Strip-searching teenage girls in school?
posted at 2:57 pm on March 24, 2009 by Ed Morrissey
The Supreme Court will get a chance to determine whether schools acting in loco parentis have the right to strip-search students in ways that could get parents a visit from Child Services. Tom Maguire highlights the case of School Officials Gone Wild, who demanded that a 13-year-old girl display her genitalia to a school nurse and a school secretary to ensure that she had no drugs on her. What were they hoping to find, besides a lawsuit? You’re not going to believe it:
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.”
Ms. Redding, an honors student, had no pills. But she had a furious mother and a lawyer, and now her case has reached the Supreme Court, which will hear arguments on April 21.
The best part of the story? The school officials never bothered to ask her if she had pills on her before the strip search. They just took her aside and had the nurse and a clerk force her to strip.
Maybe Redding was a bad kid with a track record of disciplinary problems? Well, no, she wasn’t. In fact, before the strip search, she had no record of disciplinary problems at all. When her lawyers pointed this out in court documents, the district acknowledged the lack of a disciplinary record, but said that the inference should have been that she’d just been masterful at avoiding getting caught. They also defended themselves by claiming to have heard rumors that Redding had drunk alcohol at a party, but the court documents show that the person starting the rumor hadn’t attended the event.
Quite frankly, I’m not surprised that the school district has appealed their loss to the Supreme Court, because they appear consistently too stupid to know when to stop.
In this case, the ACLU (which is supporting Redding) has it right. The school acts in loco parentis, not in loco law enforcement. They had no probable cause to do a strip search of the student, and even more basically, have no right to force students into strip searches in the first place. They never tried contacting Redding’s mother or the police. The school was so horrified by the thought that this student, who had never caused them problems before, might have ibuprofen that they decided to act like storm troopers rather than a school.
The question won’t be whether Redding will win. It will be whether it goes 9-0 in her favor. I’d put that at even money.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: 1 2 3 Next »
Your tax dollars at work. Go NEA.
whitetop on March 24, 2009 at 3:01 PM
unreal.
homesickamerican on March 24, 2009 at 3:02 PM
I think it will be an 8-1 decision, with Breyer writing in the dissent that there are some appealing ideas in Sharia…
myrenovations on March 24, 2009 at 3:04 PM
An honor student?
Suspected of having evil ibuprofen?
Subjected to this?
Shameful.
jgapinoy on March 24, 2009 at 3:04 PM
A good topic for fark.com
MarcusBrody on March 24, 2009 at 3:04 PM
Petty tyrants are the most obnoxious kind.
OhioCoastie on March 24, 2009 at 3:04 PM
Another good example why no public schools should exists; all schools should be private. It will be easier for parents to redress grievences with private schools and school officials will respect their “customers” more than the current system.
WashJeff on March 24, 2009 at 3:04 PM
So basically the school is using rumors started by 13 and 14 year-olds to justify a strip search for Advil.
Illinidiva on March 24, 2009 at 3:04 PM
This is nothing less than the ongoing effort to condition students to submit to authority.
After all, when they get older, they’ll be conditioned to pay punitive taxes for the good of the State. And, their submission will be required.
As for the strip search, the conditioning has gone far. In my day, they would’ve been told to go [fornicate with themselves].
OhEssYouCowboys on March 24, 2009 at 3:04 PM
The school district, the county, and the state should be paying out the ying-yang in a huge way for this.
AubieJon on March 24, 2009 at 3:04 PM
And the cost of private schools seems ever smaller with every passing day…
Think about this when you take into account how the incidence of school shootings has become so much greater than it was decades ago.
MadisonConservative on March 24, 2009 at 3:05 PM
Something like this could have gone on at a private school just as easily as a public school.
Illinidiva on March 24, 2009 at 3:06 PM
Well if that’s the bar to get strip searched. 90% of the people i went to school with would have been.
MDWNJ on March 24, 2009 at 3:06 PM
My question:
How come the school Nazis aren’t in prison?
jgapinoy on March 24, 2009 at 3:06 PM
That’s the anti-drug movement for you.
The Dean on March 24, 2009 at 3:07 PM
The logic of that escapes me. Explain to me the lack of difference between a body of administration liable to their customers, and another body of administration liable to no one because the NEA will protect every one of them regardless of what they do.
MadisonConservative on March 24, 2009 at 3:08 PM
Democrat preparation for socialist control.
