13-year-old's school strip-search case heads to Supreme Court

http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/04/19/scotus.strip.search/index.html

Is it just me or is this fucked up on almost every level imaginable? (I say "almost" because the search wasn't conducted by men.)

so totally fucked up and wrong. makes me glad i was out of high school before my school district really started in with the DARE brainwashing

The link makes it seem as if the story is about SCOTUS justices getting strip searched.

(Scalia out of his gown must be quite a sight)

Good luck USA!

ugh.
i really do fear for the publicly educated american schoolchildren of the future.
i'm largely a product of public schools myself, but nonsense like this was disgusting when i was in high school and it's disgusting now.

This is really making me reconsider my "lol homeschooling" stance.

(However, it has thoroughly confirmed my "yuk Tuscon" stance.)

start researching & saving for boston-area alternative schools NOW.

Thing is, the messed-up part of this is really more about the school administrators' decisions about how to go about this, slightly more so than the constitutional principle of whether public schools are allowed to strip-search children (without parental notice/consent/whatever).

. . .and that's why the supreme court is hearing the case

Huh? Supremes are hearing it basically re: constitutional principle, which can be rather different from practical application

I'm sure, as is the nature of the scotus, that they will be hearing it a highly nuanced & rigorous way, what with opinions and all that.

if we can't arbitrarily strip-search your children, how do you expect us to protect them?

why are there so many fucked-up misguided people serving as school administrators? I ask you this

Arizona

School officials said the court was "wholly uninformed about a disturbing new trend" -- the abuse of over-the-counter medication by teenagers.

this is their leading argument? wow.

I was 10 when I got sent to the prinicpal's office for saying the word "breasts," I was 13 when I got sent to the principal's office to have my breasts searched

Arizona should have its own "defend the indefensible" thread

x-post

I mean there's the Grand Canyon, but the rest of it pretty much sucks

School officials said the court was "wholly uninformed about a disturbing new trend" -- the abuse of over-the-counter medication by teenagers.

this is their leading argument? wow.

― elmo argonaut, Monday, April 20, 2009 12:36 PM (12 seconds ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

lol yeah that makes me think of http://www.filmdope.com/Gallery/ActorsG/6873.gif

I assume the argument there is that having prescription meds in school is such a red-hot clear-and-present child-safety danger that it's comparable to, like, strip-searching a kid suspected of having a gun.

Huh? Supremes are hearing it basically re: constitutional principle, which can be rather different from practical application

Question(s) Presented: (1) Does Fourth Amendment prohibit public school officials from conducting search of student suspected of possessing and distributing prescription drug on campus in violation of
school policy?

This is what they're going to decide on--can a school official search someone "suspected" of having drugs, based on one other student's suggestion. The way I read it, they're not deciding whether or not school official *can* conduct strip searches, they're deciding if the school officials can codnuct strip searches based on rumors

re: facts of the case -- the school officials were specifically looking for prescription strength ibuprofen? or were they just looking for pills? small distinction, i know, but this is scotus after all

they were specifically looking for ibuprofen

so fucked up

There, at Wilson’s behest, Romero and the school nurse,
Peggy Schwallier, conducted a strip search of Savana. The
officials had Savana peel off each layer of clothing in turn.
First, Savana removed her socks, shoes and jacket for inspection
for ibuprofen. The officials found nothing. Then, Romero
asked Savana to remove her T-shirt and stretch pants. Embarrassed
and scared, Savana complied and sat in her bra and
underwear while the two adults examined her clothes. Again,
the officials found nothing. Still progressing with the search,
despite receiving only corroboration of Savana’s pleas that
she did not have any ibuprofen, Romero instructed Savana to
pull her bra out to the side and shake it. Savana followed the
instructions, exposing her naked breasts in the process. The
shaking failed to dislodge any pills. Romero next requested
that Savana pull out her underwear at the crotch and shake it.
Hiding her head so that the adults could not see that she was
about to cry, Savana complied and pulled out her underwear,
revealing her pelvic area. No ibuprofen was found. The
school officials finally stopped and told Savana to put her
clothes back on and accompany Romero back to Wilson’s
office. Savana did not freely agree to this search. She was
“embarrassed and scared, but felt she would be in more
trouble if she did not do what they asked.”

xpost - Or anyway unlawfully distributed prescription meds (I mean, if a school successfully found crack in the boxers of a 16-year-old boy, people would be significantly less shocked and bothered, you know?)

xpost - Yeah, Que, my point is that Supremes are basically evaluating whether and under what circumstances a school can do such things, in a rights-based way -- this is somewhat distinct from what kinds of decisions administrators make within that realm and how batshit those decisions may appear (e.g., strip-searching for Ibuprofen will, fair or not, raise more eyebrows than strip-searching for guns)

ibuprofen search should stop way before the bra imo

Yeah, Que, my point is that Supremes are basically evaluating whether and under what circumstances a school can do such things, in a rights-based way -- this is somewhat distinct from what kinds of decisions administrators make within that realm and how batshit those decisions may appear

but nabisco that is what they're doing! the whole reason they're hearing the case is because the administrators made a bad, somewhat batshit decision--based on one student's lie, they strip searched this girl. in other words, i don't understand the distinction you're making between the two things

Hiding her head so that the adults could not see that she was
about to cry, Savana complied and pulled out her underwear,
revealing her pelvic area. No ibuprofen was found.

fucking hell. at that point, you have to wonder what sudden shock of conscience stopped them from the cavity search. disgusting.

I thought this thread was about a strip-search head case. Maybe it is.

Incidents like this make homeschooling sound less crazy.

My understanding is that precedent has definitely lowered the 4th Amendment bar for schools compared to the general norm, but this seems beyond anyone's definition of acceptable.

Except a certain school nurse & principal's assistant in Tucson.

the whole "zero tolerance for ibuprofen" concept is bullshit from the beginning

but it's PRESCRIPTION ibuprofen! if we start letting them carry around those lil orange bottles, who KNOWS what will happen next! maybe they'll be giving CLARITIN to their friends, or god only knows what else!

which is to say that kids have been blowing ritalin and adderall in high school bathrooms for over a fucking decade now and strip searching a girl with no prior disciplinary problems on the claim of a fellow classmate (as opposed to an administrator) is about as fucking close to solving the problem as school lunches are to being nutritious.

