Strip searching students

[Orion]

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/24/us/24savana.html?_r=1&hp

A controversial case of a 13 year-old girl being strip searched at school over suspicion of drug possession has finally made its way to the Supreme Court.

The judges are deliberating over whether or not this constitutes a violation of the 4th Amendment against unreasonable search and seizure.

In this case, the girl wasn't even asked if she had pills so she didn't know what the strip search was even about. She was also an honours student with no negative school record. She was not apprised of her rights, nor given access to a lawyer or the ability to contact her parents.

Do you think it's acceptable to strip search students without advising parents, and without prior proof or probable cause?

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

No. There's no justification for this, and the schools are taking far too many liberties in their treatment of students.

 

[RightinNYC]

Savana Redding still remembers the clothes she had on — black stretch pants with butterfly patches and a pink T-shirt — the day school officials here forced her to strip six years ago. She was 13 and in eighth grade.

An assistant principal, enforcing the school’s antidrug policies, suspected her of having brought prescription-strength ibuprofen pills to school. One of the pills is as strong as two Advils.

The search by two female school employees was methodical and humiliating, Ms. Redding said. After she had stripped to her underwear, “they asked me to pull out my bra and move it from side to side,” she said. “They made me open my legs and pull out my underwear.”

It's a shame, because what could be a good debate on the authority of school officials will be lost in the absolutely insane facts of this particular case.

 

[Orion]

It's a shame, because what could be a good debate on the authority of school officials will be lost in the absolutely insane facts of this particular case.

I think the debate can still be had. This case has a lot of emotional appeals involved, and rightfully so, but in general we can talk about the merits of school authority.

One of the dissenting judges said:

Judge Michael Daly Hawkins, dissenting, said the case was in some ways “a close call,” given the “humiliation and degradation” involved. But, Judge Hawkins concluded, “I do not think it was unreasonable for school officials, acting in good faith, to conduct the search in an effort to obviate a potential threat to the health and safety of their students.”

I think it was the manner in which this particular search was conducted that made it unreasonable, but not necessarily the leadup causes or suspicions. A nurse and a secretary are not law enforcement, and the girl was not given a reason for the search.

It's important for students to know their rights in case they are faced with something like this. I'm just wondering why the parents weren't notified.

 

[bilbus]

Normal pat down, yes by a female school official

Yes, by police perhaps .. but should be under the same regulations as a strip search of an adult.

I don't think strip searches are common.

No by the school.

If she did have drugs, it should be up to the police to make the arrest.

 

[Keorythe]

I'll have to agree with Korimyr here. Schools shouldn't have this ability. Police, yes. Had they evidence or even testimony of the fact then she should have been taken into custody and searched then. Not by school officials.

There are proper ways to enforce zero-tolerance policies. This wasn't one of them.

Oh and for the record, prior history, honors, etc should mean NOTHING to the issue. Equal treatment across the board.

 

[MDM]

They were looking in a 13-y.o. girl's underwear for ibuprofen?!?
:doh

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

There are proper ways to enforce zero-tolerance policies.

Not really. "Zero-tolerance" is nothing more than the willful abandonment of discretion, reason, and common sense.

 

[Ikari]

Not really. "Zero-tolerance" is nothing more than the willful abandonment of discretion, reason, and common sense.

Unfortunately, any form of automatic punishment/sentencing constitutes that willful abandonment of discretion, reason, and common sense. There's no way this girl should have been strip searched, especially for something like ibuprofen. There is no common sense left, however, I think the kneejerk reactionaries have won. We have to have a "zero tolerance" policy in which no drug what so ever is allowed and it's all treated like radioactive heroin. Remove liability from this and that...but in the end it does no one any good and there can't be reasonable discretion and logic applied to individual situations. Our species is so smart....yet we're capable of such stupendous acts of stupidity sometimes.

 

[jamesrage]

Do you think it's acceptable to strip search students without advising parents, and without prior proof or probable cause?

It is not a schools place to strip search student.It should be the job of police officers assuming that there is actual reasonable cause( a student claiming so and so has drugs is not reasonable cause) and the police have the consent(preferably written consent) of the parent. This is mostly a parental rights issue,because the parents may not want their minor child to be stripped searched for no apparent reason(not telling the student why they are being stripped searched and not having any justifiably cause is no apparent reason). The parents of that girl should sue the **** out of that school.Yeah its not to the tax payers fault, but the idea the school could cost the tax payers a **** load of money might make the school officials think twice about what policies they enact.

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

Terry v. Ohio - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Frank Talk]

Terry v. Ohio - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That case seems irrelevant. This wasn't a police officer who searched her but a school official. Second, the article states they had no reason to believe she was carrying pills.

