Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
typodupeerror delete not in

Book Reviews

Recent reviews from Slashdot readers:

Submitting a review for consideration is easy; please first read Slashdot's book review guidelines. Updated: 2008114 by samzenpus

Comments: 528 +-   Middle-School Strip Search Ruled Unconstitutional on Thursday June 25, @03:34PM

Posted by timothy on Thursday June 25, @03:34PM
from the moment-of-claritin dept.
privacy
education
government
court
usa
news
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."
story

Related Stories

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • This is America (Score:4, Insightful)

    by MrMista_B (891430) on Thursday June 25, @03:35PM (#28471731)

    This is America, where children are the Enemy.

    • This is America, where children are the Enemy.

      Which is odd, because last week I thought we were destroying civil liberties to save them. I do wish the government would make up its mind. Should we be building more private prisons to hold them cheaply, or should we be cherishing them and making sure they don't see Janet Jackson's nipple?

      • Re:This is America (Score:5, Insightful)

        by garcia (6573) on Thursday June 25, @03:43PM (#28471907) Homepage

        or should we be cherishing them and making sure they don't see Janet Jackson's nipple?

        Well at least we now have a Supreme Court decision that stops overzealous administrators and staff from seeing children's nipples in search of non-existent over-the-count drugs. Now, if only the administrators were actually held liable for their stupid decisions.

        • Re:This is America (Score:5, Interesting)

          by Ethanol-fueled (1125189) on Thursday June 25, @04:07PM (#28472387) Homepage
          Hey, at least that time they were actually looking for drugs.

          Awhile back in a suburb of San Diego, an overzealous administrator had the good idea to round up [signonsandiego.com] all of the girls at the dance and check their panties so that the filthy whores wearing thongs(or less) could be sent home to change.

          And about that, from the link:

          Garvik's sophomore daughter was forced to go home and change before she could enter the dance, although thongs are not barred in the school dress code. The code states that undergarments, including "boxers, tank-top undershirts or underwear" should not be exposed.

          Some people with authority(especially those in certain government agencies, but I digress) seem to make up the rules as they go along. That's what makes them dangerous.

          • Re:This is America (Score:5, Insightful)

            by networkBoy (774728) on Thursday June 25, @04:34PM (#28472811) Homepage Journal

            I'm a parent of a little girl.
            I must say that if my child came home and reported either of these incidents I would likely be in police custody as a result.

            Now, I personally don't think girls of that age should be wearing g-strings and thongs, but that simply means I police *my* kid. Not other people's kids. Especially if it's not against the rules to begin with. I agree with the "no showing underwear" rule, much like I agree with the "no drugs, and we can search your personal possessions while you are on campus" rules. What I can't fathom is the thought of we'll lift your skirt and strip off you clothes even if we don't have *damn good* evidence or suspicion.

            Take this case:
            Girl accused of having motrin-400's and they want to find out if she has any more. Search locker, pockets, backpack, purse, STOP! You're done. Seriously, it's Motrin, not crank. And the "informant" is another student who was just busted and wants to shift the blame.

            Vs.

            Teacher sees dope deal go down, pulls both students in. Weed/speed/whatever is "missing" and no sign it was dropped...
            now you get in the territory of _maybe_ getting to a more intimate search.

            as it is now as a parent I would press sex offense charges in both cases, sue the pants off the school district, picket the school with the names of the offenders and what they did, and blanket the district with fliers about what happened...

            Each incident like this makes me realize that things have only gone downhill since I was in school.

            [/rant]
            -nB

            • Re:This is America (Score:5, Insightful)

              by Shadow of Eternity (795165) on Thursday June 25, @04:43PM (#28472943)

              Something to consider also is that if it's THAT FREAKIN SERIOUS then you don't let a teacher deal with it, you call the police and let THEM deal with it. That's why we HAVE police to begin with, they know how to handle issues with that kind of gravity.

              Teachers deal with school related issues, anything that's threatening life or limb gets sent to the police. The police deal with it, and then it goes to the JUVENILE justice system.