Que, if the court established a frame like, let's say, "yes, it's within the rights of public schools to strip-search students believed to be in possession of dangerous or prohibited items," that doesn't prevent administrators from making seemingly over-the-top decisions about when and how to exercise that right, or what items to prohibit or consider a pressing danger -- the Supreme Court just gives a frame of rights, not so much judgments or specific guidelines on actions beyond that. (E.g., like I said, it will probably always seem batshittier to most of us to strip-search an 8th-grade girl on suspicion of having unlawful ibuprofen than an 8th-grade boy slinging crack out of his shorts, but as far as the frame of rights goes, these are near-identical acts, and the rest is kinda just discretion.)

those are not near identical acts and you fucking know it.

this girl is accused of giving, not selling, ibuprofen to a friend, even if you want to suggest that ibuprofen and crack are somehow on the same level. tell me the last time a kid was shot for giving his friend something for his headache after math class.

nabisco it is preciesly those over the top decisions that started this whole thing in the first place, and what caused the court to accept the case

yeah but ian within the context of a persons right to privacy, it doesnt matter what the object of the search is--just the right of the school to make that search

xp? they probably aren't going to say under no circumstances can you strip search a student in a public school. the test is "reasonableness" so yeah they do consider the circumstances, like what the administrators were looking for, and sort of formulate guidelines.

and the court gives specific guidelines on stuff all the time--they did it with the Bong Hits 4 Jesus case last year

yeah guys we all seem to be talking at cross purposes here; obviously guns are different than crack and crack is different from ibuprofen, and so in the decision by the court (that is likely more than just a few sentences saying "yeah, these guys fucked up" or "nah, this girl's a whiner--deal.") there is almost undoubtedly going to be a lot of definining as to what constitutes an appropriate search.

fwiw, i'll eat my hat if this turns out in favor of the school district.

xpxp yes, que otm

an 8th-grade boy slinging crack out of his shorts

http://www.subter.com/is/wp-content/uploads/2007/10/baggypants.jpg

Ian, in a "frame of rights" sense those things both involve a school strip-searching a student suspected of possessing/distributing a controlled substance -- like Max says, it's basically the same right!

I mean, yeah, those things are different, and you and I would treat them differently, and would expect schools to make different decisions about them -- this is the distinction I was trying to make to Que, that the court can establish a frame of rights but that doesn't stop schools from making decisions that seem totally wrong. (Like going after ibuprofen the same way they'd go after crack.)

If you expect school administrators to look up supreme court decisions before making snap decisions as regarding school policy's specific application... you might be asking too much.

I'm kind of surprised that a school administrator would think that he could get away with this without courting a potential very expensive lawsuit. Wouldn't the first thing you'd think of in this situation be "could I get sued (and possibly fired) for doing this?" I am not surprised that the school district is backing him to the hilt though.

Actually a lot of these school admins, when these cases come up, say they actually don't have any discretion about making those choices -- that school districts' "zero tolerance" policies mean that ibuprofen and crack are functionally the same, and the accusation alone is sufficient to trigger a search of whatever kind; that, if they were to ignore the so-called "small stuff" that they'd be placing their students and the district at risk. So, yeah, what John D. said.

I'm pretty sure the "zero tolerance" policy doesn't mandate strip searches. That was a conscious choice made by a single individual.

(One individual probably thinking a lot about the liabilities involved if some kid has an ibuprofen-related medical issue and information about a controlled substance wasn't adequately acted on)

Right -- it doesn't require a strip search per se, but requires them to treat ibuprofen as being as dangerous as crack, so if they'd strip-search for one, they'll strip-search for the other.

btw i am having trouble finding which schedule classification ibuprofen falls--been available over the counter since the eighties without any maximum dosage; if the question was about an ibuprofen-codeine hybrid pill or some shit, that's a (slightly, very slightly) different story.

the problem basically stems from any policy that treats ibuprofen like crack.

also from idiot administrators

"(One individual probably thinking a lot about the liabilities involved if some kid has an ibuprofen-related medical issue and information about a controlled substance wasn't adequately acted on)"

Yeah, but the thing is they did act on it. Searching her back, making her turn out her pockets, these are acting on it. Stripping her nearly naked is taking that a step well beyond that. A step I would think most rational people would imagine could lead to a lawsuit and possible termination.

her bag, ahem

9th circuit opinion says it was

400 mg ibuprofen, obtainable only by prescription

"Right -- it doesn't require a strip search per se, but requires them to treat ibuprofen as being as dangerous as crack, so if they'd strip-search for one, they'll strip-search for the other."

Sure, maybe on paper they are the "same" in this district, but this admin is human being. I find it hard to believe that a human being (even a school administrator) can't see there being a slight difference (esp. where a jury handing out punitive damages might be concerned.)

orly, okay, my google sleuthing is shitty today srry que. xp

nah it's cool--i was curious myself, because if it was that codeine stuff i would have different thoughts about all of this

i.e. kids should not be poppin that stuff at lunch

Quite frankly, if the Supreme Court decides this behavior is allowable, we have the wrong Supreme Court. Also, Democrats will have ample ammo to torpedo conservative appointees for DECADES if they give schools the right to strip-search your kids.

If they want to involve the police, that's one thing; they're trained to search for things and also would provide a contextual frame where a strip search, regardless of how awful it was to experience, wouldn't be outside the realm of expectation. Their actions suggest that they knew they didn't have enough evidence for this girl to be processed by the police and this ham-fisted attempt to "send a message" by traumatizing an honor student should end in the termination of administrator who ordered the search and removal of the board members who put the stupid policy in place.

Wait, are you guys saying this would be ok if they thought she had crack? Am I the only one who has a zero-tolerance policy against strip-searching kids in school?

i am not saying it would be okay if they thought she had crack, but that it wouldn't be such a clear cut fuck-up on the part of the administration.

wheres the snitch, thats the student who deserves punishment

Except that it would. The school should not be strip-searching your kids. The school should have the ability to involve the police, whose procedures may involve a chain of events that might lead to "trained professionals" (yes I know, assume the system works for the sake of the argument) strip-searching your kids.

er xpost

yeah, crying that teachers being denied the right to strip children (based on hearsay, though jesus, in any situation) is a roadblock to the kind of swift and effective response that is too often needed to protect the very safety of students, particularly from the threats posed by drugs and weapons ignores the fact that we have authority figures who are already supposed to deal with criminal activity.

Yeah, I think Dan's totally OTM about involving a different authority (or -- at the very least -- sequestering the kid and involving parents pre-search, especially for anyone under 16)

To be honest I am increasingly sympathetic to treating prescription ibuprofen pretty much like you'd treat crack, because in a legalistic/administrative sense, what's the difference? Either way, a student is giving other students a controlled substance it's illegal for them to possess. Maybe there's this gut rubric that says ibuprofen is low-risk but codeine is different, but really, the government already has a system of what people are allowed to have, and any prescription med is on it.

I'd assume there's a big proportion of school systems where administrators are under heavy legalistic pressure on this stuff, and a big proportion of smaller, more problem-free ones where they actually have discretion; I find myself assuming this school is the former, but I dunno...

a student is SUSPECTED of giving other students etc., I should say

To be honest I am increasingly sympathetic to treating prescription ibuprofen pretty much like you'd treat crack, because in a legalistic/administrative sense, what's the difference?