I wish I could say I was being sarcastic…
Skywise on March 24, 2009 at 3:08 PM
But I doubt the case would have made it to the Supreme Court. The School would have been rightfully sued, and the image of the school would be tarnished badly and have a hard time drawing in students. In the end, it might have to close its doors. Rightful punsihment for this offense.
WashJeff on March 24, 2009 at 3:09 PM
First they go after your ibuprofen, then your bonuses.
faraway on March 24, 2009 at 3:10 PM
Just one more reason to homeschool your kids.
Jeez dude, what kind of f-d up society do we live in where you can’t even send your kid to school without fear that a set of adults will treat her like a junkie for no good reason without calling you first?
Oh yeah, the Obamasocialism society.
leetpriest on March 24, 2009 at 3:11 PM
Conceivably.
However the consequences to the school would have been swifter and much more severe.
IE, bankruptcy, as most of the parents pulled their students.
Additionally private company employees don’t have the same rights and protections that public employees do. Which makes it less likely that such a search would have taken place in the first place.
MarkTheGreat on March 24, 2009 at 3:11 PM
Another loony story…. brought to you by the drug police.
Knucklehead on March 24, 2009 at 3:12 PM
But… but… if you allow them to have advil, it’s a slippery slope to allowing kids to smoke crack in between classes.
/sarc
justfinethanks on March 24, 2009 at 3:13 PM
When I was 13 years old I would have clobbered someone for even thinking about touching me that way.
Terrye on March 24, 2009 at 3:13 PM
And liberal judges think we should attack home schooling? Unbelievable!
Another indication we need separation of school and state
Conservative Voice on March 24, 2009 at 3:14 PM
When I was in public school, one of the vice principals once informed me that my constitutional rights were checked at the door everyday when I entered the building.
This kind of behavior is part and parcel of the mental midgets who work in administration in the public school system. I am sure I’m insulting someone in this thread by saying that, and I’m sure there are exceptions to this characterization, but in my experience it has always been true. If I had kids, there is no question they would be in private school where teachers and administrators know they’re going to be held accountable to parents.
Can’t wait to read the Court’s opinion on this case. 9-0 sounds like a good bet. At the most there might be some concurring opinions but as to the outrageous unconstitutionality of the school’s actions there can be little doubt.
NoLeftTurn on March 24, 2009 at 3:14 PM
Did I miss out on crazy Ibuprofin parties back in grade school? The regrets I now have.
Repurblican on March 24, 2009 at 3:15 PM
American Power tracked-back with, “Strip-Searches Go to the Supreme Court”:
http://americanpowerblog.blogspot.com/2009/03/strip-searches-go-to-supreme-court.html
Donald Douglas on March 24, 2009 at 3:15 PM
I remember when my high school considered banning ibuprofen. Fortunately they considered the consequences of preventing premenstral 14 year olds from having access to chemical relief and better sense prevailed.
patriette on March 24, 2009 at 3:16 PM
I’m wondering the same thing. They sexually abused that poor girl, why aren’t they doing jail time?
Mulligan on March 24, 2009 at 3:16 PM
Thats the funny thing though. Is that schools were so strict about Ibuprofen, yet i could have got pot, speed, and even liquor with no problem at all.
MDWNJ on March 24, 2009 at 3:17 PM
If someone did something like this to my daughter, I very well might physically attack the person.
Something has gone very wrong somewhere if these school officials are still employed.
Sackett on March 24, 2009 at 3:18 PM
Close the public schools now!!!!!
Maxx on March 24, 2009 at 3:18 PM
With all due respect Ed, your portrayal of the event conveniently overlooks THE VERY REAL AND IMMINENT DANGER POSED BY IBUPROFEN IN OUR SCHOOLS!
A line has to be drawn!!
Kasper Hauser on March 24, 2009 at 3:18 PM
In a free society, the teachers/administrators responsible for this abomination would be arrested, tried, convicted, and sent to prison for sex offenses. If this girl’s parents decided to play vigilante and shoot those responsible dead, I’m not sure that I, as a juror, would be able to convict them.
Despicable. Absolutely despicable.
JohnGalt23 on March 24, 2009 at 3:19 PM
Has Redding sued yet?
$10 million settlement should about cover it.
SCOOPTHIScarlos on March 24, 2009 at 3:19 PM
I hope you’re in my jury when that inevitable day arrives.
