Strip-Search Case Tests Limits of 4th Amendment 1240
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."
Been following this for awhile. (Score:5, Interesting)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Been following this for awhile. (Score:5, Insightful)
Yep. I would say it's only fair for schools to be allowed to strip search students if parents are allowed to skin teachers/administrators with rusty vegetable peelers.
Anything less is cause for revolution.
Actually, come to think of it, isn't this exactly what that part of your constitution about carrying guns is for?
Re:Been following this for awhile. (Score:5, Insightful)
If the girl's parents had done this to her, the child would be forcibly removed from the home.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Been following this for awhile. (Score:4, Insightful)
Hang on, the weapons the French used to give you a country were owned by the French government :)
I really think it's more symbolic about a gun being a badge of freedom than practical. The creation myth of a few guys with muskets freezing in the woods winning a country is a really good story but is oversimplifying a global struggle.
Re:Been following this for awhile. (Score:5, Insightful)
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 [wikipedia.org]. Even the Southern states' economies weren't inextricably tied to slavery until after the invention of Eli Whitney's cotton gin in 1793 [wikipedia.org].
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" [wikipedia.org]-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.
Re:Been following this for awhile. (Score:5, Informative)
Slavery could not have happened without the individual right to bear arms.
So... what about all the other nation- and city-states over the many millennia prior to the historic emancipations in the modern era? I suppose slavery just disappeared in Athens when Pisistratus disarmed the citizenry? Revisionists like you make me sick. You want so desperately to sink private ownership of arms that you'll reach out and tie it to anything and everything abhorrent that you possibly can. I once had a person tell me that if the Jews of Europe hadn't been disarmed by the Nazi's gun control laws in the 30's that the holocaust would have been worse because if Hitler were assassinated it would have made him a martyr. The willful disingenuity of it all is staggering.
You would have people believe that it was the Southern states alone who pushed for the amendment, ignoring the precedents in the constitutions of Delaware, Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Pennsylvania, and Vermont. I suppose facts like that get in the way of conning people into negative associations.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Been following this for awhile. (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Been following this for awhile. (Score:5, Insightful)
"...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 [ricketyclick.com], 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.)
Re:Been following this for awhile. (Score:5, Insightful)
Vietnam did pretty fucking well for themselves.
Re:Been following this for awhile. (Score:5, Interesting)
Is there any particular reason you consider the US military to be different?
Re:Been following this for awhile. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Been following this for awhile. (Score:4, Insightful)
Every day we start looking more and more like soviet russia. Just look at the slippery slope that the British have fallen down. They are getting ever so close to the bottom. Funny that they still value the things that americans should abhor. Royalty, excessive taxation, empire building, disarming the population, Orwellian surveillance....where do I stop? Some smart guys fought for independence from such tyranny and generations later their offspring have fallen back into the same well worn path as their european ancestors with gleeful abandon. We embrace everything we revolted against and why? Because we have let greed and the corporations assume control. Disarm the corporation as a legal entity. Make people responsible for their companies. Take their overwhelmingly loud voices out of the room and let the people speak for once. I'd love to taste an ounce of the freedoms we used to enjoy as privileged citizens of this fine country. Maybe our day will finally come. I look forward to that glorious day.
Re:Been following this for awhile. (Score:5, Insightful)
Every day we start looking more and more like soviet russia. Just look at the slippery slope that the British have fallen down. They are getting ever so close to the bottom.
You should be aware that, in terms of asshat-ery in schools, there is a lot worse going on in the US than in the UK. IIRC, in UK schools they're much more likely to get the official process involved sooner which is at least less open to these sorts of abuses.
Re:Been following this for awhile. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Been following this for awhile. (Score:5, Insightful)
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
Re:Been following this for awhile. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Been following this for awhile. (Score:5, Insightful)
Meanwhile, kids are being prosecuted for 'sexting' (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Been following this for awhile. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Been following this for awhile. (Score:5, Insightful)
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."
Re:Been following this for awhile. (Score:5, Insightful)
"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."
So, he (the spokesperson/whoever made that statement) works with kids his whole life and most of them are bad, ergo all are bad? Use logic people! Or at least stick to deductive if you're too stupid to attempt inductive, as these people evidently are. WTF do they think they're saying?? Innocent until proven guilty. There's a thousand holes in that statement. What were these people thinking?