 

[StandUpChuck]

Oh and for the record, prior history, honors, etc should mean NOTHING to the issue. Equal treatment across the board.

Disagree. Especially in a school setting, there are kids who are known throughout the school as troublemakers, druggies ... etc. They're the ones you rarely catch in the act because they're clever (their idiot parents probably taught them how to get by). But under NO circumstances should members of the school staff be strip searching anyone (well, maybe if some head case came to school with a gun strapped to his dick there may be probable cause to search him ASAP).

The fact that this kid was known as a good kid should account for something (she described herself as between nerdy & preppy). I'm not saying let her off. I'm saying call the police, and call her parents. She had a right to have an attorney.

The schools take far too many liberties today with our kids. I don't even like them weighing the kids and taking BMI. It's none of their darned business. Sure there are loser parents who take no care of their children, but that doesn't mean infringe upon the rights of mine. Public education goes way too far sometimes. Obviously this case is one of those times, and I hope heads roll. I also hope the girl who falsely accused her is sued.

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

It's a shame, because what could be a good debate on the authority of school officials will be lost in the absolutely insane facts of this particular case.

I'll try to do so without the facts of this case specifically.

I'd say no because children are mandated to be there.
So to say that the Constitution does not apply can not be used because of the government mandate alone.

If school was not mandated and it was considered private property they could inform parents prior to that they do strip searches in case of drugs and a parent can decide whether or not to enroll them in that particular school.

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

That case seems irrelevant. This wasn't a police officer who searched her but a school official. Second, the article states they had no reason to believe she was carrying pills.

1st you have an argument

2nd seems the article is relevant.

 

[Frank Talk]

1st you have an argument

2nd seems the article is relevant.

It would help if you elaborate.

 

[Nightmarekill]

Its wrong, it goes against our constitution, imagine that a government institution not following the own rules it is suppose to uphold. Either way, her parents should have been contacted either way, a 13 year old getting stripped searched for suspicion? Whats next? Where do you stop and draw the lines based on suspicions? if there was a line it was crossed in this situation.

 

[Tucker Case]

An assistant principal, enforcing the school’s antidrug policies, suspected her of having brought prescription-strength ibuprofen pills to school. One of the pills is as strong as two Advils.

Ohhhh noooo!!!!!! Not TWO ADVILS!!!! The Humanity!!!!

Whatever will they do!!!!!

A student may have been able to... to.... overcome a mild headache with such a powerful drug!!!!!!

 

[UtahBill]

every teacher involved should be randomly strip searched in public for the next 5 years. I bet if you looked in the teacher's purses, those same type drugs would be found...
if it had happened to one of mine, all involved would be sued, and in addition to the lawsuit, there would be criminal child molestation charges filed.

 

[bilbus]

Not really. "Zero-tolerance" is nothing more than the willful abandonment of discretion, reason, and common sense.

So true, Zero-tolerance usualy ends up being Zero-sense.

 

[jallman]

So true, Zero-tolerance usualy ends up being Zero-sense.

Absolutely. Zero tolerance policies are basically a way to take the onus off the court when they overreact to a hot button issue. Take for instance DUI cases, which most states have a 0 tolerance policy for.

It used to be .1 was the legal limit. That's about 2 beers for a 150lb person. Then a car load of kids got killed by a drunk driver who was sitting somewhere around, let's say, .17. In reaction, MADD comes out in force screaming "THINK OF THE CHILDREN" and the limit is reduced to .08. That's now about a glass of wine with dinner.

Now it used to be that the cop had discretion as did the judge and DA. You get stopped coming home from a bar, and yeah, you were probably drunk when they smelled alcohol. But you're coming home from a nice restaurant, chances are you've had some wine and aren't intoxicated so the cop would let you go.

But with 0 tolerance DUI laws, now the cop has to give you a breath test on suspicion, the DA has to prosecute, and the judge is given a sentence to hand down no matter what the circumstance. So, a kid sitting in his car in Alaska one night with the heater on waiting for the cab to come get him in the parking lot of Chilkoot Charlie's gets approached by a cop who now has to give him a DUI ticket (despite the cab pulling right up and asking for him). A DA prosecutes the case as if it were a murder trial, and a judge is forbidden to dismiss based on nothing more than a breath score of .087. So because a young man did the right thingby calling a cab instead of driving but he was sitting in his car with the heat on waiting for said cab, and MADD pushed for 0 tolerance DUI laws, he had to pay $1500.00, spend three days in jail, have his car impounded for another 675.00 and go to an alcohol information class (for another 150.00) where he was treated like a drug addict for 3 sessions of 4 hours each.

But that's just my personal experience with 0 tolerance shenanigans. Don't mind me if I sound a little bitter.