• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Supreme Court Holds Strip Search Violated 4th Amend.

The Donkey

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2006
Messages
1,114
Location
Northern Virginia
imported post

The Supreme Court ruled today that school officials violated the constitutional rights of Savana Redding, a 13-year-old Arizona girl who was strip searched based on a classmate's uncorroborated accusation that she previously possessed ibuprofen. This is the biggest victory for students’ rights in the last 20 years. . . .

We thought you would like to hear about this case straight from Savana. Below is a post she wrote for our blog this afternoon.

Civics 101
by Savana Redding

People of all ages expect to have the right to privacy in their homes, belongings, and most importantly, their persons. But for far too long, students have been losing these rights the moment they step foot onto public school property -- a lesson I learned firsthand when I was strip-searched by school officials just because another student who was in trouble pointed the finger at me. I do not believe that school officials should be allowed to strip-search kids in school, ever. And though the U.S. Supreme Court did not go quite so far, it did rule that my constitutional rights were violated when I was strip-searched based on nothing more than a classmate’s uncorroborated accusation that I had given her ibuprofen. I’m happy for the decision and hope it helps make sure that no other kids will have to experience what I went through.

Strip searches are a traumatic intrusion of privacy. Forcing children to remove their clothes for bodily inspection is not a tool that school officials should have at their disposal. Yet, until today, the law was apparently unclear, potentially allowing for the most invasive of searches based on the least of suspicions. Every day, parents caution their children about the importance of not talking to strangers, looking both ways before crossing the street, and following directions at school. But I imagine they never think to warn them that a school official, acting on a hunch, may force them to take their clothes off in the name of safety. And now, thankfully, they won’t have to.

Our fundamental rights are only as strong as the next generation believes them to be, and I am humbled to have had a part in preserving and promoting the Fourth Amendment to the Bill of Rights.
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
imported post

Huck wrote:
Is there anything about criminal charges against the jerks who did that? A lawsuit?

From FlexYourRights.org:


Unfortunately, despite upholding the 4th Amendment in this case, the Court left the door wide open for future violations of student rights. The justices agreed by a 7-2 vote that the school officials who carried out the illegal search should not be held liable because the caselaw was unclear at the time. Now that the central legal issues are settled, similar incidents could invoke liability in the future, but the ruling itself will fail to prohibit such searches in many instances. By placing heavy emphasis on the negligible threat posed by prescription Ibuprofen, the Court implies that a different outcome may have been reached depending on the type of contraband in question. It's possible, for example, that the search would have been upheld if it involved marijuana.

http://www.flexyourrights.com/

Also: http://www.fourthamendment.com/blog/

Both are good websites to add to your Favorites.
 

KBCraig

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2007
Messages
4,886
Location
Granite State of Mind
imported post

Unfortunately, the reasoning behind the the decision doesn't bode well for future rulings. They found the search unconstitutional because there was no significant immediate danger even if the girl did have the alleged ibuprofen. What if someone had alleged she had a knife, a bomb, or --gasp!-- a gun?
 

old dog

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 5, 2009
Messages
396
Location
, ,
imported post

First, I'm sorry the young lady had to endure this assault. Schools take "in loco parentis" much too far. Maybe this will reduce the abuses.

Second, if the essay is in fact the product of a 13-year-old she is a rare treasure. The clear, focused exposition, the use of social and legal concepts not normally associated with middle-school thought indicate a level of accomplishment beyond her years.
 

The Donkey

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2006
Messages
1,114
Location
Northern Virginia
imported post

old dog wrote:
Second, if the essay is in fact the product of a 13-year-old she is a rare treasure. The clear, focused exposition, the use of social and legal concepts not normally associated with middle-school thought indicate a level of accomplishment beyond her years.
Was 13 at the time of the incident. Is 19 now.
 

Alexcabbie

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 21, 2008
Messages
2,288
Location
Alexandria, Virginia, United States
imported post

This search was too much even for Justice Antonin Scalia, who was the Justice I expected to have dissented. But no, the dissenter was Justice Clarence Thomas. Frankly I'm baffled. Need to look up the opiniom and dissent.......
 
Top