Re:Been following this for awhile. (Score:5, Informative)
They had shit. Here's an older article concerning the case, before it got to the Supreme Court:
http://www.aclu.org/drugpolicy/search/35964prs20080711.html [aclu.org]
Here is the relevant info:
It was pure abuse of authority by a moron who didn't understand he didn't have any.
Re:Been following this for awhile. (Score:4, Funny)
Wait a minute, zero tolerance on prescription drugs? What the hells with that?
It's because prescription drugs are a slippery slope to non-prescription drugs. Once teens get used to using Ibuprofen then they will start experimenting with aspirin, then the next thing you know they're smoking tobacco, and then marijuana, and then crack cocaine. Just Say No!
Re:Been following this for awhile. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Been following this for awhile. (Score:5, Insightful)
No they shouldn't. Barred from working with children? Probably. But that's about the extent of it.
This incident shows incredibly poor judgment, and suggests that the morons involved got way too caught up in their "no drugs in school" policy, but it does not, in any way, indicate a likelihood of the perpetrators seeking to abuse children for sexual pleasure.
Cavalierly throwing people on the registry is how we got to where we are now, where peeing in the bushes gets you marked with the scarlet letter for life, and Georgia's even started throwing non-offenders on the list [ajc.com].
The registry is questionable enough in the first place; treating it lightly like this just makes it worse.
Re:Been following this for awhile. (Score:4, Insightful)
No they shouldn't. Barred from working with children? Probably. But that's about the extent of it.
...but it does not, in any way, indicate a likelihood of the perpetrators seeking to abuse children for sexual pleasure...
you don't know why the admin was strip searching the student.
Giving the benefit of doubt to an extremely poor act of judgment makes me glad you have nothing to do with my kids.
Re:Been following this for awhile. (Score:5, Interesting)
This incident shows incredibly poor judgment, and suggests that the morons involved got way too caught up in their "no drugs in school" policy, but it does not, in any way, indicate a likelihood of the perpetrators seeking to abuse children for sexual pleasure.
Oh I don't know about that. I'm not saying rush to prosecute them for sexual abuse... But at the point at which they have the girl alone, stripped to her skivvies, and then demand that she spread her legs and pull her underwear away from her body so that they could look down her panties, I begin to suspect that one or both of those bitches were getting off on it.
I have a hard time believing even the stupidest of school officials -- and not for lack of good examples -- would really think that after failing to find pills anywhere else that they'd find them stashed down the front of her panties. I find it 100% impossible that even the stupidest of school official in the 2000s wouldn't have blazing red warning alarms going off in their head at the thought of forcing a minor to expose her genitals. That they were doing what in any other context outside a doctor's office would have resulted in them being arrested for sex crimes. They can't possibly have been unaware of that. Nor could they have been unaware that they were humiliating the poor girl, even though the nurse says she never appeared embarrassed. Yeah fucking right! I don't buy it for a second. Even if they aren't kiddie-pervs, power is the ultimate aphrodisiac, and these bitches sure lorded their power over the girl. Maybe making her expose herself was just their way of punishing her for thwarting them by not having drugs on her. I don't know, I just know that no normal person would think making the girl expose herself was a reasonable and entirely non-sexual execution of their duties.
Nor do I believe this was a unique case, because it was not an exceptional case. Someone accused someone else of having drugs, and the person didn't have an drugs in their locker, bags, or pockets, and there was no other reason to believe they had drugs but the accusation. Yeah bet that's never happened before.
Look, I don't know, I'm just saying this thing reeks to hell of something a lot worse than just poor judgement.
Re:Been following this for awhile. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Been following this for awhile. (Score:5, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Been following this for awhile. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Been following this for awhile. (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Been following this for awhile. (Score:5, Insightful)
If so, they should get a fucking warrant.
There is absolutely *NO* excuse for school officials sexually abusing a 13-year-old.
Re:Been following this for awhile. (Score:5, Informative)
Are you completely insane?
No. But considering the following, it's quite obvious that you are:
Teachers should need to get warrants to stop children dealing drugs in school?
Please show where the child was dealing drugs. You'll note that she wasn't. She was accused of carrying prescription drugs, which (A) is not illegal, (B) is not "dealing", and (C) NEVER HAPPENED.
But it's great that you can skip the whole "proof" and "investigation" thing and guilty right to "guilty".
So this is "sexual abuse" now?
You'd better fucking believe it.
They didn't even make her take all her clothes off
Ahh, so you're saying that it can't be sexual assault unless she was naked? This attorney [bostoncrim...erblog.com] disagrees with you. Just because she wasn't completely naked doesn't mean it wasn't sexual assault. Or do you also believe that a rapist should be aquitted solely because he let his victims keep their clothes on?
and the search was done by women
So you're saying it's impossible for a woman to commit sexual assault?
