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)

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.