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: « Previous 1 2 3 Next »
Heh, good one brain!
But come on now, don’t you know Polanski is an innocent victim of our tyrannical government and it’s tyrannical laws? Seriously, just ask Polanski and his many Hollyweirdo supporters, they’ll tell ya he was railroaded by the man…he’s just a victim!/em>
Liberty or Death on March 24, 2009 at 3:57 PM
Three of my children went through public high school in America; fortunately they never encountered anything like this, and the school was actually decent–with essentially a ‘school within a school’ in the form of an “I.B.” program including all ‘honors’ courses the last two years
The NEA and what’s left of the AFT need to die, and possibly need ‘assisted suicide’. Public schools are an invention of the 19th Century, with ‘high school’ a German creation of the late 1800s quickly adopted by the rest of the industrializing nations.
The public school system needs a Drastic Overhaul ASAP, with teacher’s unions the First To Go……..
Janos Hunyadi on March 24, 2009 at 3:58 PM
You don’t want to be called a “puritanical zealot”? Well, don’t call them “users”.
Esthier on March 24, 2009 at 3:58 PM
Remember, school officials are not LAW ENFORCEMENT. They do not have the right to strip search your child. Contrary to some weak-minded arguments, the school system is NOT a surrogate parent.
As a parent, you are responsible for your children. You are delegating some of your authority to the school system… but not all.
dominigan on March 24, 2009 at 3:59 PM
Yeah. It seems nuts. The school should have started by notifying the parents.
dedalus on March 24, 2009 at 4:00 PM
Yes, but you are sending your kids to school with children who may have lousy parents. You rely on the school to make sure the environment is free of immediate danger.
dedalus on March 24, 2009 at 4:01 PM
All I’m advocating for is consistent thinking. It’s great that you are outraged over state abuse of power. It’s just a little strange to me that your outrage only extends to a very narrow kind of state abuse.
justfinethanks on March 24, 2009 at 4:02 PM
Esthier on March 24, 2009 at 3:58 PM
If a person advocates for the legalization of marijuana and users the substance, what exactly should I call them?
Substance advocates?
Freedom fighters?
catmman on March 24, 2009 at 4:02 PM
Agreed, at least within reason.
If you need me to answer this question for you, then you won’t enjoy the time you spend here.
Esthier on March 24, 2009 at 4:05 PM
justfinethanks on March 24, 2009 at 4:02 PM
Listen, you and I aren’t on different sides on this issue. We differ on the aspects of drug legalization.
I was simply making the point that “legalizers” shouldn’t use this incident to politic for their stance.
catmman on March 24, 2009 at 4:05 PM
And then grow up to be President?
Socratease on March 24, 2009 at 4:05 PM
I’d personally be happy with “anti-prohibitionist.”
justfinethanks on March 24, 2009 at 4:06 PM
Esthier on March 24, 2009 at 4:05 PM
I appreciate your concern, but I don’t need to be lectured like some noob to HA, thank you very much.
catmman on March 24, 2009 at 4:07 PM
If a state wants to legalize weed, I’m OK with that. If the teachers want to smoke it at home, no problem. But alcohol and other drugs need to be kept away from students in school.
dedalus on March 24, 2009 at 4:07 PM
Schools are GOVERNMENT entities. Therefore they CANNOT have any powers the Constitution forbids the Federal and State governments.
They certainly can’t do a search of someone’s person without their consent or at the very least their PARENTS express consent unless there is probable cause. “random” is not probable cause. Neither is “because we wanted to”.
The “in loco parentis” principal does not REQUIRE the breaching of Constitutional rights in order to function. Nor can it waive INALIENABLE rights.
wildcat84 on March 24, 2009 at 4:07 PM
justfinethanks on March 24, 2009 at 4:06 PM
Nice title.
catmman on March 24, 2009 at 4:08 PM
There are lousy parents all over the place. Are you actually advocating that because there are lousy parents, school officials don’t have to abide by the 4th Amendment? Are you serious?
dominigan on March 24, 2009 at 4:09 PM
Bravo!! Hear, hear!!
JohnGalt23 on March 24, 2009 at 4:09 PM
catmman on March 24, 2009 at 4:02 PM
I am against legalizing drugs ( though the idea that pot heads will be too stoned to vote has its appeal ) I would rather have legalize drugs then schools who think they can strip search without notification because of a hunch.