I agree with this 100%. The issue here isn't whether a rule was broken or suspected of being broken; the issue is the steps taken to investigate. The girl's parents should have been called and she (and her accuser) should have been kept in the office until the parents arrived and things could have been cleared up. Strip-searching is not an option, ever.

this sympathy for schools having to fight prescription med use is really neither here nor there when they start strip-searching. i don't give a fuck if someone said the kid had an uzi in her panties, call the cops.

xpost

a controlled substance it's illegal for them to possess

NOT illegal; against school policy. big difference.

"We found it! The ibuprofen was in her duodenum."

and it would be compliant with school policy if prescribed medication is entrusted with and administered by the school nurse; the problem was not with prescribed medication, but medication that was not granted prior procedural authorization

xpost

Elmo, she was accused/suspected of giving a prescription medication to another student -- unless the student in question is Doogie Howser, that's illegal, not just a school-policy issue

which makes it all the more absurd that they didn't call the cops

^^^^^^^ yes!

"It's just ibuprofen, a friendly strip-search will clear this all up."

well the complicated thing is that the student was doogie howser!!! and they strip-searched him!!!!

http://images1.wikia.nocookie.net/simpsons/images/thumb/1/16/SpringfieldElementary8.jpg/180px-SpringfieldElementary8.jpg

"i get two paychecks this way."

Yeah, the main reason I agree re: cops is that I can't think of a single thing a school would have reason to strip-search for that's not considered dangerous or legally complicated even outside the school

(The one thing that would complicate that, though, is how you'd feel about schools with trained security staff)

you guys are onto some seriously circular big brother shit right here and i must step away before i drive myself crazy.

I feel that a school with trained security staff is not my first choice of school for my (as-yet hypothetical) children.

Ian, how is it "circular big brother shit" to involve the police if you think one of your students has committed a crime? I think it would also have been an overkill reaction in this case (I posted upthread what I thought they should have done; called the parents) but I don't see why it would be inherently bad or limiting to your civil rights for school authorities to involve law enforcement if they believe laws are being broken by their students.

Aww, I went to a public school with "security" people! (But not the almost uniformed "guard" kind some places have now.)

If we had security people, we didn't know about it. (Or the district called them "gym teachers".)

we had people with walkie talkies who kept an eye peeled for truants but i'm guessing if they had a jones to strip search 13-year-old girls they knew better than to try

that's not what i'm saying at all, dan. i do agree that in certain situations it'a A-OK to involve police, but i think it's almost overstating the case to suggest that the police ought to be the other side of an either/or decision--but the point is that in a case like this involving an accusation by a single student (not an eyewitness account by a teacher, janitor, coach) that the police probably shouldn't be brought in until it's absolutely necessary. Even if a kid is accused of having a bag of weed or a little jar of ketamine, there are intermediary steps to be taken from an adminstrative point of view, before jumping to either "strip search the punk" or "call the cops, let them clean up the mess." xp

Even if a kid is accused of having a bag of weed or a little jar of ketamine, there are intermediary steps to be taken from an adminstrative point of view

yeah smoke that shit

don't call the cops if you find illegal drugs, put it in a cabinet and let them have it back after class

is the fear really that if the supreme court rules against strip searches then kids will be able to do whatever they want on campuses? Because in the real world, I don't think it would do more than make an administrator think twice before making an idiotic decision. No one is going to ignore something of true danger (like a gun, knife etc.) just because the supreme court told them they couldn't strip search a teenager.

that's not what i'm saying at all, dan. i do agree that in certain situations it'a A-OK to involve police, but i think it's almost overstating the case to suggest that the police ought to be the other side of an either/or decision--but the point is that in a case like this involving an accusation by a single student (not an eyewitness account by a teacher, janitor, coach) that the police probably shouldn't be brought in until it's absolutely necessary. Even if a kid is accused of having a bag of weed or a little jar of ketamine, there are intermediary steps to be taken from an adminstrative point of view, before jumping to either "strip search the punk" or "call the cops, let them clean up the mess."

I absolutely agree! I think most of the people on this thread agree with that (xp: lol @ da croupier); the sentiment you're reacting to, I think, is the bewildered "if they were going to overreact, why didn't they do so in a somewhat intelligent/logical manner?" one.

OMG you guys, is it okay if I go take an ibuprofen for the headache this thread is giving me?

no sir da croupier that's not what i'm saying.
perhaps finding out whether it's a valid accusation before involving the po-lice? i was in the guidance counselors office every day after colombine because of unfounded rumors that i was a crazy person--you think a sero tolerance " this guy's a degenerate call the cops" policy is what's needed? xpxppxpxpx

so if this kid had a bottle of advil instead of prescription strength/dose/whatever ibuprofen, she would have been okay?

she didn't have anything as far as we know though, right? kids can say a lot of shit just to get other kids in trouble. like when i told my mom that my sister was smoking weed even thoughi knew it was just incense lol

snitches get stitches

snitches get DITCHES.

yeah she didn't have anything.

my cousins once waved a bag of oregano around and told me it was pot that was pretty funny

actually the only time i snitched someone out was after they stabbed me with a pen, so i already had the stitches

I gotta say, the person who made up the original lie must be pretty pleased with him/herself.

maybe she just ditched it in a trash can on the way to the principal's office.

Well, "finding out whether it's a valid accusation" involves ... well, isolating and questioning the kid and then going through their stuff, right? (After which I think most administrators, barring intense suspicion or bureaucratic pressure, would make the judgment call that they'd adequately checked out the allegation and let it go.)

I can't believe this is an issue, even in Arizona: if an adult who is not a law enforcement official wants to conduct a search of a minor's person, police have to be called and parents have to be notified, same as w/stolen property accusations. That poor kid would have been well within her rights to refuse any attempt by administrators to search her. I despair when I think of the shit kids have to put up with, all the time thinking the alternative is worse trouble.

Nobody ever thought I had contraband on me when I was that age but I did get falsely accused of shoplifting by a store owner. My mom nearly throttled me for agreeing to a pocket search without an officer present or a phone call to her, mostly because store owner was local perv but also because KNOW YOUR RIGHTS.

i saw a whole lot of zero-tolerance bullshit when i was a schools reporter in tennessee -- even before columbine, school boards and principals had a big hard-on for getting tough. never covered a case as offensive as the strip search, but there was a kid who got expelled for a year because someone said he had alcohol on him at a school football game (he was in the school band), so they searched him and when they didn't find a flask under his band uniform they decided he must have stashed it in his car. so they went to his car and searched that, and found no alcohol -- but they did find a hunting knife in his glove compartment, which under zero-tolerance rules constituted bringing a deadly weapon onto school grounds, so BAM he got kicked out. he sued and ultimately won reinstatement at an appeals level, but by then his year of expulsion was already up, and he'd turned 18 and gotten a GED. it was all so silly, and the school board spent tens of thousands of dollars fighting the litigation.

my big fear with this strip search case is that the justices won't want to get involved in second-guessing local administrators -- and if they uphold this, then it's going to be totally open season.

there was also this silly case recently.

kids can say a lot of shit just to get other kids in trouble

100% OTM for 13 year olds.

they're probably worried that this will establish that they can't do "intermediary steps" when it comes to spotting illegal activity without being accused of (and liable for) violating the kids' rights. which would really take the fun out of things.