What colour is the sky in your world?
Ibuprofen pusher? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Been following this for awhile. (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, that is true as far as the legal system is concerned, but i would bet that to the school administrators, they were at the very least reminded of the previous incident. Humans connect things and their intentions probably came from a desire to prevent another overdose.
Thankfully, school administrators are still subject to "the legal system." As for their purported desire to prevent anything, the ends still don't justify the means.
Re:Been following this for awhile. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Been following this for awhile. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Been following this for awhile. (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't know why you say it is obvious she wasn't selling them. The Fine Article says that someone else was caught with them (apparently without the required prescription) and she was accused of providing them. That removes the "obvious she wasn't selling" part for me. It's not proof she was, just no longer an obvious assumption she wasn't.
Well, first off, ibuprofen isn't an expensive drug so there is no financial incentive. Secondly, the same effect can be had by just taking a few more OTC pills. As for the providing part, its commonplace for people who have a sudden headache to ask someone for some ibuprofen, the 13 year old girl knew that she took them for her headaches so it would help the other person. This sort of thing happens *gasp* in adult society too, yet we think nothing of it. But when this takes place in a school situation suddenly the girl is a drug dealer.
Unfortunately, apparently neither girl had the "get out of jail free" card to justify carrying them. If you allow drugs without that prescription, the school then has to start drawing the line "which drugs are ok", and I, for one, don't think the schools have the understanding or ability to draw that line correctly, or SHOULD have the responsibility of drawing the line.
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. Ibuprofen isn't directly harmful, it isn't illegal, it more than likely wasn't a distraction so it should be permitted. And while this should not be written in the rules, it should be effective policy by all staff members. This makes it trivial to get out the "bad drugs" while letting people take legitimate drugs. Cocaine, illegal, harmful and can easily be a distraction, therefore its banned. Antacids, not illegal, not harmful, and probably not a distraction, should not be banned.
That prevents the schools from becoming a place where kids whose parents love pills distribute them to kids whose parents don't approve, or to kids who are allergic or react badly to whatever it is.
By the time a kid is 13 they should know what they are allergic to and know not to get it. For example, I am allergic to peanuts and penicillin, even when I was in Kindergarten whenever something that could possibly have peanuts in it was served, I would ask if it had peanuts in it. Similarly, whenever I went to the doctor for a bacterial infection, I would mention I was allergic to penicillin. By the time someone is 13 they better know what they are allergic to and know how to find out what things are, otherwise they should not take it.
No, a "no drugs" policy is more reasonable than an arbitrary "some ok, some not" that can result in rules-lawyering and elective enforcement, and maybe worse.
Oh yes, because having someone strip searched for possible possession of ibuprofen is totally reasonable! Heck! Lets just start searching kids at the door for all kinds of harmful drugs such as cough drops, allergy pills, and even inhalers!
Elective enforcement is actually a good thing because it should prevent things like this from happening in the future.
Here's two points based on the FA that need to be made. First, one of the lawyers said that the school had no reason to believe that the girl was carrying the pills in her underwear or next to her body. I disagree. Another student accused her of supplying the pills. If they did not find the source in her locker or in her purse, then they had to be somewhere else. The next most logical place is stuck in her bra. While it was not likely, it was far from "no reason to believe".
Theres a saying, know when to fight your battles. In this case if you can't find the alleged ibuprofen, just admit that the source was lying and go on with your day. Had this been something actually dangerous such as a loaded firearm, or even illegal drugs, this might be at least somewhat warranted, but ibuprofen? Secondly, the girl had no disciplinary record, she wasn't known as the local drug dealer so why try to force the issue?
Re:Been following this for awhile. (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't know why you say it is obvious she wasn't selling them.
It's called motive, something that would be present for marijuana or ritalin, but is absolutely lacking for ibuprofen.
By your logic, if some kid told the principal that so-and-so had a unicorn and bringing pets to school was against the rules, the principal is well within his or her power to order so-and-so to be stripped to make sure she's not hiding the unicorn in her panties. After all, it's not the principal's job to prove that unicorns exist or that it might be possible that a unicorn be hidden in her underwear, it's the girl's job to prove that there is no such unicorn and she's lucky that she didn't get a cavity search.
Why wasn't the case brought up when she was 13?