Conservative Voice on March 24, 2009 at 4:10 PM
Wow. Police state tactics. Isn’t there anywhere in the world we can go to escape the lunacy?
pullingmyhairout on March 24, 2009 at 4:10 PM
No arguments here.
justfinethanks on March 24, 2009 at 4:10 PM
Let’s be very clear.
If some school person strip-searched MY daughter, I would kill said person.
originalpechanga on March 24, 2009 at 4:11 PM
When my son first went to the Freshman High School a kid on the bus tried to sell him what looked like a bag of marijuana. He told his Mom who called the school the next day. They called my son into the office asked him who the kid was and then escorted him outside to point out the kid. Needless to say he was harassed until finally the other kid was eventually expelled over something else.
Sometimes school administrators don’t use very good judgment. I know my wife is a teacher and she has ceased to be amazed at the stupidity.
roux on March 24, 2009 at 4:11 PM
Not lecturing, just pointing out your double standard.
Esthier on March 24, 2009 at 4:12 PM
Yeah, that works until the first time an “anti-prohibitionist” crashes a car and kills X number of people.
But hey, his “rights” were respected…
I don’t like jackboots either. But as has been seen with alcohol, your simply calling for “use by responsible, legal persons” doesn’t work out so well in the real world.
Are there people who can “use” and be reposnible? Sure there are, just like there are peole who imbibe alcohol from time to time and don’t “drink and drive”. But the converse is also true.
catmman on March 24, 2009 at 4:13 PM
Technically, they don’t. A student doesn’t have the right to object to a locker search, even without probable cause.
Airline passengers can’t object either. Same principle.
Esthier on March 24, 2009 at 4:15 PM
Esthier on March 24, 2009 at 4:12 PM
Calling someone what they are isn’t a double standard.
catmman on March 24, 2009 at 4:15 PM
It depends on how a search or seizure is done. Does a school have a right to:
1.) Drug test all football players?
2.) Use metal detectors or randomly search bags when students enter the building?
dedalus on March 24, 2009 at 4:16 PM
Last time I checked, one prescription pill equal to the dosage of two advils doesn’t cause an immediate danger. The poor girl probably had her period and her mom, being the good mom she is, sent her to school with something to ease the pain. Hell, had they seen my purse back in highschool, they probably would have arrested me for being a walking midol drugstore…
pullingmyhairout on March 24, 2009 at 4:16 PM
It depends on whether or not you think that this is a criminal offense. A parent could likely strip search an underaged child to look for drugs, so a school taking over the parents’ rights could do so as well if it was clearly stated in the contract. I think that if this was a male teacher then there might be a criminal complaint, but not with a female nurse (as disquieting as that might seem).
However, that is just for private institutions. When we’re talking about public schools, we’re talking about a government entity and as such there is more of an expectation of privacy and rights.
Illinidiva on March 24, 2009 at 4:17 PM
pullingmyhairout on March 24, 2009 at 4:16 PM
Good point.
We’ve had the “War on Drugs” for decades. When I went to school, you weren’t accosted for taking a Tylenol for a headache.
catmman on March 24, 2009 at 4:19 PM
And you don’t see how that can be used against you?
1. The girl didn’t have anything on her.
2. If she had, and it was prescription strength, she would have been in the wrong. Midol and Advil are just fine and can be bought over the counter.
Esthier on March 24, 2009 at 4:21 PM
The more i read your comments, the more trouble I have believing this.
JohnGalt23 on March 24, 2009 at 4:22 PM
Then you’re willing to trade your freedoms, (and everyone else’s), for the elimination of drugs from this society. How’s that working out, btw?
Oh….it’s not, is it. We have both drugs, and police state tactics to combat them. One evil, imo, is preferable to two evils.
DngrMse on March 24, 2009 at 4:22 PM
Esthier on March 24, 2009 at 4:21 PM
If I call someone a liberal who is, if I call Obama a liberal Democrat what exactly does that have to do with a double standard?
If I call a mrijuana user a “user”, that is not a double standard. If it is, then yes, I need you to explain it to me. Perhaps I’m being to literal.
catmman on March 24, 2009 at 4:22 PM
Different circumstances. Metal detectors, probably OK. Random bag searches, probably NOT ok.
