Strip search of Ariz. teenager illegal, court says

[Praxius]

Savana Redding stands outside the Supreme Court in Washington on Tuesday, April 21, 2009.

CTV.ca | Strip search of Ariz. teenager illegal, court says

WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that school officials violated an Arizona teenager's rights by strip-searching her for prescription-strength ibuprofen, declaring that U.S. educators cannot 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. The court ruled that the officials could not be held financially liable but left it to lower courts to decide if the school district could. While children's advocates and civil liberties groups cheered the decision, others suggested the high court may have created further problems for school systems by failing to make clear exactly when school administrators can strip search students and when they can't.......

Jeez.... How about, oh I dunno.... Never!

They're teachers not police.... and she was 13 years old at the time, a kid.... not some drug dealer with a bomb strapped to her arse.

Their job is to teach, if they felt she had something on her she shouldn't, then call in the police to determine what legal actions can be taken, don't just assume you have the right to make a kid strip down in front of perverted teachers for their own lame suspicions.

That's just a sick abuse of power..... for what?

Not a gun.... not crack or other serious drugs.... not a knife......

A prescription of ibuprofen of all damn things!

And that was their justification to make her strip down at the school in front of her teachers?

That's just fk'n sick!

And this:

"The court seems to think it made things clearer, but I don't think they did," said Dan Capra, a Fordham University law professor. "Officials now know they can't do exactly what was done in Safford. But what if there is any change of material fact in the circumstances?"

^ Are you friggin kidding me?

They said right here:

"U.S. educators cannot force children to remove their clothing unless student safety is at risk."

^ So unless she's on fire or they may have a gun, you have no right to order them to strip down..... then again, I don't remember someone hiding a gun or bomb in their underwear, so we fall back to the fire thing.

They claimed that Px drugs are not permitted at the school unless previously approved and they acted on a "Tip" from another student.... and we all know how reliable that can be.

"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 Thursday's majority opinion. "We think that the combination of these deficiencies was fatal to finding the search reasonable."

They also claimed that the pills they were looking for were about the equivilant of two Advil....... can you friggin imagine?

Where the hell are people's heads these days?

There's a hell of a lot more to worry about these days in schools then a few advil.

-------------------------------------------

Question:

Put yourself back in high school (or if you currently are, never mind)

How would you react if the school confronted you about having something not allowed at school, due to a tip from another student and demanded you be strip searched?

Esspecially if you know you have nothing in the first place?

[The Black Ghost]

Well they were taught a lesson.

[Clementine]

Not really black ghost. The courts also found that the girl cannot sue them for damages.

[The Black Ghost]

They were publicly humiliated though, and whoever is responsible is probably long on their way out the door.

[Chaossaber314]

Quote by: Clementine Not really black ghost. The courts also found that the girl cannot sue them for damages.

Which is pretty stupid as well.

SCOTUS has long ruled that private correctional staff performing their official functions do not have qualified immunity as their federal/state/local counterparts do. Acting in the capacity of a correctional officer, searching a ward of your care for contraband, these teachers & administrators shouldn't be granted any level of immunity either.

And that's dealing with adult criminals, not minor students.

[ironeagle]

No one has to submit to search or seizure without a warrant period, the school violated the Constitution.

[grandpa]

Quote by: ironeagle No one has to submit to search or seizure without a warrant period, the school violated the Constitution.

Even if the search and
seizure had been authorized by a warrant, it would have been unreasonable.

Grandpa h.

[Chaossaber314]

Quote by: ironeagle No one has to submit to search or seizure without a warrant period,

Terry v. Ohio disagrees.

[L00zer]

Quote by: Praxius Question: Put yourself back in high school (or if you currently are, never mind) How would you react if the school confronted you about having something not allowed at school, due to a tip from another student and demanded you be strip searched? Esspecially if you know you have nothing in the first place?

Well, I'm in high school (going into it), and it's a tough question. I think at different schools the whole situation changes. At my well-off, peaceful, preppy high school the chances of that type of situation are remote, and a strip search would probably not occur. I can't see a strip search taking place. However, the school has searched lockers before, and busted a kid with drugs. I am of the opinion that in my high school, in those extreme circumstances, the locker searching is O.K, because I have nothing to hide. However, the invasion of privacy that happens during a strip search is hat I would consider to be intolerable. I agree with the courts ruling about being strip-searched.

i do not know the school's policy on whether or not a teacher can strip search a kid if a difference one says that student has a gun, knife, or other life threatening object. If I were the school, I would allow that strip search, as long as no other kids no of it (G-d, the embarrassment). However, if the tip was false, I would punish the kid who originally tipped the teacher as much as I would punish the student being accused of actually having some life threatening object.

