Strip Search of Student Was Illegal, Top Court Says

[fallout2600]

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aDMa1C1gcpOE


The U.S. Supreme Court (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/quote?ticker=1000L%3AUS), bolstering constitutional protections for students, said a 13-year-old girl’s rights were violated when school officials strip searched her in an effort to find pain relievers

Great ruling by the Court.

[msmith198025]

I do not see how there was ever a question on this

[HDRoberts]

I do not see how there was ever a question on this

Tell that to Clarence Thomas, who thinks the school was in the right.

Ridiculous. A strip search over Advil.

[Derwin0]

I both agree and disagree with the decision.

Agree that a strip search was not warranted here, based on it being non-prescription medication and no reasonable cause for it being in her underwear.

Disagree if it would rule out all strip searches. In some cases a search is warranted, but I would require a parent to be present, and there be reasonable cause for something to be hidden there.

I also agree with Ginsburg and Stevens that the principal should not be immune from damages, as he's the one that crossed the line. That portion of the decision will leave no consequences for the school authorities, who can violate rights at will, knowing that the school district (ie taxpayers) are responsible for any court costs.

[fallout2600]

Disagree if it would rule out all strip searches. In some cases a search is warranted, but I would require a parent to be present, and there be reasonable cause for something to be hidden there.

I also agree with Ginsburg and Stevens that the principal should not be immune from damages, as he's the one that crossed the line.

I can agree with it if the parent is present and gives consent. Otherwise, its a violation. And I agree, the principal should be held totally accountable.

[Derwin0]

I can agree with it if the parent is present and gives consent. Otherwise, its a violation.
I think the parent should always be present on something like that.

The strip search though, I think is a violation here, due to the nature of the supposed offense, and that no one said she was hiding the "contraband" in her underwear (ie. no reasonable cause).

But if there was reasonable suspicious she was hiding something worse on her person, then I feel the search is waranted, but should be in the presence of a parent, and at the parent's request, law enforcement officials.

I found another article at
http://www.abcnews.go.com/Politics/SCOTUS/story?id=7782080&page=1
where in the decision, Souter says basically what I said, so now I don't disagree with any of the decision, except for shielding the principal from any damages.

"Savana's subjective expectation of privacy against such a search is inherent in her account of it as embarrassing, frightening, and humiliating. … Here, the content of the suspicion failed to match the degree of intrusion.

"The strip search of Savana Redding was unreasonable and a violation of the Fourth Amendment," the court ruled.

The Court emphasized that the intrusiveness of the search was not justified because Savana was not suspected of carrying dangerous drugs."

[msmith198025]

I can agree with it if the parent is present and gives consent. Otherwise, its a violation. And I agree, the principal should be held totally accountable.

I agree with that

[Skyhi]

Finally a pro 4th amendment ruling!

[fallout2600]

Finally a pro 4th amendment ruling!

+1 :thumbup:

[rockymtnhigh]

After reading that opinion, it really felt like a hollow victory. Yes, it is unconstitutional, but we are not going to hold the person who conducted the search liable; maybe the district court will be, that will depend on what the district court finds.

Frustrating. But oh so typical for the court in criminal procedure cases. The other thing that was baffling about this case was that the strip search was for IBUPROPHEN. Geez, we are not talking about controlled substances here - we are talking about double-strength versions of OTC medicine. And based on no reasonable suspicion; in this case the "reasonable articulable suspicion" was based on the girl saying she got it from her.

Ultimately it points to the extreme amount of discretion we provide to both school administrators - and most of the time in 4th amendment cases - to law enforcement.

But the positive is that the court has had two decisions decided correctly in the past two months. In April, they decided Arizona v. Gant, which eliminated the ability of police to do a full search of a vehicle incident to arrest when the arrest was for a minor traffic offense. But I digress....

sorry the constitutional law professor in me is coming out. Rant over. :D