MadisonConservative on March 24, 2009 at 3:21 PM
Zero Tolerance is Cr*p and needs to stop. All we are accomplishing is teaching our children that adults have no sense and are unable to make rational judgments. I have little hope for the next generation but I’d take just about any 14 year old to the people who run government and education.
johnsteele on March 24, 2009 at 3:21 PM
The school district, the county, and the state should be paying out the ying-yang in a huge way for this.
AubieJon on March 24, 2009 at 3:04 PM
Great AubiWon, then all that money will just be replaced by Obama. and the idiots who did the serach and approved it will continue collecting full pay. No, the teachers shoulkd pay out of their own pockets, or at the very least the union coffers.
max1 on March 24, 2009 at 3:21 PM
Just imagine what they might have done if they thought she had a Bible. Body cavity search?
AubieJon on March 24, 2009 at 3:21 PM
And the government wants to take over your health care too.
Maxx on March 24, 2009 at 3:22 PM
The school seems clearly wrong here. However, if parents want the school to enforce a “zero tolerance” policy for drugs it seems like only one of a few points would have to change in order for most to be OK with it.
1.) If it were a search of a locker or bag.
2.) Stronger probable cause
3.) Suspicion of a more serious drug like meth or heroin.
I’m generally wary of “zero tolerance” crusades but it does make sense for parents to grant power to their school in order to make sure drug dealing doesn’t expose otherwise innocent kids to danger.
dedalus on March 24, 2009 at 3:22 PM
I’m there for you. There’s a reason I don’t try to dodge jury duty, and it is cases like this one that make me glad I don’t.
JohnGalt23 on March 24, 2009 at 3:22 PM
Just imagine what they might have done if they thought she had a Bible. Body cavity search?
AubieJon on March 24, 2009 at 3:21 PM
Nope. Re-education classes.
kingsjester on March 24, 2009 at 3:23 PM
You never know, Scalia might be an ibuprofenphobe.
Brat on March 24, 2009 at 3:23 PM
Have I been taking the wrong kind of Advil? I have never had a buzz from that. Next time my back hurts I will bug my doctor into giving me some of that good stuff.
This story is just disturbing on so many levels. I couldn’t even find it justifiable if she was a known crack head with a mile ling rap sheet. If you suspect someone of doing something then you have a cop frisk them. If the cop doesn’t find anything then its over.
txaggie on March 24, 2009 at 3:23 PM
Oh great, if you have a record, then that shows you’re a bad kid and they get to strip search you. If you don’t have a record, then that shows you’re an evil mastermind and they get to strip search you.
I wonder if Eric Holder is taking notes.
As I have a prescription for ibuprofen (bad hip), does this mean I have to keep 500 feet away from schools?
rbj on March 24, 2009 at 3:24 PM
You want to get rid of these dopey zero-tolerance policies? Pass laws immunizing schools from more frivolous lawsuits. Schools have these zero-tolerance policies to protect themselves from lawsuits. These schools have to be unreasonable and make everyone equally miserable to minimize lawsuits.
Obviously this particular school’s admin went too far in enforcing their zero tolerance rules. However, I think it is more important to address the root problem for having these policies so we can eliminate stuff like what happened in the above story.
Weebork on March 24, 2009 at 3:24 PM
Can you give an example, or are you just insane?
Private schools exist all over the Nation (Sidwell Friends comes to mind!) and somehow they seem to get along without subjecting their student to strip searches, sleeping with their students, abusing their students, etc. Somehow the petty power that public school officials wield goes to their heads and abuse happens. The inability of getting public school teachers fired is legendary.
GunRunner on March 24, 2009 at 3:25 PM
Illinidiva:
A private school makes its own rules but if the rules are not published they would be subject to the same legal penalties as a the public school. If you knew up front that your child could be strip searched for advil then paying the tuitiion would signify that you accept the rule and therefore could not sue them.
OT. Does the Ilini meant that you are an Alumna or just from Illinois.
fellow ilinidude.
jerryofva on March 24, 2009 at 3:25 PM
I agree the teachers and their advocates should be punished severely, even if this did happen 6 years ago.
AubieJon on March 24, 2009 at 3:25 PM
Parents should be able to choose the drug policy they want by choosing the school their kids attend. Creating policies, such as drug policies, is not effective effective in the public school forum.
WashJeff on March 24, 2009 at 3:27 PM
Right on the money.