Because, believe it or not, it takes time to go through all the court cases and appeals and more court cases and more appeals before your lawyer (or the government's lawyer) writes a letter to the supreme court asking them to review your case where it sits for a while before the court reads through them to decide whether or not it's going to take the case, and then it sits and waits for the court to go through all the cases that came in first. A google search for the girl's name turned up court documents from 2004, and I didn't even look to see if that was from the original trial or not.
Re:Been following this for awhile. (Score:5, Insightful)
Just so you know...
Prescription strength ibuprofen is 800mg of ibuprofen in one pill.
As opposed to OTC ibuprofen which is 200mg of ibuprofen in one pill.
i.e., if you have 4 advil, you have the equivalent of one prescription strength ibuprofen.
---
In ANY case, school administrators should not (and probably DO not) have the legal authority be able to strip search a minor.
That's a police matter. And even then, I think the parents should be present.
Re:Been following this for awhile. (Score:4, Informative)
Of course, that makes this whole thing even more stupid.
Re:Been following this for awhile. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Been following this for awhile. (Score:4, Insightful)
Zero tolerance is an abdication of responsibility. "I enforce a policy of zero tolerance" means, quite literally, "I don't know how to do my job".
rj
Re:Been following this for awhile. (Score:5, Insightful)
She did not have any drugs in her posession. All the school officials had as reason was the accusation of another girl who had been caught and was trying to shift blame.
But their attitude was clearly "guilty until proven innocent":
Re:Been following this for awhile. (Score:5, Insightful)
Their attitude wasn't "Guilty until proven Innocent." It was "Guilty despite being proven Innocent" or simply "Guilty".
YAN... Oh, never mind. (Score:5, Insightful)
Just because the student was 13 doesnt mean she doesnt have constitutional rights.
I don't disagree with that. But all this focus on legalities (I'm tempted to go into my usual "slashdotters think too highly of their own legal expertise" rant) kind of misses the most important point: these school administrators humiliated a 13-year-old, all in the name of verifying that she wasn't "smuggling" some pills that aren't even for a drug of abuse! Rather than parsing the fine points of case law, we should be asking what kind of mentality makes this acceptable, legal or not.
Re:Been following this for awhile. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Been following this for awhile. (Score:5, Insightful)
"role it will play in determining which, if any, parts of the Constitution apply on school grounds"
I love how America has so many laws and yet regardless of how many patriotic movies it creates it still believes the constitution has limited application.
Re:Been following this for awhile. (Score:5, Insightful)
What legal right exactly does schools have to do a search to begin with?
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Zero! (Score:5, Insightful)
Look at the areas where "zero tolerance" has been applied - they are the areas most likely to have people unable to competently apply judgment. Removal of the grey areas assures that the same decision will be made every time for a given set of circumstances - essentially "dumbing down" the rules for those in authority.
Have we really fallen so far as to believe that we should follow leaders that need the rules "dumbed down"?
Jesus H. Christ's squeezable bacon! (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Jesus H. Christ's squeezable bacon! (Score:4, Interesting)
Yeah, back when I was in high school, I (and others) often had advil or tylenol, for when we got headaches or whatever. I'm unaware of any recreational use for OTC headache drugs, so frankly, I'd be a little concerned over whoever ordered a strip search of a 13 year old girl, and his _real_ motives.
Hell, the "prescription strength" ibuprofen has the strength of 2 advils. Even had she had some, she, uh, takes 1 strong pill instead of 2 weak ones when she has a headache.
This whole case says more about who ordered the search than anything else.
Re:Jesus H. Christ's squeezable bacon! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Jesus H. Christ's squeezable bacon! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Jesus H. Christ's squeezable bacon! (Score:5, Insightful)
nor will it defend against high velocity lead
Now, now. No need to threaten violence. Just post wanted-ish posters with "Pedophile?" in the caption around their neighborhood... every time they move. Eventually they'll off themselves.
Re:Jesus H. Christ's squeezable bacon! (Score:4, Insightful)
Those responsible deserve to be punished to the full extent of the law, and that does not include them being killed.
With respect,
And people wonder... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:And people wonder... (Score:4, Interesting)
As someone who went to high school during the Columbine event, and saw the heavy-handed knee-jerk reactions from administrators, I now home school my son. School administrators are getting mad with power, though they're in a tough spot. If they turn their back on it, and a kid overdoses on drugs, then the school is sued by the parents. If they fight it, then they're sued by the parents. They're in a very hard spot.