Why? Because this isn’t getting on a plane at the airport, school attendance is MANDATORY. The state CANNOT compel you to waive your Constitutional Rights, nor can it assume powers that the Constitution states quite plainly that it does not have.
Drug testing football players is different, though in my opinion a violation of civil rights. The difference being that attending school to a certain age is mandatory, while extracurricular activities are not.
wildcat84 on March 24, 2009 at 4:23 PM
The FDA has decided to classify it as a prescription drug. Do you think the school should have a policy that allows students to distribute some prescription drugs but not others?
dedalus on March 24, 2009 at 4:24 PM
The Supreme Court already stated that the school does have the right to look in your purse or do random locker searches in 1985. The argument here is A. whether there was a “reasonable” suspicion that the young lady had Advil and B. whether strip searches should be excluded from the definition of in loco parentis.
But the school also makes the rules and don’t want to be liable for a girl having a bad reaction to Advil or trying to commit suicide after taking a bottle of pills. Many schools have such policies and there are well-meaning parents that don’t realize the policies and end up getting their kids in trouble. This is why you should always READ the student handbook and even go as far as to discuss issues that you have with the school.
Illinidiva on March 24, 2009 at 4:27 PM
IBUPROFEN?!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!??????
uh.
We have kids with ecstasy/coke/heroin in school…but they strip her for IBUPROFEN? Cops don’t do this crap unless they have a warrant. Government entitlement syndrome gone amok, me thinks.
Mommypundit on March 24, 2009 at 4:27 PM
Well, firstly you are presuming that anyone who advocates for legalization is a user. I personally have used marijuana in the past, but I haven’t since my wife become pregnant a few years ago. There are plenty of smart people who have never smoked who want it legalized for sound economic or political reasons, like Milton Friedman.
http://www.prohibitioncosts.org/endorsers.html
It’s not all hippies who just like getting stoned.
justfinethanks on March 24, 2009 at 4:28 PM
Not true. The school, which is acting as a GOVERNMENT entity still has to show probable cause. While the locker may be school property, the contents are not. If they have probable cause, then they can search, such as if a drug dog gets a “hit”.
At the very least, the police would have to do this and other kinds of searches, particularly searches of people’s person. Cops know a lot better than school administrators (who mostly graduated from the intellectual slums of the colleges) what is and isn’t legal. Not saying that there aren’t police that will go beyond the line though.
wildcat84 on March 24, 2009 at 4:29 PM
Moot point. The girl did not have any drugs on her. Prescription strength, or otherwise.
DngrMse on March 24, 2009 at 4:29 PM
Living with parents or guardians is mandatory for children as well, and parents and guardians have the right to look through your bag, check in your room, demand you take drug tests, etc. Schools take over that right through that right because they are acting as the parent during the school day.
Illinidiva on March 24, 2009 at 4:30 PM
I think you are parsing the issue with some of the right criteria. Though plenty of adults have to show up for court or other government buildings with bag and body searches. Their appearance at the government building isn’t optional, neither is the search.
There is probably a measure of public safety that needs to be weighed against individual privacy. If there was some concern about kids having bombs or other weapons in their bags I’d be more than OK with randomly opening up their bags or lockers.
On the drug testing there was a court case that said it was OK to test extracurricular participants. The ruling also indicated that if the case had been about regular students the decision would have gone the other way. Make sense and along the lines of what you were thinking.
dedalus on March 24, 2009 at 4:31 PM
DngrMse on March 24, 2009 at 4:22 PM
What’s your point? You don’t address my concern. I would prefer no “evil” over ANY evil.
I could use your justification to say that alcohol users have the “right” to get blind drunk and drive their car. If the person is legal and otherwise “responsible”, everything is OK, right? To do anything otherwise in an infringment of the drunks “rights”, yes? We allow this for alcohol users and we still have tragedy from time to time.
All I ever hear from legalization proponents is that if a person is “responsible” and what not, no one has any business telling them “what they can do with their bodies”. I hear abortion proponents say the same thing.
And why such hostility towards someone who simply has a difference of opinion? You think legalizing drugs would be fine, I think it would be a bad idea.