Have whatever stupid rules you want so long as I as a parent can choose where to send my child, and all the market forces are in effect.
radiofreevillage on March 24, 2009 at 3:27 PM
hindmost on March 24, 2009 at 3:27 PM
I have two daughters and I will tell you right now with completely certainty that if that happened to one of my daughters, I would go completely berserk. There would definitely be assault and battery charges involved and those would be leveled at me.
Warning – kinda icky content below, but a true story that talks about students’ right and invasion of privacy.
TRUE STORY – my daughter sent me a text from school one day saying she was having heavy “female trouble” and wanted to go home, but the nurse wouldn’t even let her call me. Cut to the chase… I called the principal and this WOMAN suggested that the school nurse would have to determine if it was “heavy.” She said my daughter would have to show the nurse. O.M.G. I went ape $hit and told that woman there was no damned way. I threatened to go to the school superintendent and the school board.
Obviously my daughter left school for the day.
Oink on March 24, 2009 at 3:28 PM
If the school officials had no right to strip search the girl then they should be treated like anyone else on the street who forces a 13 year old to expose themselves. They should be charged with a sex crime.
29Victor on March 24, 2009 at 3:28 PM
Zero tolerance policies are just an excuse for ZERO INTELLIGENCE….
Kuffar on March 24, 2009 at 3:30 PM
As strong as TWO Advil?! HFS!
On another note:
The drug legalizers are out in force I see.
Actions by some r-tard public school officials must of course automatically translate to marijuana for everyone!!! Yeeee-hah!!!!
catmman on March 24, 2009 at 3:30 PM
Actually, a private school might have more protection from getting sued for something like this than a public school. The school could argue that the student and his or her parents signed a contract and deliberately chose to go to that school. As such, they have to abide by the rules, one of which states that the school has a reason to do searches for whatever reason that they feel like. The lawsuit would likely get thrown out for that reason.
In contrast, public schools have to follow the Constitution to a certain extent. They can assume the role of a parent during the school day, but there are limits to what they can do. Public schools are run by the local government rather than private institutions run by private or religious organizations, so there are actually more protections.
Illinidiva on March 24, 2009 at 3:32 PM
I’m so glad I no longer have kids in school.
blr2449 on March 24, 2009 at 3:33 PM
At seven years old, I probably would have started crying. At 13, there would have been an ugly scene and somebody other than me would have ended up in the principal’s office (for once).
sherry on March 24, 2009 at 3:33 PM
Even though the U.S. spends more per capita on education than any other nation, our kids are regularly surpassed by at least a dozen other countries in science and math test scores.
The solutions: Privatize every school. Vouchers for every child. A bare minimum of government regulation–and that should be local, not federal regulation. Abolish the Department of Education, a money drain which bogs schools down with red tape and squelches innovation. Minimize the influence of the National Education Association (misnomer), which is only interested in accumulating power. The result: the poor will be able to afford good schools. And there will be as many varieties of schools as there of restaurants. If you want to send your child to a school that emphasizes history, you’ll be able to find one. Need more language arts and less P.E.? It will be somewhere. And if you happen to be one of those Bible-lovers (gasp!), I’m sure there will be some schools to cater to you (and me).
jgapinoy on March 24, 2009 at 3:33 PM
ibuprofen? This was over ibuprofen?
I agree, this was sexual abuse. Those involved should have been jailed. Was a criminal complaint filed?
INC on March 24, 2009 at 3:33 PM
I agree that parents should get to choose their school. I’m in favor of vouchers and support private schools.
In this case, I assume there is an elected school board and that, in general, parents support the school policing the students for drugs. I think children in school shouldn’t have an expectation of privacy with their lockers or bags (any more than I do in an airport). There should be some barrier to strip searches, and it seems that in this case the school didn’t have enough evidence to conduct the search.
dedalus on March 24, 2009 at 3:35 PM
Six years ago, huh? That would be 2003.
My collie says:
CyberCipher on March 24, 2009 at 3:35 PM
Yes… I’m an alum of Illinois. :)
And I agree with your statement about private vs. public schools, but I think that it could be more vague than that for private schools. I think that a private school might be protected if they stated that the school reserves the right to search a student with reasonable cause.
Illinidiva on March 24, 2009 at 3:35 PM
True, but then you get irate when you realize that you still have to support schools like this.
Esthier on March 24, 2009 at 3:36 PM
I didn’t know that Roman Polanski had returned and is now an assistant principal….
