine and dandy but irrelevant. Can you tell me what she could have been hiding--heroine, crack, whatever, a machete, a .45--that would have made the search reasonable." There is NOTHING that would have made that search reasonable. Nothing.
That's what the majority opinion should have held. I could have written it for them:
"Strip searching a 13-year-old--or any other child for that matter--is not the job nor within the scope of power of any school official. Period. There is absolutely no exception to this standard. The officials who conducted this search, because of the clear and obvious nature of this violation, have no qualified immunity whatsoever to civil or criminal action being taken."
There's no need for 1,000 citations. There's no need for 30 pages.
The 4th Amendment doesn't apply. Oops.
Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
Exactly how doesn't it apply? School officials work for the government and "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated..." seems to apply in a pretty obvious manner.
Ah, but it's been well established that school officials don't have to follow the 4th Amendment when they do searches.
They want to search your purse or bookbag? Guess what, the 4th Amendment doesn't protect you. Cops need a warrant, but school officials are just like parents: they can search whatever they damn well please.
Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
...including your undergarments, it's worth mentioning.
From the ruling:
"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"
So, if you suspect hard drugs or have good cause to believe they're in the panties, go ahead and strip 'em... just not if you're looking for Ibuprofen.
Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
Would you like to review your argument and get back to us a little later?
Sure. The administrators "did the search anyways" because there is already a precedent for kids bringing drugs/weapons into schools. Would you like to conjecture why these items make it into schools and who is responsible for them getting there to begin with?
There is a precedent for humans murdering other humans. Shall we go overly broad and say that because of that, we should incarcerate all humans? Or more focused on the Slashdot crowd, since people on P2P networks are trading copyrighted songs, should that mean that all P2P users should be scrutinized as criminals? Yes, these are examples to the extreme, but by making the statement that 'kids', a big broad general category, 'bringing drugs/weapons into schools', an activity that thankfully a minority of students do, you justify the precedent of treating all kids (your defined group) as suspect. Seems a lot extreme to me.
I have no problem with the idea of school administrators being tasked with the creation of a safe environment in which to educate students. What I have a problem with is that the administrator in this case overreached his authority and did something that should probably have had either the police or at least the girl's parents present for. The parents (or legal guardian) are the only ones that can really give legal consent to such matters. That this was done without parental supervision is really an insult to the role of the parents in this whole matter and a lack of understanding of what the police are paid for.
Getting in a fight now means you get charged with assault.
Yea, this happened to my nephew. Someone started a fight with him and he was arrested and charged. My sister went through a hassle because of it. This happened before 911 though.
I find it ironic that before 911 he was on his high school's football team and was looking forward to going to college and playing football there but after 911, he was a senior then, he enlisted in the Marines before graduation and at 17. The Marine Corp called my sister to ask her if it was alright that he joined the Marines. I would have thought that he'd at least try to be an officer.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
not the other way round?
Yeap, but as I've said many tymes, I'm more afraid of government than I am of any terrorists. Therefore I try to speak out and try to vote to keep government small.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
Shall we go overly broad and say that because of that, we should incarcerate all humans?
Of course not. What I'm saying is that parents are primarily responsible for making sure their kids don't bring weapons/drugs into schools. If parents cannot reasonably guarantee to get this simple task done, then I'd rather err on the side of caution. I agree that what happened to the girl is wrong, but if I had kids in school, I'd rather have this girl detained in a room all day or sent home with police than have her freely roam the hallways. Can we at least agree on that?