              Then again not all cops are as awesome as the one's that have saved my ass from abusive and sometimes outright psychotic school administrators, but if a cop does something this absolutely fuck-dumb then there's already established means of dealing with it.

            • Re:This is America (Score:5, Insightful)

              by Fulcrum of Evil (560260) on Thursday June 25, @05:14PM (#28473383)

              Teacher sees dope deal go down, pulls both students in. Weed/speed/whatever is "missing" and no sign it was dropped... now you get in the territory of _maybe_ getting to a more intimate search.

              At which point the cops are called. School adminstrators never have the right to strip search kids. Jesus christ...

            • by commodoresloat (172735) * on Thursday June 25, @07:16PM (#28475181) Homepage

              as it is now as a parent I would press sex offense charges in both cases, sue the pants off the school district...

              Then you're no better than they are! Two wrongs don't make a right; just because they saw your daughter's unmentionables doesn't mean you get to see theirs...

              • Re:This is America (Score:5, Insightful)

                by Toonol (1057698) on Thursday June 25, @06:38PM (#28474661)
                She was 13 years old. Her principle, her nurse, were all telling her to do something. She was nervous, accused of a wrongdoing she didn't commit. Just because she went along doesn't mean she was a SHEEP, it means she is HUMAN.

                The fact that the authorities naturally have that sort of psychological power over children is one of the reasons abusing that authority is so wrong, and should be punished severely.
        • Re:This is America (Score:5, Insightful)

          by BZ (40346) on Thursday June 25, @04:31PM (#28472769) Homepage

          Did you read the supreme court decision on the liability thing? It basically comes down to "precedent and legislation here was so confused, that even the Federal appeals court decided incorrectly; there was no way the administrators could have been expected to know whether their actions were constitutional."

          Which is sad, but true. I'd have a much easier time claiming the administrators should be liable if every single court in the chain had found against them. But if as it is, I agree the decision was stupid, but non-obviously so. At least to a lot of people. Which once again is very said.

            • Re:This is America (Score:4, Insightful)

              by BZ (40346) on Thursday June 25, @05:11PM (#28473335) Homepage

              Not quite. The supreme court said they can't be held liable because _no_one_ knew the law. As in, it was impossible to know it, given what was actually written down.

              Similarly, a prosecutor who filed suit against someone based on a law the legislature passed would presumably not be held liable if the law is then challenged and found unconstitutional. Of course if he then continues to bring such suits, things would be different, just as here things would be different for future behavior akin to that of these school administrators.

              Shouting cliches doesn't change the fact that this situation (which I, again, think was highly unfortunate behavior on the part of the school administration in the ethical, not just legal, sense) is not the same as "ignorance of the law".

              • Re:This is America (Score:5, Insightful)

                by hawk (1151) <hawk@eyry.org> on Thursday June 25, @05:42PM (#28473745) Journal

                To be a civil rights violation, the official doesn't have to have been wrong, but the act must have been clearly illegal. This is because off the difference between simply being wrong, and *willfully* using the power of the state to take away people's rights.

                When an issue is legally "up in the air," officials would otherwise be in "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situations.

                hawk, esq.

        • by MightyMartian (840721) on Thursday June 25, @03:50PM (#28472073) Journal

          The kids can ram it. Join me and my fellow Middle School Deans from across this land as we tell these ungrateful bastards to fuck off. We are applying en masse to the peace corp so we can assist more grateful African children.

          Yes, I guess it will be easier to get a look at girls' chests in countries with flimsy constitutional protections.

          Besides, has anyone ever considered that with a little government money to train my brothers and I in basic medical screening techniques we could be years more advanced in the level of health care delivered to our young people. Decades of pre-teen co-ed athletes have marched through the shower room of my Middle School - that is *DECADES* of young women I could have helped with *MY OWN HANDS* !!

          Yeah, I want you around my kids.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      No no, this is America where we have to ruin a child's life in order to prevent them from ruining their life. I suggest 5-10 years of jail for sexting!

    • Re:This is America (Score:4, Interesting)

      by ArcherB (796902) on Thursday June 25, @03:44PM (#28471919) Journal

      This is America, where children are the Enemy.