Braindroppings on March 24, 2009 at 3:36 PM
Since one Aleve is as strong as 4 Advil, does that mean it is grounds for confinement in the boiler room strung across the rack until you give up your dealer?
Kelligan on March 24, 2009 at 3:37 PM
It generally takes that long for these sorts of cases to make it through the court system.
Illinidiva on March 24, 2009 at 3:37 PM
But this wasn’t even about illegal substances. This was over ibuprofen.
This is petty bureaucrats run amok, getting their kicks from exercising power over those who are under their authority.
It had nothing to do with legitimate concerns for drugs in schools.
INC on March 24, 2009 at 3:37 PM
Marijuana for everyone? That’s silly. It should be “marijuana for people are legal adults and want to get high.”
This incident is merely a manifestation of puritanical anti drug extremism.
justfinethanks on March 24, 2009 at 3:38 PM
This is absolutely unreal!
My 8th grade daughter has to leave all meds in the nurse’s office. Which is stupid. These girls don’t want to have to explain why they are asking to go to the nurse every month. :) Most of the girls end up hiding midol and such in their athletic bags. I will be glad when she is driving and can leave them in her car.
maables on March 24, 2009 at 3:38 PM
I would never sign anything agreeing to a body search of any type for any reason for my child. That would be such a huge red flag I would walk right out the door and never go back.
Our kids went a couple of years to a private church school. I believe there was a policy for spanking with a clearly outlined protocol. The school doesn’t follow the protocol, then the school is in big trouble.
INC on March 24, 2009 at 3:39 PM
That’s pretty smart thinking. Obviously, if you’ve never been caught committing a crime, it just means you’re a master criminal.
zmdavid on March 24, 2009 at 3:40 PM
Pithy. I agree and will have to file that away for future use.
dedalus on March 24, 2009 at 3:40 PM
The Supreme Court ruling will be 15-0, because, you know, Scalia has all those votes…
bookman on March 24, 2009 at 3:40 PM
I’m sad to say I’m not surprised by this story. When groups and lawmakers are fighting to have the schools turn into Planned Parenthood satellite locations or allow girls to leave campus for medical services without notifying parents, what’s to stop them from thinking they can do this kind of thing when they want?
Unbelievable. I hope SCOTUS tears the school a new one.
Kel-C on March 24, 2009 at 3:41 PM
No, it had nothing to do with that at all.
This was all about power.
INC on March 24, 2009 at 3:41 PM
Hmmm.
I once saw a school narc burn his hand on the cigarette a student he was searching had tried to hide in his pocket.
…
Seriously, though, do we get to question if these school employees had ulterior motives?
Count to 10 on March 24, 2009 at 3:42 PM
You must be joking.
tneloms on March 24, 2009 at 3:42 PM
I hear ya, when I was in junior high I had a teacher physically grab me trying to force me to change out for gym class. I broke away from the teacher’s grip and told the teacher to keep his f-ing hands off of me.
If I was the father of this girl it would have been very difficult for me to keep from marching to the school and decking whomever gave the “ok” to do this to my little girl…jail be damned!
Liberty or Death on March 24, 2009 at 3:42 PM
One day out of a clear blue sky the school officials thought let us strip search someone it is pretty boring around here and we are just too involved in education we need a new activity lets harass our students starting with the honor students. I think there is a whole lot missing as to what motivate this act which is extreme to say the least. But something had to be happening in this school that was out of control long before this type of action would even being remotely considered. Sounds like drug culture abounded and no one was able to control it and the person in question was right in the middle of the action either total innocent or person with big attitude and was lucky to get off with the goods. This has been framed as innocent victim traumatized by school officials gone wild you know how those nasty school nurses and principals are. I am sure it was an out of the way farm community and she was just a member of the 4H club with medicine for her sheep.
rsl775 on March 24, 2009 at 3:43 PM
Yeah, that’s terribly Orwellian. “No criminal record! That means that you have been deceptively covering up the crimes you MUST have been comitting. I guess I’ll just have to add ‘obstruction of justice’ to your charges.”
justfinethanks on March 24, 2009 at 3:44 PM
As strong as TWO Advil?! HFS!
I’d much rather live in a society where marijuana is legal, than a society where strip searching 13 year old girls is not met with the immediate incarceration of the criminals that did it.