Then again, there are just some DUMB administrators like this case.... and my old school vice-principal that tried to get brown slacks (such as those worn by farmers... in our small, rural, dairy-farm town) as gang clothing.
No more, I don't want to deal with the headache and stress of raising a kid in those environments, waiting to see what BS they put them through.
If you check around, you'll undoubtedly find many homeschool co-ops in your area. We have a very nice co-op here, where everyone gets together once a week for group learning and interaction, taught by parents. And I can teach computer classes to kids, kids who actually WANT to learn.
Rules for the sake of rules (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
The Plan: Get Kids Used to it in school... (Score:5, Interesting)
... 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!
sexual assault (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:sexual assault (Score:4, Informative)
Not excessive? (Score:5, Insightful)
So what could excessively intrusive have been in this case? Surgically cutting her open and checking all internal organs?
wow, that's pretty fucked up (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe our legislators who are always so worried about sexual exploitation of children as an excuse to censor the internet and everything else, might want to look into whether prohibiting the government from forcibly stripping children naked shouldn't be a higher priority.
Which part of the Constiturion applies to children (Score:5, Interesting)
What I think is of importance here is how our culture treats children.
When does a child become a citizen if not at birth?
And, if children are citizens, what is the excuse of running schools with a level of oppression more appropriate of POW camps? Or making a child do something they are not ready or willing to?
Many parents resort to spanking their child to give them a lesson. When was the last time your boss spanked you or grounded you for not meeting the project deadline?
Our culture promotes treating children as property, making it "OK" for adults to abuse children verbally and psychologically and physically, just recently (in the last 100 or so years) addressing sexual abuse. Physical abuse is still widely accepted and even recommended. The right to privacy, the right to eat when and however much you want, the right to sleep when you are sleepy and use the bathroom when you are ready, are taken away from you when you are a child.
Strip searching a 13-year old girl is just a symptom of tour collective habitual disrespect for children's core dignity.
I suggest you check out this http://is.gd/oMQM [is.gd] and this http://is.gd/lQwS [is.gd]
Incorrect: "I was spanked as a kid and I turned OK."
Correct: "I was spanked as a kid and I grew up to believe that spanking is OK."
Re:Which part of the Constiturion applies to child (Score:5, Interesting)
Strip searching is completely different from, say, sending a child to bed without dinner.
The day that children are allowed to do anything they want regardless of the parents is the day that children rule the world. Have you ever seen a two year old? Completely selfish. Would not at all be interested in helping "open source software." Haven't you seen 12 year olds act like two year olds? And 22 year olds act like 12 year olds? If they don't get their way, they whine and cry and throw tantrums because they expect to get their way, because that's how it's happened all their life.
The world doesn't work that way. It is not incorrect to say I was spanked as a kid and I turned out [sic] OK. On the other hand, many people seem to think that if children's desires were just gratified more as a child, they wouldn't be so problematic. We are having more and more kids have everything the want, and it's been that way increasingly for a while now. Seen any improvements in "bad things" such as greed, poverty, violence, sexual assault, etc.?
I would venture to guess that school officials such as these two female ones that strip-searched a 13 year old girl based on an accusation from a kid (who, by the way, when faced with real consequences of his actions, thought he would just get out of it by lying - something some kids are spanked for and learn is not good. Hm...) are not accustomed to not getting what they want, and likely would have gotten quite mad if the girl had refused to do what they told her to. Authority "complexes" don't come from not having every desire fulfilled as a child. "Spoiled brats" are usually quite bossy and get quite angry when they don't get their way. Seems like that behavior continues into adulthood.
Curbing that behavior in a child is pretty important. It has nothing to do with dignity, it has to do with wanting the child to behave well and not simply float around, expecting (WRONGLY) everything to be his for the ordering. That is letting the child grow up in a lie. Very respectful of his dignity, I'm sure.
Re:Which part of the Constiturion applies to child (Score:4, Insightful)
"The day that children are allowed to do anything they want regardless of the parents is the day that children rule the world. Have you ever seen a two year old? Completely selfish. "
Children naturally grow through different phases which make adults uncomfortable in different ways. Habitually, adults try to make children responsible for their comfort and change their natural behaviors. But children are not our emotional caregivers, it's the other way around.
A two year old is not selfish. This is a projection happening because we adults do not properly understand the psychology of the undeveloped human brain. Some skills develop before others, and that's predetermined by nature, not the child's choice. At the age of two the sense of "self" starts emerging. The child starts feeling their own will. Lots of experimentation, discovery of the world. Strong feelings and desires unmanageable for the child. A 2-year old does not have control over these and it will be years before it learns to self-regulate.
