Popular Posts

Thursday, June 25, 2009

BREAKING NEWS

The New York Times
Supreme Court Says Child’s Rights Violated by Strip Search
By DAVID STOUT
WASHINGTON
— In a ruling of interest to educators, parents and students across the country, the Supreme Court ruled, 8 to 1, on Thursday that the strip search of a 13-year-old Arizona girl by school officials who were looking for prescription-strength drugs violated her constitutional rights.

The officials in Safford, Ariz., would have been justified in 2003 had they limited their search to the backpack and outer clothing of Savana Redding, who was in the eighth grade at the time, the court ruled. But in searching her undergarments, they went too far and violated her Fourth Amendment privacy rights, the justices said.

Had Savana been suspected of having illegal drugs that could have posed a far greater danger to herself and other students, the strip search, too, might have been justified, the majority said, in an opinion by Justice David H. Souter.

“In sum, 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,” the court said. “We think that the combination of these deficiencies was fatal to finding the search reasonable.”

In fact, no pills were found on Savana when her underwear was examined by two school officials, both women, who were acting on a tip passed along by another student.

Thursday’s ruling sends the case back to the lower courts to assess what damages, if any, should be paid by the school district. But, by a vote of 7 to 2, the Supreme Court held that the individual officials in the case should not be held liable, because “clearly established law” at the time of the search did not show that it violated the Fourth Amendment.

The portion of the ruling exempting the officials from liability is likely to be greeted with relief by thousands of principals, teachers and other school officials who work to impart knowledge and maintain discipline in a fast-changing world, where children are growing up (or trying to) earlier than ever.

Justice Clarence Thomas was the only member of the court to conclude that the strip search of Savana Redding did not violate the Fourth Amendment. He asserted that the majority’s finding second-guesses the measures that educators take to maintain discipline “and ensure the health and safety of the students in their charge.”

The majority said it meant to cast “no ill reflection” on the assistant principal who ordered the search. “Parents are known to overreact to protect their children from danger, and a school official with responsibility for safety may tend to do the same,” Justice Souter wrote.

But Justices John Paul Stevens and Ruth Bader Ginsburg did not agree, and would not have protected the officials from liability. Justice Ginsburg singled out the assistant principal, noting that he had made Savana sit on a chair outside his office for more than two hours.

“At no point did he attempt to call her parent,” Justice Ginsburg wrote. “Abuse of authority of that order should not be shielded by official immunity.”

11 comments:

  1. Now think of it the other way. If she did have the pills and they didn't do the search. She could have gave the pills to her friends who would prob OD. Their parents would have acted on a law suit because they didn't act on the tip from a student. Either way they were screwed. Lose lose situation. Good ol justice system at work creating thugs, criminals and bad kids.

    ReplyDelete
  2. It's a good thing that Sotomayor is not on the Court yet or they would be in jail today!

    ReplyDelete
  3. It's pretty obvious that none of those judges was ever a teacher in the public schools. They need to have their eyes opened.

    ReplyDelete
  4. There is no way that a strip search was justified for Advil, and I am a teacher. Don't people have rights anymore?????

    ReplyDelete
  5. If you did this to my daughter buddy your going to have one bad day and Im going to jail, again. Shell get me out always has.

    ReplyDelete
  6. 1:44:

    Please read the first comment, above, Mr./Ms. "teacher."

    ReplyDelete
  7. Not really surprising from a court that lets criminals go free.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Our government loves us and watches over us, and cares for us.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Some of the comments clearly indicate that you have not read the Supreme Court opinion. First of all, it was two Advil. Nobody overdoses on two Advil. The Court clearly said that had it been something else, i.e., LSD, that perhaps a more intrusive search would have been justified. The Fourth Amendment says that we shall not be subject to unreasonable searches. All the Court ruled was that under the circumstances in this particular case, again, two Advil, that a strip search was not reasonable. My suggestion is that if the schools think a child has a dangerous drug in his/her possesion, call the police and let them handle the search. You don't strip search a 13 year old for two Advil. What's next? A full body cavity search?

    ReplyDelete
  10. As a parent, I would not be comfortable with school personnel conducting a strip search of my daughter- male or female. Have we forgotten all of the recent arrests of school principals for inappropriate sexual contact? I don't care what drugs my daugher was suspected of having- let law enforcement handle it- let them determine if the tip is credible (girls can be catty and (gasp)- they lie), and take necessary precautions. Even then, I'd want to be present- my child's safety and well being are of the greatest importance.

    ReplyDelete
  11. This should never happen at a school. Schools are a place for learning and trust not this garbage.

    ReplyDelete

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.