Well, "finding out whether it's a valid accusation" involves ... well, isolating and questioning the kid and then going through their stuff, right?

when "stuff" means "vagina," then no.

"intermediary," dude -- i.e., between accusation and police/strip/etc

is that an "intermediary step"

xp: lol

Well, "finding out whether it's a valid accusation" involves ... well, isolating and questioning the kid and then going through their stuff, right?

imho it shouldn't even be the first step. they should have asked her teachers if they knew of any problems involving the two students, found out if there'd been disciplinary problems, etc. this points to a larger problem i have with american education which is that adminstrators & teachers should be responsible for knowing & becoming involved in the lives of their students. i understand about overcrowded & class size issues & all of that, believe me, but it doesn't make the problem any less serious.

"It's just not that fun to have someone rummage through your pelvis like it's a junk drawer."

what's funny is the accuser never claimed that the girl who got strip searched actually had drugs on her--all the accuser said to the school officials was that she had gotten the pills from her classmate.

another case i covered: high-school senior goes on a school trip to paris, while there realizes he's legal drinking age so he buys a bottle of vodka and sneaks it back to his hotel room. drinks some of the vodka, starts to worry about getting caught, pours the rest of it down the drain. then is so consumed by guilt at having done this, he goes and shamefacedly tells a chaperone about it. chaperone thanks him for admitting it, dutifully reports to relevant school official on the trip. school official dutifully reports it up the chain, kid gets collared under zero-tolerance policy (told repeatedly at each level of authority, "sorry, we don't have any discretion on these cases") and is thrown out of school and can't graduate with his class.

and i would sit there and watch school board members, some of whom i knew to be intelligent and otherwise fair-minded, just nod their heads at these cases and say, "zero tolerance. our hands are tied." and i'd want to yell at them, it's YOUR POLICY. you can change it. nobody says you have to actually have "zero tolerance." it's like this campaign slogan that actually got turned into completely brain-dead policy.

That sucks. I see the logic behind it but it sucks.

(or rather "logic")

they should have asked her teachers if they knew of any problems involving the two students, found out if there'd been disciplinary problems, etc...
― ian, Monday, April 20, 2009 12:45 PM

IRRELEVANT!

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.”

if you agree with that then you're as retarded as the principal who ordered the search imho.

looool

they'll find drugs in that underage cooch yet

You guys are missing the point, which is this girl was like a 13-year-old female Lex Luthor

lex luthor kept drugs in his undies?

xpost to Ian - I agree with that, and I think it'd be the case in maybe most schools (?), but then you have certain large or dangerous or liability-concerned schools where ... if someone's accused of distributing a controlled substance, I can see why they'd feel a need to isolate the kid as soon as they get that information, so nothing bad happens that can be blamed on their "slow response."

xpost - surely part of the appeal of zero-tolerance policies isn't just "toughness" but precisely the fact that it does tie the hands of administrators, so they can't be blamed for things like bad use of discretion, unequal treatment, etc.

actually im kind of with them--just cuz a girl is an honor student doesnt mean shes incapable of doing bad things

if you agree with that then you're as retarded as the principal who ordered the search imho.

― ian, Monday, April 20, 2009 12:52 PM

ian you cannot seriously believe i'm expressing anything other than contempt for all these "adults" loudly blaming the victim while running headlong in the opposite direction from anything resembling responsibility.

abdication of which has always been the sole point of zero tolerance policies to begin with. well, that and the opportunity for petty officials to get away with more bullshit.

the "positive" way to think about zero-tolerance policies & mandatory minimums is that its like school administrators and judges are ROBOTS

which is pretty cool when you think about it

lex luthor kept drugs in his undies?

Someone doesn't watch "Smallville"!

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.”

this was the other thing that sort of shocked me, dealing with school administrators: how willing they were to make all kinds of shitty innuendoes about their own students with almost no pretext at all. their official line would always be that they couldn't discuss student records because of confidentiality rules, but somehow it would get leaked back to me that so-and-so was caught giving a blowjob in the school bathroom last year -- even though so-and-so (in that particular case, a 12-year-old girl) was not even being accused of anything like that.

really, i sort of came to believe that school administrations are full of some of the pettiest, meanest, most small-minded bureaucrats in the world.

i really don't know that it's right for schools to teach kids about drugs and stuff. isn't that sort of the parent's responsibility?

i sort of came to believe that school administrations are full of some of the pettiest, meanest, most small-minded bureaucrats in the world

qed

jesus guys i really have to get out of bed now! it's my day off, i have a shower to take, leftovers to eat, etc. it's been fun. maybe there should be a rolling 2009 "talk shit about american education" thread.

Thanks to this thread, the unspoken list suggested by "etc" will include "strip-search a 13-year-old girl", probably for the next month or so.

My mom was the admin assistant in a small town school district for 15+ years and comes home with the most disgusting stories of flat-out lies the administration will tell to loose themselves of what they deem a "problem" child.

I.e. a teacher hated the kid's parents back when she was in school, therefor the kid was "trouble".

it would address a lot of challenges and create a lot of clarity if we just made school and prison budgets fungible

because really?

"Most people would not know the difference between birth control or some Ritalin or Tylenol or codeine," said Clarence Jones, coordinator for the Fairfax school system's safe and drug-free youth program. "If they are just pulling something out of their pockets and sticking it in their mouths, we don't know what they are taking."

nothing against Clarence Jones, coordinator for the Fairfax school system's safe and drug-free youth program, but if your job description doesn't include keeping a PDR around one way to determine what they're taking out of their pockets and sticking in their mouths would be to ask.

In this case there's a chance that Scalia's libertarian side may quash his authoritarian side.

maybe his head will explode, Scanners-style

^LOL

Jon, often school administrators are dealing with a second generation of students from the same family, and basically Harper Valley PTA to thread.

BTW why is there microtrend of people copying my current handle? Gotta be quicker with the bad puns. This is ILX innit.

seems to me the lower court ruling leaves the door open to a compromise: the search was unreasonable, but the administrator is not personally liable.

lol suzy pretty sure whiney g. weingarten or someone was rocking the suggest banh mi even before you

^^^ yeah dog, you behind the curve suzy

Got proof? Bring it to the table. Someone already called another poster on this at some point last week and I would have noticed a Whiney name change.

I just had to argue a free-speech-in-schools case for my appellate advocacy tryout, so I've been thinking about this stuff. I don't know as much about due process rights in schools, but I'd assume there are parallels, in the sense that due process rights are narrower in schools than they are outside but that you still don't leave all your rights at the schoolhouse gate.

I'd also bet that she'll win this one -- the liberal justices will be on her side and it's probably enough to shock at least one or two of the conservatives' sense of dignity and morality.