      If you've ever had to be responsible for a bunch of kids, you would understand.

      Now, I don't agree with strip searching kids, especially for something stupid like Advil or something. However, the second you state that school officials are not allowed to check your underwear, that's where everything starts getting hidden. Unfortunately, the only way to keep this from being abused and still having some effectiveness would be to publicly allow this type of search, but ban it privately.

      It seems that the judge agrees with me. From TFA:

      Had Savana been suspected of having illegal drugs that could have posed a far greater danger to herself and other students, the strip search, too, might have been justified, the majority said, in an opinion by Justice David H. Souter.

      I also hope that the student that gave the "tip" that this poor girl had pills in her underwear gets an ass-whoopin severe enough to make her grandkids wince when sitting down!

      • Re:This is America (Score:5, Insightful)

        by MightyMartian (840721) on Thursday June 25, @03:48PM (#28472007) Journal

        Now, I don't agree with strip searching kids, especially for something stupid like Advil or something. However, the second you state that school officials are not allowed to check your underwear, that's where everything starts getting hidden. Unfortunately, the only way to keep this from being abused and still having some effectiveness would be to publicly allow this type of search, but ban it privately.

        That's when you call the cops and have it done by professionals who know how to do it properly. Even if my kid was carrying drugs in his or her underwear, I would not want a school administrator doing the search. You think you've got that much evidence, then you pick up the goddamned phone and phone the goddamned cops. If you're a school employee, your job is not to do strip searches, and I hope the kid's lawyers bankrupt the goddamned school. They overstepped their bounds so badly that it's difficult to imagine how they're judgement could have been any worse.

          • by iamhigh (1252742) on Thursday June 25, @04:06PM (#28472367)
            Well, unlike your argument/hypothetical situation, a 13 year old can hold (their) water.
          • Re:This is America (Score:4, Insightful)

            by dgatwood (11270) on Thursday June 25, @04:07PM (#28472379) Journal

            Neither. You watch her surreptitiously until the police or the parents get there. You do not do anything to tip her off to the fact that she is being watched..

          • Re:This is America (Score:4, Informative)

            by supernova_hq (1014429) on Thursday June 25, @04:28PM (#28472723)
            1) adult goes in the bathroom and flushes ALL the toilets
            2) 2 adults (never put a single adult with a child or you get accusations) go in the bathroom with the child
            3) child goes in the stall ALONE, adults wait outside the stall
            4) child is NOT allowed to flush
            5) adult checks toilet after child has used it

            It's not that hard people. As long as they don't flush (which is EASY to hear) and you watch them wash their hands (no problem there), you are good. If anyone suspects something was left in the bathroom it is easy to check.
      • Re:This is America (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Black Sabbath (118110) on Thursday June 25, @04:07PM (#28472373) Homepage
        > However, the second you state that school officials are not allowed to check your underwear, that's where everything starts getting hidden

        In case you didn't realise just how bad that sounds I've taken the liberty of rephrasing it for you:

        "However, the second you state that school officials are not allowed to check your vagina or anus, that's where everything starts getting hidden."

        You see how people might have a problem with that? "School-issue speculums" just doesn't have a comforting ring about it.
      • by ichbineinneuben (1065378) on Thursday June 25, @05:16PM (#28473393)
        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?"
          • Re:This is America (Score:5, Insightful)

            by supernova_hq (1014429) on Thursday June 25, @04:33PM (#28472795)
            You would seriously allow a school official (or anyone below a police officer) to strip search your child in the same room or even the next room?!? What the hell is wrong with you?

            99 percent of parents I know would physically stop any such action from occurring, and I don't blame them at all!
  • Unless... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Misanthrope (49269) on Thursday June 25, @03:36PM (#28471755)

    Unless the district had a policy that made this a requirement of the officials, they should be held personally accountable for these horrid actions.

    • Re:Unless... (Score:4, Insightful)

      by afidel (530433) on Thursday June 25, @03:45PM (#28471941)
      Exactly, making it unconstitutional but shielding the bad actors means NOTHING. As long as these people can do such incredibly stupid stuff and just have the taxpayers pick up the tab there is no real disincentive for them to act badly and they won't be forced to stop and think of the ramification of their actions.
    • by The Creator (4611) on Thursday June 25, @04:01PM (#28472265) Homepage Journal

      Unless the district had a policy that made this a requirement of the officials

      Do you really think that "We were just following orders" would be a legitimate exuse?