[Compugasm]

Quote by: L00zer ...the locker searching is O.K, because I have nothing to hide. However, the invasion of privacy that happens during a strip search is hat I would consider to be intolerable.

Why, if you have nothing to hide...?

[Chaossaber314]

Quote by: L00Zer Well, I'm in high school (going into it), and it's a tough question. I think at different schools the whole situation changes. At my well-off, peaceful, preppy high school the chances of that type of situation are remote, and a strip search would probably not occur. I can't see a strip search taking place. However, the school has searched lockers before, and busted a kid with drugs. I am of the opinion that in my high school, in those extreme circumstances, the locker searching is O.K, because I have nothing to hide. However, the invasion of privacy that happens during a strip search is hat I would consider to be intolerable. I agree with the courts ruling about being strip-searched.

The reasoning I always heard was that the lockers were school property that they were merely letting you use.

i do not know the school's policy on whether or not a teacher can strip search a kid if a difference one says that student has a gun, knife, or other life threatening object. If I were the school, I would allow that strip search, as long as no other kids no of it (G-d, the embarrassment). However, if the tip was false, I would punish the kid who originally tipped the teacher as much as I would punish the student being accused of actually having some life threatening object.

Yeah but this is counter intuitive to the point. It would be unfavorable to stripsearch a kid for some form of contraband, a gun or drugs or whatever, and find nothing; but just because they have nothing on them at the time of the search doesn't mean they didn't ever have anything on them. It doesn't mean they didn't possess and then ditch said contraband prior to the search.

This comes up frequently in law enforcement. Say you're working an informant who is telling you that a family is cooking meth out of their trailer. You use this information and corroborate it with other evidence and obtain a search warrant. The day before you execute the warrant the family finishes cooking their meth and clears it out of the trailer for distribution, even making sure to break down the whole setup and clean the place to the point of being spotless.

Obviously, you execute the warrant and find nothing. Does this mean that your informant was lying and should be punished because you didn't find anything as a result of your search?

[Praxius]

Quote by: L00zer Well, I'm in high school (going into it), and it's a tough question. I think at different schools the whole situation changes. At my well-off, peaceful, preppy high school the chances of that type of situation are remote, and a strip search would probably not occur. I can't see a strip search taking place. However, the school has searched lockers before, and busted a kid with drugs. I am of the opinion that in my high school, in those extreme circumstances, the locker searching is O.K, because I have nothing to hide. However, the invasion of privacy that happens during a strip search is hat I would consider to be intolerable. I agree with the courts ruling about being strip-searched. i do not know the school's policy on whether or not a teacher can strip search a kid if a difference one says that student has a gun, knife, or other life threatening object. If I were the school, I would allow that strip search, as long as no other kids no of it (G-d, the embarrassment). However, if the tip was false, I would punish the kid who originally tipped the teacher as much as I would punish the student being accused of actually having some life threatening object.

While I agree and relate to much of what you say, if a kid is reported to have a gun or knife, one would think the police would be involved.... let them do the searches and avoid the controversy.. that's their job anyways and teachers shouldn't be involved in risking their own lives.... they're supposed to be teaching, not policing.... imo

Drugs, weapons, etc. being inside a school is a criminal action, let the professionals determine what is needed.

[Praxius]

Quote by: Chaossaber314 The reasoning I always heard was that the lockers were school property that they were merely letting you use.

Agreed, the lockers are their property, which students pay fees to rent for the year, thus searching them is allowed without question.

Yeah but this is counter intuitive to the point. It would be unfavorable to stripsearch a kid for some form of contraband, a gun or drugs or whatever, and find nothing; but just because they have nothing on them at the time of the search doesn't mean they didn't ever have anything on them. It doesn't mean they didn't possess and then ditch said contraband prior to the search.

That's speculation without evidence.

I can justify telling the student to empty your pockets, your book bag, your locker, but to strip down?

If you didn't find a knife, gun or drugs by then, do you seriously think you're going to find it by digging around in their butt?

If they were a dealer in school, nobody would buy their drugs if they knew it came out of their butt..... maybe in prison, but things arn't that hard up in school.

This comes up frequently in law enforcement. Say you're working an informant who is telling you that a family is cooking meth out of their trailer. You use this information and corroborate it with other evidence and obtain a search warrant. The day before you execute the warrant the family finishes cooking their meth and clears it out of the trailer for distribution, even making sure to break down the whole setup and clean the place to the point of being spotless. Obviously, you execute the warrant and find nothing. Does this mean that your informant was lying and should be punished because you didn't find anything as a result of your search?

