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.
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
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.
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.
... 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.
In his interpretation, "unreasonable searches" do not exist. Every search has a reason and the 4th amendment is therefore null and void.
Do you really think that "We were just following orders" would be a legitimate exuse?
FRA: STFU GTFO
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.
Because now we know that we can store torrents and pirated files in children's underpants (aka UnderWarez) that cannot, constitutionally, be searched by their school administrations.
I am the richest astronaut ever to win the superbowl.
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.
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?
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?"
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.
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.