This is what the war on drugs is. A few innocents are made to suffer….and at least she was’nt shot to death by swat teams with a wrong addy…I guess that’s in her favor.
I’ll take drugs over jackboots any time.
DngrMse on March 24, 2009 at 3:44 PM
This would be true if the contract they signed included the information that their children could be strip searched.
Just being able to search a student wouldn’t suffice.
And sure, if some parents agree to send their children to a school where strip searches are normal, then yes, they’d have no claim unless the federal government were to decide it is illegal, which they can still do. Just because you sign a contract that states teachers can look at your underage child, it doesn’t mean it’s legal.
Esthier on March 24, 2009 at 3:47 PM
According to Barney…
Liberty or Death on March 24, 2009 at 3:49 PM
And their faces plastered all over the National Pervert list.
Knucklehead on March 24, 2009 at 3:49 PM
If your a drug dealer selling Ibu’s twice as strong as an advil your nuts. It’s much betah fo bidnis to just tape two single strength advils together. Keeps the heat down and your pants on.
BL@KBIRD on March 24, 2009 at 3:49 PM
If that had been my daughter, that school would either have my name on it now, or it’d be a smoldering crater.
CurtZHP on March 24, 2009 at 3:50 PM
Agree with INC. Illinidiva, you are getting into a area that is akin to this mortgagte mess. If people sign contracts, which you do when you attend a private school, and not read the contents, who do you blame?
PS. U of Illinois graduate 1992.
WashJeff on March 24, 2009 at 3:51 PM
It was a prescription drug and the school had a “zero tolerance” policy. I don’t know why this particular drug would be harmful but the school decided the policy should be based on whatever the FDA identified as a prescription drug.
As a parent, I’d like the school to keep drugs out of the environment, especially now where some kids are turning to prescription drugs in order to boost their concentration. Again, the geniuses at this particular school seem to have fumbled the search.
dedalus on March 24, 2009 at 3:51 PM
I have a 13 year old daughter myself, and I can assure you that had this happened to her at the hands of any adult, they’d be having a court case involving child molestation; and I’d be having one of my own for battery, at a minimum.
On the other hand, I am pretty sure the school has guaranteed Ms Redding will not need to worry about money for college.
MikeA on March 24, 2009 at 3:53 PM
Well, it a little to do with that. Plus, the only reason I’M outraged over this is because its awful for the state to be abusing innocent people for having a harmless drug. I wish more conservatives would be consistent in that line of thinking and just transfer over their outrage, with the exact same reasoning, to our current drug war. In fact, advil is actually more deadly than pot. While researchers have yet to connect pot to premature mortality.
http://www.webmd.com/smoking-cessation/news/20030918/marijuana-smoking-doesnt-kill
Anti inflammitory drugs like advil kill about 7000 people a year.
http://www.annals.org/cgi/content/full/127/6/429
Anti drug hysteria is bad, and it and gives the state license to abuse us.
justfinethanks on March 24, 2009 at 3:54 PM
This statement is a large part of where this entire country is heading. If you don’t have a criminal record then obviously you are just clever enough to not get caught. What ever happened to innocent until proven guilty? Will the fact that I own guns one day be seen to infer that I am obviously guilty of murder, but just haven’t been caught in the act? How about a cop pulling you over for no reason, because the fact that your vehicles registration and inspection is indeed in good order it must mean you are hiding some illegal activity and that is grounds to search you? Interesting times…
BadMojo on March 24, 2009 at 3:54 PM
Brought to you by the same people who think Dodge Ball hurts kids
Conservative Voice on March 24, 2009 at 3:54 PM
And thanks to the users for making my point.
If anyone is anti-drug they are a “puritanical zealot” but if you are “pro-drug” you somehow are simply an informed, open-minded idealist wishing for peace and harmony amongst all of gods creatures, kumbuya…ohhhmmmmm..
Of course the morons who did this were wrong and they should pay, dearly.
Using the issue to advocate for legalization is simply idiotic opportunism.
catmman on March 24, 2009 at 3:55 PM
You’re actually trying to save face by claiming that a private contract supersedes criminal law?????
dominigan on March 24, 2009 at 3:55 PM
True, but some schools even extend the “zero tolerance” to include regular advil and ibuprofen.
Esthier on March 24, 2009 at 3:56 PM
Homeschool… homeschool.. homeschool.
kringeesmom on March 24, 2009 at 3:57 PM
Comment pages: 1 2 3 Next »