Saying that a child is selfish presumes that this is just a small-ish adult who acts selfishly. Incorrect. The social skills develop after the sense of "self" develops.
For instance what parents call temper tantrums are overwhelming floods of feelings which change the child's brain chemistry and often disables their ability to reason and even understand language.
There are many ways to prevent children from harming themselves or others without harming the children. There are ways to maintain boundaries without turning children into prisoners.
In light of her age and sex? (Score:5, Insightful)
This just goes to show (Score:5, Insightful)
that "Zero Tolerance" policies are absurd. There is a reason why we have judge and juries. Laws do not apply evenly. Regardless of the policy, any reasonable person would see how stupid it was to trust another student's accusations and then harass a student with a good record over one pill of OTC pain relief.
Just say no to zero tolerance.
Father should be facing charges (Score:5, Insightful)
If I was the girls father I would now be facing my own charges of assault and battery for beating the shit out of the school assistance principle and the two staffers who strip searched my daughter for suspicion of having a fucking aspirin.
Why didn't the girl just refuse? (Score:4, Insightful)
Okay, being 13 is perhaps not the same as being 18 or 21. But, at 13, you know damn good and well not to let some teacher or other adult force you into a situation where you feel violated or dirty.
I have a little girl who is turning five tomorrow. My wife and I have made the decision to not subject my child to the whims and such of any school officials. If my kid is ever put into a situation where these types of events are about to occur, then she is to immediately leave the school, call us, and damn what the fucking school board or local law enforcement says.
I have this child, and she is my prime responsibility in life. I don't care what some misguided school moron says is their right and the correct procedure. If nothing else, my kid can change school districts, and I'll go get my gun.
I feel sorry that this happened to this girl. However, I don't understand why she let it happened. Do any of us really think that the two female officials were going to hold her down and strip her naked in order to look for some crappy $4.00 pills?
Here's a simple maxim:
My kid. Not yours. Treat well and with respect. You hurt her, you commit a crime towards her, I get my gun. You die. I am bigger, and smarter, and I win, especially when I have the gun.
Nope. (Score:5, Insightful)
Guns are the first tool only of those too weak and too stupid to apply any other means to solving their problem.
Found this nugget (Score:5, Interesting)
While I also think it is irrelevant, that just sounds really bad coming from a school official. You stay class Safford, AZ school district.
Re:Found this nugget (Score:5, Insightful)
Using the same logic the people conducting the strip search of a 13 year old student could very possibly be sex offenders then. Sure, they might not have a criminal record and aren't on the sex offenders register, but that just means they haven't been caught.
Supreme court will agree with the State, I bet.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Anyone want to place bets the supreme court will agree with the state, and restrict a students rights?
After reading Morse v. Frederick, only John Paul Stevens understood the right for first amendment rights to protest illegal behavior. (aka Vietnam and medical marijuana as examples)
Chief Justice Roberts went along the normal "war against drugs" lie, that they had to punish the student to "SEND A MESSAGE"...
Justice Clarence Thomas viewed schools have no free speech and "Teachers commanded, and students obeyed."
It's crazy. I think I understand the issue better than then most of the Supreme Court, the most educated, the best of the best? They agreed to strip a fundamental right away for a war on drugs, and to make a teachers job easier. To allow a child to be randomly strip searched without proper cause? To prevent protests in a non-disrupting behavior off school grounds? wow.. just wow...
Why am I always disagreeing with them on most issues. I talk to co-workers, family and friends, and we seem to be in the same beliefs and values. Yet, I read the Supreme Courts views and I disagree, most of the time. I very rarely agree with the court. Few times have I cheered decisions about cases. Take Lawrence v. Texas which effectively legalized being gay. And of course, Scalia, Rehnquist, Thomas dissented. My favorite comment roughly (I cant find it) from Texas "We dont discriminate against Gays just Gay Sex", and a justice asked "What is the difference?"
I'll end this lengthy topic that means much to me with a Scala qoute.
"Let me be clear that I have nothing against homosexuals, or any other group, promoting their agenda through normal democratic means. Social perceptions of sexual and other morality change over time, and every group has the right to persuade its fellow citizens that its view of such matters is the best ... But persuading one's fellow citizens is one thing, and imposing one's views in absence of democratic majority will is something else." --Scalia.