BTW, Nabisco, I don't think it's exactly accurate to say that the Supreme Court will only decide the broader issue of guidelines for schools in doing/not-doing strip-searches. The court is still deciding a case, and they will still very much decide it on the facts of the case, as batshitty as they are, while trying to do so in a way that gives a broader principle.

Also, Ian, believe it or not many school administrators do get some basic education in constitutional law as it applies to schools -- in fact the principal in Bong Hits 4 Jesus had taken a course in it and had a basic understanding of school first amendment law, iirc.

huh isn't this a 4th amendment case?

oh sorry right, heh heh

well, uh, anyway, what I said, except search and seizure

jesus people are all uptight about their "original" usernames around here, its like they are 13 year old girls getting strip-searched or something and crying about it

Actually, the more I think about this, it seems problematic to come up with a decent "lesser standard" for students in schools for adults. You either have reasonable suspicion or you don't. Plus, I'd assume that educators don't receive the same training cops do and in some sense are less likely to be able to determine grounds for reasonable suspicion.

yeah but the court has basically gone the other way and says because school officials aren't cops they can't figure out what's probable cause, and the school is a "special needs" environment, therefore school officials don't need probable cause to do a search. they just need reasonable suspicion. ˘\(o_º)/˘

btw i think that's new jersey v. TLO

haven't read this thread all the way throught, but: i seem to remember (from HS, actually) that there was a precedent for searching lockers?

xp wait i think TLO is the one i'm thinking of

jesus people are all uptight

They always struck me that way, too.

Now, as to "reasonable suspicion", one might hope that the suspicion which leads to a strip search of a minor is not that some loony school policy may have been abrogated, but that a crime of some sort has been committed. Otherwise schools could do a strip search for any item they have decided to ban, including bottle caps, bits of string or Pokemon cards, and do the search on any flimsy pretext they care to name.

Skimmed thread, but this makes me LOL because ibuprofen is for sale in supermarkets in boxes of 72 here, and you can get ibu/codien in similar amounts w/15mg codiene per tab, OTC, in pharmacies no questions asked in this country.

Well, I dont mean LOL as in "har har we haz drugs" but a kind of "wtf, being searched for a headache pill!?" disbelief, btw.

this thread is lol but i wanted to play cap'n save-a-tuscon and point out that
student at Safford Middle School, about 127 miles from Tucson, Arizona.

arizona can be kinda lame but tuscon is a pretty chill place. 127 miles is like albany to nyc or bakersfield to la and you know those places are pretty diff.

ha when i hear 'bakersfield' i just think about country music and that sounds great to me

yeah, i love buck owens but the city has seen better days

I think locker search is different because, crucially, it's to do with school property and is not interference with the person. I am pretty sure that school can act in loco parentis here and/or has gained parental consent as a precondition of the child's enrollment.

haha oops, I skim-read and just glommed onto the city name and didn't really pay attention to the "127 miles away from" part

What I meant by my post is that I think schools just either a) shouldn't have the authority to strip search at all or b) if a school is really so unsafe that it's necessary to search STUDENTS BODIES for weapons to protect students (and I thing ONLY weapons justify this degree of invasion), there ought to be some kind of trained officer brought in to make a determination based on proper legal standards (although maybe it's lolworthy to think a cop will be any better), and I'm leaning toward thinking it should just be a full-on adult-level probable cause standard.

Even if standards for property searches are lower in schools, standards for body searches should not be.

LOL at Stephen Breyer:

Justice Stephen Breyer can expect years of teasing after a misstatement as he was trying to point out that it might not be unusual for children to hide things from teachers in their underwear.

"In my experience when I was 8 or 10 or 12 years old, you know, we did take our clothes off once a day, we changed for gym, OK? And in my experience, too, people did sometimes stick things in my underwear." Breyer hesitated as he realized what he said as the courtrooom erupted in laughter.

He quickly recovered and added: "Or not my underwear. Whatever. Whatever."

lool

I'm not even sure what point Breyer was trying to make.

Ask his underwear.

"Back in my day. . . students did sometimes stick things in underwear. . . in gym class anyway. . . so yeah in my experience finding things in underwear does uh happen."

"Whatever. Whatever"

only lawyers should have opinions on this ish

so did the security guard bone her or what B-)

wb

Breyer's kinda clueless point -- one apparently shared by several justices -- was basically along the lines of "what is so horrible about being asked to strip, don't kids have to do this all the time for, like, gym or the nurse or whatever?"

It apparently made Clarence Thomas laugh.

Dahlia Litwick on Slate was particularly dumbfounded.

the whole transcript is great

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/08-479.pdf

It apparently made Clarence Thomas laugh.

Insert pubic hair joke here.

i think dahlia lithwick oversimplified the whole underwear exchange--i think that yeah the justices are kind of isolated in their weird ways (LOL scalia asking if kids really sniff markers to get high) but i don't think any of them think that girls' locker rooms are one big porno movie

but i don't think any of them think that girls' locker rooms are one big porno movie

Insert Clarence Thomas joke here.

God knows what Souter does by himself in that New Hampshire cabin. You know how it is with bachelors and New Hampshire cabins.

I can understand the point that there are lots of common situations where schools can absolutely require students to disrobe and whatnot, but it's kinda evading the point -- supported by both evidence and just common sense -- that being singled out and forcibly strip-searched is a totally different scenario with totally different consequences.

it boggles my mind that they didn't notify the parent(s) before doing this.

I can understand the point that there are lots of common situations where schools can absolutely require students to disrobe and whatnot, but it's kinda evading the point -- supported by both evidence and just common sense -- that being singled out and forcibly strip-searched is a totally different scenario with totally different consequences.

I think gym must have been an incredibly traumatic experience for some of these justices.

Maybe they successfully argued their way out of gym class?

And into a strip-search? (or in one case, an underwear stuffing)

There's a difference between stripping in gym where it's consensual thing and random strip searches based on arbitrary or random premises. It's one thing to fear going to gym, but if the teachers and staff can just come up to you at any time and say, "Off with the knickers there, be a lamb. We need to see if you're smuggling in Midol up your ass."

xp Hi Dere: But then they could sue!

My gf's mom went on date with Breyer in hs, I think. I should ask her what she knows about stuff in his underwear.

oh dude, Pandora's box

how did pandoras box get in breyers underwear

This could be better than the girlfriend who shit herself at McDonald's story!

being singled out and forcibly strip-searched is a totally different scenario with totally different consequences.

― nabisco, Wednesday, April 22, 2009 2:30 PM (11 minutes ago)

it's mind-boggling that anyone could equate changing with and at the same time as a group of peers with being locked in an office and ordered to remove clothing by two fully-dressed adults.

actually, it sounds like Breyer thinks the search would have been okay if she'd remained in her gym clothes

JUSTICE BREYER: I know, but I mean, here she is embarrassed if -- if what she says happened happened. There seems no reason for that, and it seems so easy. Put on your gym clothes, okay? I mean, she does that every day. It is just such obvious alternatives to having her be really naked.

