School Strip Searches
puremagic
Posts: 1,907
I think this wrong at any level. This is why we have law enforcement. If a school official suspects a child carrying anything illegal, I feel it is their responsibility to isolate the child, contact both law enforcement officials and the parents. I don't believe a school official should have the right to require a child to be stripped search, regardless if it is conducted by a school nurse based on a suspicion or hearsay.
SIN EATERS--We take the moral excrement we find in this equation and we bury it down deep inside of us so that the rest of our case can stay pure. That is the job. We are morally indefensible and absolutely necessary.
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
Hail, Hail!!!
If you have enough reason to believe someone is doing something wrong enough to merit a strip search, either send them home or call the police.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
This one happened about 6 years ago
http://www.aclu.org/drugpolicy/search/3 ... 80711.html
Found another incident of this where it seems to be common procedure:
http://www.acluohio.org/pressreleases/2 ... .09.17.asp
They were strip searching kids because they suspected tobacco possession? Insanity.
Just asking for another Columbine.
"obey"
instilling that at an earlier and earlier age.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/04/ ... 6242.shtml
Student Strip Search Heads To High Court
Justices To Hear Case Of 13-Year-Old Ariz. Girl Who Underwent Invasive Search For Ibuprofen Pills
SAFFORD, Ariz., April 20, 2009
(CBS) The U.S. Supreme Court is set to hear the case of a young Arizona honor student who was strip-searched in the eighth grade by school officials looking for ibuprofen pills. ...
When another student was found with ibuprofen pills, she blamed Savana. After a search of her backpack came up empty, the school nurse and a female secretary performed a strip search.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_supreme_c ... rip_search
By JESSE J. HOLLAND, Associated Press Writer Jesse J. Holland, Associated Press Writer – 53 mins ago
WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court ruled Thursday school officials violated an Arizona teenage girl rights by strip-searching her for prescription-strength ibuprofen, saying U.S. educators should not force children to remove their clothing unless student safety is at risk.
In an 8-1 ruling, the justices said that Safford Middle School officials violated the Fourth Amendment ban on unreasonable searches with their treatment of Savana Redding. However, the court also ruled that the Arizona school officials cannot be held financially liable for their search.
Redding was 13 when the educators in rural eastern Arizona conducted the search. They were looking for pills — the equivalent of two Advils. The district bans prescription and over-the-counter drugs and the school was acting on a tip from another student.
The school's search of Redding's backpack and outer clothes was permissible, the court said. But the justices said that officials went too far when they asked to search her underwear.
A 1985 Supreme Court decision that dealt with searching a student's purse has found that school officials need only reasonable suspicions, not probable cause. But the court also warned against a search that is "excessively intrusive."
"What was missing from the suspected facts that pointed to Savana was any indication of danger to the students from the power of the drugs or their quantity, and any reason to suppose that Savana was carrying pills in her underwear," Justice David Souter wrote in the majority opinion. "We think that the combination of these deficiencies was fatal to finding the search reasonable."
Redding said she was pleased with the court's decision. "I'm pretty excited about it, because that's what I wanted," she said. "I wanted to keep it from happening to anybody else."
"The court's decision sends a clear signal to school officials that they can strip search students only in the most extraordinary situations," added her lawyer, Adam Wolf of the American Civil Liberties Union Foundation.
In a dissent, Justice Clarence Thomas found the search legal and said the court previously had given school officials "considerable leeway" under the Fourth Amendment in school settings.
Officials had searched the girl's backpack and found nothing, Thomas said. "It was eminently reasonable to conclude the backpack was empty because Redding was secreting the pills in a place she thought no one would look," Thomas said.
Thomas warned that the majority's decision could backfire. "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."
The court also ruled the officials cannot be held liable in a lawsuit for the search. Different judges around the nation have come to different conclusions about immunity for school officials in strip searches, which leads the Supreme Court to "counsel doubt that we were sufficiently clear in the prior statement of law," Souter said.
"We think these differences of opinion from our own are substantial enough to require immunity for the school officials in this case," Souter said.
The justices also said the lower courts would have to determine whether the Safford Unified School District No. 1 could be held liable.
A schoolmate had accused Redding, then an eighth-grade student, of giving her pills.
The school's vice principal, Kerry Wilson, took Redding to his office to search her backpack. When nothing was found, Redding was taken to a nurse's office where she says she was ordered to take off her shirt and pants. Redding said they then told her to move her bra to the side and to stretch her underwear waistband, exposing her breasts and pelvic area. No pills were found.
A federal magistrate dismissed a suit by Redding and her mother, April. An appeals panel agreed that the search didn't violate her rights. But last July, a full panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals found the search was "an invasion of constitutional rights" and that Wilson could be found personally liable.
Justices John Paul Stevens and Ruth Bader Ginsburg dissented from the portion of the ruling saying that Wilson could not be held financially liable.
"Wilson's treatment of Redding was abusive and it was not reasonable for him to believe that the law permitted it," Ginsburg said.
The case is Safford Unified School District v. April Redding, 08-479.
(This version CORRECTS SUBS graf bgng, The justices also ... etc. to correct 'United' to 'Unified'.)
i was going to say, isn't this against the law to have an adult (who's not in law enforcement) have a minor get naked??
what are you but my reflection? who am i to judge or strike you down?
"I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank." - Barack Obama
when you told me 'if you can't beat 'em, join 'em'
i was thinkin 'death before dishonor'
was like a picture
of a sunny day
“We can complain because rose bushes have thorns, or rejoice because thorn bushes have roses.”
― Abraham Lincoln
But...but...they might be hiding something like Advil. :roll:
Is the stip searching at school a terrible idea? Yes.
Is it "asking for another Columbine"? You have to be kidding.
if 1 old gym teacher abuses this power, that's pretty fucked up. if the wrong kid or kids get abused...
who gives a shit if a kid has some pills hidden on his/her body? its not a matter of life and death, for the most part. no need to open a door that could have some very serious repercussion later on down the road. maybe a columbine, maybe a kid that abuses later on, who knows. none of it is good.
you're right, terrible idea.