Yes, you should pay for the damages from the raid and search and compensate them for their troubles.

Either do it right or don't do it at all.

If every police force was allowed to do what you suggest and get away with it, nobody would be able to sleep at night without worrying about some random search.

It happened to my ex and her family. Her father had almost the exact same name as a known drug dealer in the area, except having different middle names, and her father being 30 years older then this guy and in his 60's.

The police did their raid looking for cocaine, e and everything else under the sun, injured her mother and her father couldn't breath properly afterwards when they jumped on their backs and threw them around as they trashed the place and found nothing.

The whole time he was trying to explain to them that his name wasn't the one on the search warrent and they had the wrong address. He was dragged off to jail and after a while when they finally figured out they had the wrong guy and clearly a lot older then who they were looking for, they let him go without an apology or compensation and had to find his own way back to his trashed home from prison with no money or phone, while my ex's mother had to deal with neck injuries there after.

Police or anybody else shouldn't be allowed to pull such stunts and get away with it when they royally screw up and get things wrong..... best interests only go so far.

[grandpa]

Quote by: Praxius Agreed, the lockers are their property, which students pay fees to rent for the year, thus searching them is allowed without question.

Invading privacy an dconducting strip searches to find and confiscate that terrible, monstrous drug Ibuprofen?
Nietzsche: "Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a
monster. And when you look long into an abyss, the abyss also looks into
you."

Grandpa h.

[Praxius]

Quote by: grandpa Invading privacy an dconducting strip searches to find and confiscate that terrible, monstrous drug Ibuprofen? Nietzsche: "Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster. And when you look long into an abyss, the abyss also looks into you." Grandpa h.

Well I was speaking generally.... the whole IB-Profen issue was just plain stupid in regards for justification of a strip search.

What's next, Flintstone Chewables?

[grandpa]

Quote by: Praxius Well I was speaking generally.... the whole IB-Profen issue was just plain stupid in regards for justification of a strip search.

I find searches objectionable in general. I suppose there might be exceptions, but this certainly isn't one of them.

Grandpa h.

[Chaossaber314]

That's speculation without evidence.

You're mistaking my point. I'm not using it as justification for a search, just making the point that just because a search turns up nothing, doesn't mean the evidence that gave probable cause for that search was false. Of course, it clearly doesn't mean the evidence was accurate either.

Either way, I don't think you should punish an informant just because their information didn't pan out. If they repeatedly come to you and have things not pan out then they shouldn't be used as a credible informant to gain probable cause for a search.

Yes, you should pay for the damages from the raid and search and compensate them for their troubles.

Not in the United States. Police Officers acting in their official capacity have qualified immunity for such an occasion. If I have probable cause to search you and don't find anything you can't sue me for it. Now if I didn't have probable cause and searched you anyway, that would be an unjustified search and a different matter altogether.

If every police force was allowed to do what you suggest and get away with it, nobody would be able to sleep at night without worrying about some random search.

Qualified Immunity. Searches don't have to be accurate if you can articulate probable cause to institute it. Less than that to Reasonable Suspicion if it's a Terry stop.

Of course if you keep having repeated "accidents" you're going to catch some sh*t for it.


Of course these are all moot points since school children aren't inmates and school officials aren't trained LEOs; though I get the distinct impression some of them would like to be.

[grandpa]

Quote by: Chaossaber314 You're mistaking my point. I'm not using it as justification for a search, just making the point that just because a search turns up nothing, doesn't mean the evidence that gave probable cause for that search was false.

Okay, but what was the probable cause for this case?

Grandpa h.

[dan4reason]

Chaossaber314: You're mistaking my point. I'm not using it as justification for a search, just making the point that just because a search turns up nothing, doesn't mean the evidence that gave probable cause for that search was false. Of course, it clearly doesn't mean the evidence was accurate either. Either way, I don't think you should punish an informant just because their information didn't pan out. If they repeatedly come to you and have things not pan out then they shouldn't be used as a credible informant to gain probable cause for a search.

I also want to know if there is probably cause. This is a deciding factor.

[Dan_77]

Quote by: Praxius Agreed, the lockers are their property, which students pay fees to rent for the year, thus searching them is allowed without question.

Incidentally, this is an invalid and inconsistent reason to allow searches.

A landlord cannot consent to a search of their tenant's property, for example.

The person who has control of the property is the only one who can give consent, not the owner.