MR. WRIGHT: Very true.

JUSTICE BREYER:
So that's what I -- I don't see any basis for saying to the school administrator, you know, you can do that. You can just turn her naked. I mean, it just embarrasses her. What's the need for it?

MR. WRIGHT: In the record, Your Honor, she did -- she did have her underpants on and her brassiere still on.

JUSTICE BREYER: I know, but she says in the record that they went further and required her to be partly naked beyond just her underwear. They say --

JUSTICE SCALIA: Well, I suppose you could say that about any strip search, couldn't you: That there is never a need for a strip search? You could always give the -- you know, the suspected felon, you know: Here, change into this suit. And -- and we haven't adopted some such rule, have we?

MR. WRIGHT: No, Your Honor. You have specifically said the fact that other reasonable alternatives are available doesn't mean that the alternative that was used or the actual search that was done was unreasonable.

JUSTICE BREYER: Okay. So that was my question. My question was: Why wasn't it? I wasn't asking about the law. I was asking: Why didn't they choose one of these alternatives?

A: They are idiots

Because here's the thing that no one is saying outright, is that whatever the punishment might have been for possession of the demon ibuprofen, including expulsion, that strip search was worse.

haha they can institute a minimum alternative punishment: search or expulsion

(this would actually not be particularly different from stuff like breathalyzers and drug tests, would it)

how did pandoras box get in breyers underwear

He urned it, acutally.

hi dere have not read this thread

but this is gonna be real interesting to watch w/r/t conservative psychology and messaging. will it be: "will activist judges prevent efforts to keep those little bastards from dealing drugs?!" or "court allows government schools to strip-search your daughters!!"

amazing what clueless shitbags we have on our court.

sounds like a pretty good betting pool right there

also rong is that the act "just embarrasses her" when there is a lot more going on

i don't that 'just' was mean to be dismissive. i read it like 'flat out embarrasses etc" and that that's all it really did (v. being a productive search method)

don't ~think~ &c

haha they can institute a minimum alternative punishment: search or expulsion

(this would actually not be particularly different from stuff like breathalyzers and drug tests, would it)

― nabisco, Wednesday, April 22, 2009

Nope, except that if you replaced the breathalyzer with a strip search by a school nurse and the lady who types up the principal's memos a lot more folks would opt for the DUI.

Like Eddie Murphy said, "I'll take the zero."

the lady who types up the principal's memos

The inclusion of this woman in the stripping alternately horrifies me and cracks me the fuck up.

Her presence ensured that nothing inappropriate would happen.

yeah such as any escape attempts!

If a 13 year old girl is wearing a bra, I can imagine she'd be embarrassed as hell to be strip-searched.

It would have been worse for a 13 year old boy wearing a bra, though.

Voice of experience?

some scars never heal

I hope it was clean and one of your fancier ones.

http://s2.thisnext.com/media/130x130/E39FEDC4.jpg

it's why moms always tell you to wear clean underwear.

"you know, just in case you get molested at school."

"In case you're in a car crash randomly strip searched at school, honey."

Oops, sorry li'l omar.

hahaha 8-1, guess who thought the strip search was okay? you get one guess

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5i3vPR1yPYAnnY_73qlE8tVL0h7qQD991P1800

"It was eminently reasonable to conclude the backpack was empty because Redding was secreting the pills in a place should thought no one would look," Thomas said.

KEEP YOUR SECRETIONS AWAY FROM ME

"Redding would not have been the first person to conceal pills in her undergarments," he said. "Nor will she be the last after today's decision, which announces the safest place to secrete contraband in school."

This means we're going to have to search them ALL.

I still cannot believe Thomas made it onto the Supreme Court.

underpants: they are the safest place, to secrete contraband, in school

nice word choice there, clarence

so fucking gross

http://www56.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=Is+Clarence+Thomas+the+worst+Supreme+Court+Justice+Ever%3F

seriously, why "secrete" and not "hide" or "conceal"

pervy

he was wsnking as he wrote that

Waiting for the glazed look in his eyes as he talks about hiking the Appalachian Trail...

clarence thomas asserts the legality of investigating your secretions

I am baffled by his word choices here.

Unless he was deliberately trying to sound gross and pervy here.

Isn't "secrete" completely incorrect?

1. trans. To place in concealment, to hide out of sight, to keep secret.

To generate and separate (a substance) from cells or bodily fluids

After this case how can leftists say he's a Scalia tool? He's an authoritarian crank.

he's a tool allright

Wow I honestly have never even heard that definition. "To secret" yes. That, no.

also: mildly surprised that Ginsberg didn't write this, although maybe not since she made her outrage public several times.

i guess this is technically correct usage by definition but in terms of connotation or style it is probably the worst choice possible

^^^^^ otm

Benefit of the doubt: maybe there's some old law that has that spelling.

yeah that what i was thinking? it's some old timey law thing or something. but yeah what a weirdo

My pot dealer should read Thomas' opinion to learn how to secrete contraband material.

i mean, we're talking about a 13 year old girl's underpants here, jesus god

MORE LIKE WHO PUT PUBIC HAIR ON MY IBUPROFEN AMIRITE?

God, he's a joke of a justice.

The school had a right to know whether its Advil was being used as a tampon.

"Imagine a rock of cocaine THIS big, secreted as contraband in a girl's underpants..."

http://mommylife.net/archives/2009/03/17/clarencethomas-thumb.jpg

I like Thomas' idea that teenagers were waiting for the go-ahead before commencing full-on underwear stashing

"Hey Stinky. Big Peg. Did you read the paper today? Now they can't touch us." [elaborates 10-year plan for hooking entire county school system on crotch-transported drugs]

I think the lesson here is make sure your backpack isn't empty. Otherwise....

also that he implies that somewhow, this ruling will result in more kids hiding drugs in their underwear is completely fucked. like, why do you think the school officials overstepped the bounds of decency to search this girl's underclothes? because it's already a obviously common practice that anyone hiding something would think to do, maybe???

god, clarence, you really are some piece of work.

elmo i just said that.

You have me killfiled don't you.

lack of xpost notification on mobile interface tbh

:(

Did not know that!

From the little excerpt I read, it's pretty clear that the majority did not say what Thomas said they said. There's no blanket protection for underwear stashing, just a recognition that there was insufficient cause for search and insufficient threat from the alleged contraband.