Of course the point of the original post was about an obviously illegal and improper search…
catmman on March 24, 2009 at 4:33 PM
They had an eye witness. Not all searches result in finding what is being looked for.
dedalus on March 24, 2009 at 4:33 PM
Um….
Do the Assistant Principal, secretary, and school nurse have names?
karl_lembke on March 24, 2009 at 4:34 PM
I’d like to point out Ed’s words:
If you follow the link you see the school board lost the case even with the Ninth Circus deciding. It isn’t Ms. Redding driving this to SCOTUS.
INC on March 24, 2009 at 4:37 PM
justfinethanks on March 24, 2009 at 4:28 PM
Point taken. However, most legalization proponents are in fact, users.
Fine you aren’t a user anymore, but you were a user at one time, yes. So you would be a “former-user” but a current “anti-prohibitionist”.
catmman on March 24, 2009 at 4:37 PM
No. I think the school administrators should use a little common sense. Any idiot knows that Advil is not a recreational drug.
BacaDog on March 24, 2009 at 4:38 PM
We all would, but that’s a fantasy world.
No, because then you are putting people in danger. You aren’t putting people in danger when you get stoned in your home.
One of the many reasons that we “allow” alcohol is because its impossible to prohibit alcohol. People will get it, legally or no. You can’t vanish something just by making it illegal.
With abortion, you aren’t just dealing with your body. There is ANOTHER body involved. That’s not the case with weed.
If you realized that you were contributing a stunning amount of money to a Drug war that accomplishes nothing besides terrorizing citizens, you might get a little hostile too.
justfinethanks on March 24, 2009 at 4:38 PM
That’s fair. Though I obviously don’t have a problem with weed, and I’d probably consider trying it again when my Daughter is able to support herself. Hell, it might help spur brain cell growth in my old age.
justfinethanks on March 24, 2009 at 4:41 PM
I imagine they weren’t printed to “protect their privacy”.
Ironic isn’t it.
BacaDog on March 24, 2009 at 4:42 PM
It’s the connotation versus denotation issue. User is a pejorative word, and the fact that a person advocating marijuana use uses the drug is irrelevant to whether or not the statements made by that person are worthwhile.
There are plenty in the legalize it crowd who have never smoked anything.
Esthier on March 24, 2009 at 4:43 PM
That’s one problem with the over-lawyering of America. Teachers often feel they can’t use common sense. In this case the administrators’ boss give them a “zero tolerance” policy, rather than a “use your judgement” policy. I prefer the latter, but we have too much of the former.
dedalus on March 24, 2009 at 4:43 PM
That eyewitness was another girl. If you read the NYT column it seems this was petty revenge. You think 13 year old girls can’t be catty? They’re the worse. Even if the so-called “friend” was just scared, the adults didn’t even ask Redding if she had any pills, they just searched her.
If you read the column it sounds as if some other kids were out to take her down.
INC on March 24, 2009 at 4:44 PM
Man. Imagine what would happen if they were looking for crack or meth. Roman Polanski meets Mr. Fantastic?
smellthecoffee on March 24, 2009 at 4:44 PM
justfinethanks on March 24, 2009 at 4:38 PM
You can’t see past your own biases?
You think that me preffering no evil is living in a fantasy world. I think people who think people will “only get stoned in their home” isn’t just fantasy, but patently absurd.
Abortion proponents, the hardcore variety in particular, believe what they believe precisely because they DON’T think there is another body involved, it’s just an unviable tissue mass. You seem to take a similar take – marijuana is harmless, and people won’t be put in danger because they will only do it in their home. Again, who’s living in a fantasy world?
You think the “drug war” has accomplished nothing. I think using the particualr circumstance the post is about to advocate for drug legalization is ridiculous. We will just have to agree to disagree.
catmman on March 24, 2009 at 4:48 PM
Yes, it seems like the weak probable cause combined with a somewhat innocuous drug sank the school in court.
However, if a police officer wanted to search someone I’d guess that an eye witness statement would be sufficient.
dedalus on March 24, 2009 at 4:52 PM
Esthier on March 24, 2009 at 4:43 PM
I didn’t mean “user” to be pejorative, if it came off that way, that wasn’t the intent. I was simply being ‘literal’.