  • by nebaz (453974) on Thursday June 25, @03:41PM (#28471837)

    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.

    • by ArcherB (796902) on Thursday June 25, @03:48PM (#28471999) Journal

      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.

      The majority agrees with that part. From TFA:

      Had Savana been suspected of having illegal drugs that could have posed a far greater danger to herself and other students, the strip search, too, might have been justified, the majority said, in an opinion by Justice David H. Souter.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      I can't imagine how forcing a 13-year old girl to strip ensures anyone's health and safety,

      If they were looking for something really dangerous, on the basis of credible evidence, I'd be the first to applaud them. It sucks, but kids have been used for fighting before [wikipedia.org].

      However, in this case they were just enforcing a "zero common sense" policy.

  • For once, read TFA. (Score:5, Informative)

    by powerlord (28156) on Thursday June 25, @03:45PM (#28471943) Journal

    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:

    Had Savana been suspected of having illegal drugs that could have posed a far greater danger to herself and other students, the strip search, too, might have been justified, the majority said, in an opinion by Justice David H. Souter.

    and

    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."

    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.

  • by scruffy (29773) on Thursday June 25, @03:49PM (#28472019)
    Does he have the same copy as the rest of us?
  • Qualified Immunity (Score:4, Informative)

    by Bryan Gividen (739949) on Thursday June 25, @03:52PM (#28472115)
    The reason the officials were not held responsible is because of an idea called qualified immunity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualified_immunity [wikipedia.org]) 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.
    • by u38cg (607297) <calum@callingthetune.co.uk> on Thursday June 25, @04:05PM (#28472337) Homepage
      Pardon the pontificating from a bystanding Brit who is by no means as knowledgeable on your Constitution as he should be, but reading TFWA, I note the test is the usual one of a hypothetical "reasonable person". I might not be reasonable all the time, but I'm pretty sure if I was asked to strip-search a 13 year old girl, loco parentis or not, I would be reasonably sure it would be a bad idea.
      • by LackThereof (916566) on Thursday June 25, @06:00PM (#28474039)

        Here in the US, public schools are typically surrounded by barbed wire, and not a small number have metal detectors at the doors. There's typically even a local police officer patrolling the halls in addition to the hired security.

        The general perception of a school in the US as a locked-down secure facility really blurs the line. "Reasonable" persons have a completely different frame of reference over here than they do over there..

        Or are your schools just as fucked up as ours? If they are, my hypothesis is totally wrong.

  • ... if I was her brother or father I'd probably *still* be in jail for assault.

  • All bark, no bite (Score:5, Insightful)

    by XxtraLarGe (551297) on Thursday June 25, @04:02PM (#28472271) Journal

    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.

  • by delirium of disorder (701392) on Thursday June 25, @04:23PM (#28472653) Homepage Journal
    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).
  • by CompassIIDX (1522813) on Thursday June 25, @05:39PM (#28473705)
    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.
  • interesting (Score:4, Insightful)

    by CopterHawk (981545) on Thursday June 25, @08:51PM (#28476185)
    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.
            • Re:sue the school? (Score:4, Insightful)

              by camperdave (969942) on Thursday June 25, @04:59PM (#28473209) Journal
              While the TSA probably can set up shop at bus and train stations that service multiple states, setting up at a subway station would probably be WAY beyond their mandate.

              Ahem! [wikipedia.org]

              The TSA is a component of the Department of Homeland Security. With state, local and regional partners, the TSA oversees security for highways, railroads, buses, mass transit systems, pipelines, ports, and 450 U.S. airports.

              Emphasis mine

              Also, See Here [myfoxny.com]

    • by Twanfox (185252) on Thursday June 25, @04:59PM (#28473221)

      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?

I took a course in speed reading and was able to read War and Peace in twenty minutes. It's about Russia. -- Woody Allen