The caveat is that seven of the nine justices agreed that the man who authorized the strip search, vice principal Kerry Wilson, cannot be held financially liable for his actions. The Court's most liberal members, John Paul Stevens and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, disagreed, writing, "Wilson's treatment of Redding was abusive and it was not reasonable for him to believe that the law permitted it."

i'm thankful this was decided this way at all, which i wasn't expecting. thomas being a vicious, small man isn't really news sadly

kinda wish Thomas had died of anal cancer instead of Farrah Fawcett

yeah I went there

yeah no one is surprised

it was not reasonable for him to believe that the law permitted it

ok I have to admit that I find this sort of statement funny: I mean, hey, if it required the non-unanimous judgment of the Supreme Court to decide whether law permitted it, I'm not sure how much clarity you can really expect from a school administrator

That thought occurred to me when I was doing some research for a project related to the Bong Hitz 4 Jesus case. School administrators do often get a considerable amount of training in Constitutional Law as it relates to schools, so they can be expected to have some knowledge of what is and isn't a reasonable search and what is or isn't within their discretion to ban under the First Amendment. I see your point though.

well yeah, it's like ... Clarence Thomas would have thought it was permitted, and he's on the Supreme Court

no fair citing the Comedy Justice

clarence thomas is a dumbass, though

i'm sure administrators get a lot of training, and they're certainly more lawsuit-shy than they were a generation ago. but there are still a lot of petty tyrant vice principals out there whose general approach is to do whatever the hell they want. which is why i'm really glad for this decision, because if it had gone the other way it would have basically been open season on american students.

the gag justice, yeah?

(ha, i said "open season" earlier in this thread too. well, it would have been.)

yeah the mere fact of being in school seems to introduce a lot of bizarre and nasty reasoning into people's heads. what if the manager of a mall food court had strip-searched some girl because he thought she was up to something (or another kid said she was)? wait, don't answer that...

"bend over and show me your Orange Julius"

if it had gone the other way it would have basically been open season on american students

b-b-but now it's open season on hiding stuff in yr shorts!

also worth noting that it has been open season on american students since the 80s, which is why Kerry Wilson had every reason to believe not only that the law permitted the search but that he was an American Hero for ordering it.

haha just saying that if the highest court in the land thinks an issue is non-obvious enough to require their judgment, it was probably reasonable for an everyday professional to be wrong about it (I know that is not quite the issue w/r/t the guy's liability, but the phrasing's funny)

school administrators could really probably do worse than to imagine every action they take in terms of the eventual Supreme Court case

I'm kinda with ginsburg here, i dunno, just because the constitutionality of the school official's actions was at issue, there might have a more palpable boundary of common sense or morality, dictated by the circumstances of the case, that was overstepped here

i think you have to be pretty naive to think it would be okay. just because there are undefined and non-obvious areas of the law doesn't mean you throw out your everyday judgment or whatever

even provided that the school has a legitimate interest in having a zero drug policy, the purpose of that policy is to protect the students from harm. the actions here are so completely out of proportion with the possible threat it's unbelievable. if i had been this student or her parents, i would have considered myself completely justified pursuing legal action

civil action, i mean

xps me too! i dunno how you get from a general sense, as a school administrator, that you have a legal duty to keep an orderly institution going, to a sense that you can behave basically like a prison warden.

i was seriously expecting some clever-clever bullshit reasoning from scalia or roberts that since the principal was not a cop he had no reason to be careful about the 4th amendment anyway...

One of the arguments in Morse (Bong Hitz) was that administrators need some leeway to react to situations on the ground without fear of everything becoming a federal case. But you know, underwear, 13-year-old girl, ibuprofen, etc. etc. = pretty clear crossing of some common-sense line.

i dunno how you get from a general sense, as a school administrator, that you have a legal duty to keep an orderly institution going, to a sense that you can behave basically like a prison warden.

American schools being run like prisons probably has something to do with it

even provided that the school has a legitimate interest in having a zero drug policy, the purpose of that policy is to protect the students from harm. the actions here are so completely out of proportion with the possible threat it's unbelievable.

This sums up the issue for me. I haven't read the oral arguments or anything, but did the school administrators even consider calling the cops?

haha Al, that is exactly the same thing I said back at the beginning of the thread

I still find it unbelievable that they didn't contact the girl's parents first.

if they did that they wouldn't be able to strip search her duh

then she might still be secreting ibuprofen in her underpants to this day!

i wonder what it's like for this girl now when she gets a headache

That seems to be one of the shifts I've noticed in school administration. When I was in public school in the 80s, it was all about calling the parents first. Partly, I imagine, out of lawsuit-prevention, but also, it was still thought that parents were responsible adults.

t was still thought that parents were responsible adults.

Parents keep producing the future Clarence Thomases of the world, sarahel.

Parents regularly produce offspring that get curious about the secrets in 13 year-old girls' underpants.

Guys, our justices of the Supreme Court:

http://www.benrosen.com/files/Clarence%20thomas.png

i am pretty appalled at the perverse reasoning developed and sustained over a period of years that continued to defend the school's actions. at some point, shouldn't you get sick of trying to justify this and go, "ok ok this was fucked up, can we just drop this?"

what a disaster for conscience

At 13 I knew that if a school principal/asst wanted to conduct a search of my immediate belongings over drugs or theft, I would insist on the presence of a policeman (would also have cast all kinds of aspersions on him for wanting my clothes off too).

well maybe when you're 13 this will happen to you

No, seriously - I got searched when I was 11 by a local pharmacist and when I got home, traumatized, my mom yelled at me for not knowing my rights while informing me of them.

so?

Can we talk about the photo? For example: is that really Ginsberg in blue, or an imposter?

hahaha she looks like an insect in a blanket

Is that Scalia or a Cossack?

beneath that fine blue coat there are 100 skittering exoskeletal appendages iirc

ha, this thread is going to go full circle -- like I dunno, I basically agree with you all, but I don't think the legal question involved is particularly ridiculous. (partly for the reasons I was going into upthread about how in legal terms, if not common-sense ones, giving someone a prescription pill is not really better than selling them crack.)

my first thought was to wonder where the fuck the parents were during all of this. when i was 13 i'm pretty sure calling my parents before anything was the s.o.p.

but, nabisco, nobody said the legal question was ridiculous! Most if not all of us have said that the narrow grounds on which the case was decided was appropriate.

xpost but nabisco doesn't that just open up the box of frogs that is Why Does We Punish Crack So Hard?

common sense tells me that it's okay for my co-worker to lend me some advil if i have a headache and not if they offer me a hit of their crack pipe

"Advil" is not a prescription medication

But yeah, Al, I know what you mean -- I'm just fascinated on this one by the gap between the common-sense level and the technical "accused of distributing controlled substances in a school" level

fine split hairs on the "advil" here but the fact of the matter is, she had advil in her undies

under the school policy, advil would have been restricted too

If you take 4000 Advils in one sitting there's a chance your liver will get damaged. This had school administrators shaking in their boots.

Mr. Que the difference between a prescription medication and an OTC one is not a "fine hair," there is an official government list

i'm aware of the government and it's lists nabisco, thanks

Prescription strength ibuprofen isn't even a schedule 1 drug, I don't think it's even a schedule 2 -- i.e. it is a far lesser controlled substance.

the government: it is lists

i thot the deal was the girl did in fact take an advil earlier in the day, because she had a headache. some other girl ratted on her saying 'omg she has DRUGS', then the principal strip searched her.

oops

i mean if we're gonna talk about "perscription strength" versus stuff you can just buy on the shelf, that seems to be splitting hairs--to be fair if this was a drug like oxycodone i would feel a lot differently about this

yeah, I think the big wtf here is: why would anyone hide ibuprofen in their underpants given its legal & common nature?

i don't think this is an insignificant point!