Guilty until proven innocent (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Sorry for the second reply; an anecdote. (Score:4, Interesting)
A pen is a much more dangerous weapon than that. Strangely, you're also allowed to bring them on airplanes.
Re:Think of the naked 13 year old (Score:5, Funny)
Nice try, FBI. I'm not falling for that one again.
Re:Tip of the ice berg. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Tip of the ice berg. (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Tip of the ice berg. (Score:4, Interesting)
Your using the learn-from-gutter-experience argument. I suspected it would come up eventually. Unfortunately I have only heard anecdotes but have seen no evidence to support this hypothesis. One example I do remember very well, is an academic military journal I read once. There was an article that observed whether people who are born and raised in rough environments make better infantry soldiers. The results are that people who are not exposed to abusive situations handle abusive situations much better when they are adults. In fact the street-wise kids were more likely to get eight balled from the army because of psychological problems.
I have personal anecdotes of this myself, but at least I have seen formal evidence of what I am talking about in a scientific journal.
Re:Tip of the ice berg. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Tip of the ice berg. (Score:4, Insightful)
Being home-schooled denies you the social skills you might learn in school.
Here is another bullshit statement, being atheist denies my children the social skills they could learn in church activities.
I knew home-schooled people through my church. They were ostracized because they hadn't had experiences that we had had. We couldn't relate to them. They didn't get our jokes, and they didn't seem to understand reality.
Wow, that anecdotal evidence is stunning.
As the parent of home-schooled children, I think you are too close to the situation to make a rational assessment. No offense, but your kids may be very poorly adjusted and you just don't know it.
As a parent of non-homeschooled chidlren, I think you are too far away from the situation to make an assessment. No offense, but my kids are well adjusted and you just don't know it.
Re:Tip of the ice berg. (Score:5, Insightful)
From TFA: "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."
And the assertions of the adults involved that they're not pedophiles and child molesters should not be misread to infer that they aren't, only that they were never caught.
Sheesh.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Obama Policies Will Bankrupt the US Tsarkon Rep (Score:5, Informative)
Fucking forced logins..... here's the whole article:
March 24, 2009
Strip-Search of Girl Tests Limit of School Policy
By ADAM LIPTAK
SAFFORD, Ariz. - Savana Redding still remembers the clothes she had on - black stretch pants with butterfly patches and a pink T-shirt - the day school officials here forced her to strip six years ago. She was 13 and in eighth grade.
An assistant principal, enforcing the school's antidrug policies, suspected her of having brought prescription-strength ibuprofen pills to school. One of the pills is as strong as two Advils.
The search by two female school employees was methodical and humiliating, Ms. Redding said. 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."
Ms. Redding, an honors student, had no pills. But she had a furious mother and a lawyer, and now her case has reached the Supreme Court, which will hear arguments on April 21.
The case will require the justices to consider the thorny question of just how much leeway school officials should have in policing zero-tolerance policies for drugs and violence, and the court is likely to provide important guidance to schools around the nation.
In Ms. Redding's case, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in San Francisco, ruled that school officials had violated the Fourth Amendment's ban on unreasonable searches. Writing for the majority, Judge Kim McLane Wardlaw 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."
"More than that," Judge Wardlaw added, "it is a violation of any known principle of human dignity."
Judge Michael Daly Hawkins, dissenting, said the case was in some ways "a close call," given the "humiliation and degradation" involved. But, Judge Hawkins concluded, "I do not think it was unreasonable for school officials, acting in good faith, to conduct the search in an effort to obviate a potential threat to the health and safety of their students."
Richard Arum, who teaches sociology and education at New York University, said he would have handled the incident differently. But Professor Arum said the Supreme Court should proceed cautiously.
"Do we really want to encourage cases," Professor Arum asked, "where students and parents are seeking monetary damages against educators in such school-specific matters where reasonable people can disagree about what is appropriate under the circumstances?"
The Supreme Court's last major decision on school searches based on individual suspicion - as opposed to systematic drug testing programs - was in 1985, when it allowed school officials to search a student's purse without a warrant or probable cause as long their suspicions were reasonable. It did not address intimate searches.
In a friend-of-the-court brief in Ms. Redding's case, the federal government said the search of her was unreasonable because officials had no reason to believe she was "carrying the pills inside her undergarments, attached to her nude body, or anywhere else that a strip search would reveal."
The government added, though, that the scope of the 1985 case was not well established at the time of the 2003 search, so the assistant principal should not be subject to a lawsuit.