No, goole, someone else accused her of giving a prescription medication to another student

(I'm not backing up the unconstitutional strip-search here, and we've discussed a billion better ways of handling this, but if you're a school administrator, that's a report of someone distributing a controlled substance in your school, so you can't exactly just be super-chill about it.)

i would, who gives a fuck

(And you can't really be like "oh whatever, that's barely a controlled substance")

it's like shoving a condom filled with vitamins up your rectum: why would you even consider it??

Remember when we got these:

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/518ZLXiNlNL._SL500_AA280_PIbundle-2,TopRight,0,0_AA280_SH20_.jpg

(so mad that I can't find a linkable recording of "Strip Search" by 2 Bad Mice)

Imagine a SCOTUS opinion in which Flintstones Complete figured prominently.

ok wtf is "choline"?

this point is one half of the scotia ruling, tho: they said the school official had no reason to believe she would have hidden anything in her underpants, and I think that's largely based on the innocuous nature of the drug!

nabisco, are you forgetting: The school has a zero-tolerance policy for all prescription and over-the-counter medication?

Choline is an organic compound, classified as a water-soluble essential nutrient and usually grouped within the Vitamin B complex

i haven't read the opinion but i am wondering how the drug involved would really affect the reasonableness of the search under 4th amendment. could be the same whether it's ibuprofen or oxycontin--they made her take her clothes off, without consent and without calling her parents or anything, based on what one other student said and i don't think that's reasonable either way.

imo, of course. i'd imagine the court would see it differently just because they want to.

I think what a lot of us are arguing is that it's not as controlled a substance as something like pot, or oxycontin, or demerol -- based on the government's own lists. Yes the intent to distribute is equally illegal, but the potential dangerousness of the intended behavior is of a far lesser degree. It's like getting caught going 70 mph on the freeway, versus getting caught going 100 mph.

I think what a lot of us are arguing is that it's not as controlled a substance as something like pot, or oxycontin, or demerol

Exactly. What's the difference between going into any CVS in this country, buying a bottle of generic advil and swallowing two or three versus a having a perscription version of the same drug and swallowing one?

Answer: TWO PILLS

the partial dangerousness/urgency of it does matter but the intrusiveness of the search is part of the balancing that seems like it would outweigh that unless the object of the search was a bomb

just reiterating my earlier point--the real criminal here is the snitch

^ that would have been my one line concurrence

yeah i hope that little bitch feels guilty

i thot the deal was the girl did in fact take an advil earlier in the day, because she had a headache. some other girl ratted on her saying 'omg she has DRUGS', then the principal strip searched her.

No, the "other girl" was caught with an Advil and said it had fallen out of a notebook loaned to her by the girl who ended up being illegally searched.

To be searched in that manner, at such an age, is unreasonable no matter what they're looking for.

emily I'm not forgetting, just saying that in this particular case the accusation was different

like I said before, what's interesting to me here is the gap between common sense and legal technicality -- saying that this is like less-bad than selling crack is common sense, but in terms of the regulations that the school is tasked with enforcing, they're both not allowed, and I think you'd be hard-pressed to find administrators who are gonna be like "well I have a report of a student distributing pills to other students, but what the hell, I'll just use my discretion on this one" -- also on a technical tip prescription ibuprofen is pretty non-dangerous but could technically theoretically harm the health of a child who's not supposed to take it, so a legally minded administrator can't entirely just be like "oh, that's probably not gonna hurt anyone" -- it's certainly not anything I'd expect any school to brush off (and rightfully so)

that said, of course, there are about a million different ways to not brush it off short of getting down to the strip search

yeah i hope that little bitch feels guilty

no way, she is loving this entire thing

did you just use "tasked" as a verb?

that's true but they have to follow all the other crappy cases that define "reasonableness" xp

haha I noticed that too.

(xpost)

umm yes, in the fine tradition of people since the 14th century, I used the word "tasked"

It's okay – I used "effect" as a verb the other morning at a meeting.

I apoulogize to any onne posting from the thirteenthe centurie

u r forgiven

Can someone find a link to the ruling? having trouble locating it on findlaw

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/08pdf/08-479.pdf

thank que

Here ya go, elmo: http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/08pdf/08-479.pdf

whoops xpost

I found it: http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/08pdf/08-479.pdf

ha!
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/judicial/2009-06-25-scotus-strip-search_N.htm

Matthew Wright, lawyer for the Safford school district, predicted the decision would have a "chilling effect" on administrators responding to threats of drugs. Francisco Negron, lawyer for the National School Boards Association, said the decision could be confusing for school officials, who typically lack formal training in drugs yet would have to consider whether the contraband they seek is dangerous enough to do to a strip search.

typically lack formal training in drugs yet would have to consider whether the contraband they seek is dangerous enough to do to a strip search

^^ yeah this is like half the love of "zero tolerance" right here -- "please don't force me to make discretionary decisions I may later have to defend in a formal setting, I only make $60k a year"

Maybe they'll just decide that strip searching under any circumstance isn't worth it. That would be nice.

THEN CALL THE COPS. XP

Matthew Wright, lawyer for the Safford school district, predicted the decision would have a "chilling effect" on administrators responding to threats of drugs.

Let's hope so!

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/article/20090905/NEWS/909050337/-1/SPORTS09

Lawyers, families say 5 girls strip-searched at school

By JENNIFER JACOBS • jejac✧✧✧@dm✧✧✧.c✧✧ • September 5, 2009

School officials in Atlantic forced five teenage girls to take off their clothing for a search after a classmate reported $100 missing from her purse, according to the girls' families and two lawyers.

The classmate and a female counselor stood watch in the girls' locker room at Atlantic High School as the five girls removed their clothing, lifted up their underwear, and in one case took off all her clothing, according to lawyers Ed Noethe of Council Bluffs and Matt Hudson of Harlan.
Advertisement

Strip-searching is illegal in Iowa schools.

Dan Crozier, the interim superintendent of the Atlantic school district, said the search took place Aug. 21, the third day of school, during a gym class in the last period of the day.

Crozier said faculty members denied it was a strip-search. "According to our board policy, it was an allowable search," he said.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in June that no school official has free rein to do intimate searches of students. Making a girl pull the waistband of her underwear away from her body constituted a strip-search, the court ruled.

Advertisement

oh i missed that, sorry velko. i hope you can still understand what it says!

i would like you to embed the ad next time ; )

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/graphics/adlabel_horz.gif

what do you need to bring a hundred dollars to school for anyway, unless it's to buy drugs?

lol ok mom

school lunches cost an arm and a leg these days iirc

anyway what i wanna know is if school administrators are people who were too stupid or evil for all the other jobs or what

That is a really beautiful sentence right now.