Sitting in her aunt's house in this bedraggled mining town a two-hour drive northeast of Tucson, Ms. Redding, now 19, described the middle-school cliques and jealousies that she said had led to the search. "There are preppy kids, gothic kids, nerdy types," she said. "I was in between nerdy and preppy."
One of her friends since early childhood had moved in another direction. "She started acting weird and wearing black," Ms. Redding said. "She started being embarrassed by me because I was nerdy."
When the friend was found with ibuprofen pills, she blamed Ms. Redding, according to court p
Re:Obama Policies Will Bankrupt the US Tsarkon Rep (Score:5, Interesting)
An assistant principal, enforcing the school's antidrug policies, suspected her of having brought prescription-strength ibuprofen pills to school. One of the pills is as strong as two Advils.
and
Judge Michael Daly Hawkins, dissenting, said the case was in some ways "a close call," given the "humiliation and degradation" involved. But, Judge Hawkins concluded, "I do not think it was unreasonable for school officials, acting in good faith, to conduct the search in an effort to obviate a potential threat to the health and safety of their students."
and
"Do we really want to encourage cases," Professor Arum asked, "where students and parents are seeking monetary damages against educators in such school-specific matters where reasonable people can disagree about what is appropriate under the circumstances?"
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.
2. There is also nothing reasonable about strip searching a 13 year old girl who was minding her own business
3. There is nothing reasonable about strip searching a girl even if she did have a prescription for Ibuprofen
What is happening is that special interest groups are normalizing this aggressive and authoritarian policy and practice towards children (and adults as well, but that's another topic). They are continuing to normalize and escalate these nasty and unwarranted attitudes and behaviours.
Re:Obama Policies Will Bankrupt the US Tsarkon Rep (Score:5, Insightful)
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!"
Re:Obama Policies Will Bankrupt the US Tsarkon Rep (Score:5, Insightful)
I had some pain-based health problems when I was in school (I was 17 at the time) and I always carried my painkillers with me and a jolly good thing too.
If my back went during class, I'd have struggled to get off my chair, let alone walk across the classroom, open the door, and then walk all the way to the office of whoever my painkillers were with in the hope that they were there.
I can see why people want a verdict about the reaosnablness of such an invasive search on this issue, but for this case the school should be ruled against on the far more fundamental basis that as a public school, they have no business trying to operate a zero tolerance policy to over-the-counter medication or prescription mediation for which the person has a prescription.
Also, teachers\school administrators performing strip-searches? WTF? What concievable reason is there for them to do that? If the student is possibly doing something which is properly illegal (not against school rules 'illegal' - properly against-the-law illegal) then turn them over to the police. Otherwise; this is already way out of hand.
Re:Obama Policies Will Bankrupt the US Tsarkon Rep (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't think the school had reasonable suspicion just because another student claimed to have gotten the pills from her. Informants frequently lie and children also frequently lie. The risk from an ibuprofen tablet simply is not great enough to justify a strip search of a child.
Re:Obama Policies Will Bankrupt the US Tsarkon Rep (Score:5, Insightful)
If carrying ibuprofen is such a dangerous drug that it requires a strip search, shouldn't the police be called in the first place? It scares me mostly that the school can do this kind of investigation without having to call the authorities.
In case a student was suspected of carrying an illegal drug (no matter which drug), the police should have been informed. In this case the drug she was suspected of carrying was not illegal (it required a prescription still but that doesn't make it illegal in itself). She should have been questioned first at the very least.
The scariest part in this matter is for me that school authorities apparently have (or at least think they have) this kind of investigative powers. They may have certain powers, after all they have a bunch of school children to look after, but this is definitely going to far. This are powers of a kind that belong in the hands of the police only. Next thing you know is that teachers are allowed to carry weapons as a way to help them keep/restore order.
Re:Obama Policies Will Bankrupt the US Tsarkon Rep (Score:5, Insightful)
Every paragraph should have ended with "By the way, this was over *ibuprofen*. What the fuck were these people thinking?" The very premise of the search was beyond moronic.
Re:Obama Policies Will Bankrupt the US Tsarkon Rep (Score:5, Insightful)
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?
Re:Obama Policies Will Bankrupt the US Tsarkon Rep (Score:5, Insightful)
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
Re:Simple (Score:4, Insightful)
The problem is, you put your child in a school that doesnt have your family's interests at heart. And now you are complaining about not being put in the loop.
More parents need to wake up, most public schools are not interested working with parents, they are interested in maintaining an envoirnment of dumb workers that companies can rely on not to make a fuss about things.