However, most legalization proponents are indeed users as I posted in an earlier comment. Yes there are some proponents who don’t use or don’t use anymore – again, point taken.
catmman on March 24, 2009 at 4:53 PM
Sufficient for a strip-search for some unauthorized ibuprofin? Not unless he enjoys getting his department successfully sued.
Give it up, dedalus. You’re being a fool in defending the indefensible.
Hollowpoint on March 24, 2009 at 4:55 PM
They also mandate attendance at jail for those suspected of a crime.
If anything, making attendance mandatory would only mean that it is that much more important that schools are safe places for children.
Except that, as Illinidiva pointed out, schools can do bag searches. Some schools even mandate that you only bring a backpack that is see through.
But again, how is that even relevant?
Also, considering that even caffeine is a drug, the vast majority of Hot Air posters are “users” with Starbucks as our pusher.
Esthier on March 24, 2009 at 4:56 PM
Here’s the other side:
Ms Redding was fingered by a putative “friend”. Hopefully the “friend” was part of this lawsuit.
unclesmrgol on March 24, 2009 at 4:56 PM
I suppose no one can, but I try to.
I’m not saying drug abuse doesn’t exist, or that all pot use will be responsible. But I am saying that harmless instances of marijuana use should not be criminal. It’s silly to ban something just because it MIGHT be abused. That’s the same logic anti 2nd amendment people use. They say that guns MIGHT be used for evil, so we should do away with all of them.
I don’t think that people will ONLY do it in their home. I do however, know that the overwhelming majority of use will be responsible, as it is with alcohol. Prohibition just doesn’t work. Despite our trying to ban it, it is the number one cash crop in the country.
The only reason I bring up marijuana is because the only thing unusual about this case is the girl’s age. People are treated like this all the time for having a harmless substance on them. Sometimes they are even killed because police MISTAKENLY think that they have pot in their house. This is obviously outrageous, but abuse like this happens CONSTANTLY.
Except no one cares when it happens because of pot, to adults, because people think that the only people who smoke weed are stupid lazy stoners.
justfinethanks on March 24, 2009 at 5:01 PM
Even if the police did it they still could be liable and could be sued. Also, this very well could also have gone to the supreme court as well.
Simply put, someone’s word isn’t probable cause, especially given the context, that the accuser was both underage and would have benefited from lying in her accusation.
The accuser is of course, responsible for their accusation. One of our fundamental rights is the right to FACE our accusers and to cross examine them. If an accuser lies, they are guilty of perjury.
Plus, the police could NOT have performed the search in this context anyway, as over the counter ibuprofen isn’t a controlled substance, isn’t illegal to possess, isn’t illegal for a minor to possess, etc. Contrary to what some school admin nazis would like to think, school policy isn’t LAW.
This is probably why the school didn’t involve the police, they wouldn’t have gotten involved anyway.
Which SHOULD have been enough reason for the school administrators to NOT DO THE SEARCH, if the police wouldn’t do it, they surely shouldn’t!
wildcat84 on March 24, 2009 at 5:01 PM
Also, considering that even caffeine is a drug, the vast majority of Hot Air posters are “users” with Starbucks as our pusher.
Esthier on March 24, 2009 at 4:56 PM
Yes, this is a correct statement, rather colorfully put.
catmman on March 24, 2009 at 5:01 PM
Or rather, because they are already breaking the law, which is a different argument altogether. Even if you disagree with the law, that doesn’t mean it’s legal to break it.
Plus, seeing as children need their parents in the room to be questioned, it would make sense that they likewise be protected from being nude in front of strangers.
Esthier on March 24, 2009 at 5:04 PM
Schools cannot do bag searches without probable cause. This is why they are doing things like requiring transparent backpacks so they don’t have to, since the bag’s contents are then in public view.
Even if they search a locker, they cannot search things inside it that aren’t school property without probable cause.
Courts have ruled that metal detectors, and detection dogs, etc, can give the state probable cause, which is why they are employed. Again, “because I am in charge and I want to” doesn’t constitute probable cause. There has to be something of substance behind any such warrantless search.
Authoritarian types HATE the probable cause requirement. Which is why the founders put it in the Constitution.
wildcat84 on March 24, 2009 at 5:05 PM
because people think that the only people who smoke weed are stupid lazy stoners.
justfinethanks on March 24, 2009 at 5:01 PM
Come on dude, most people that DO use pot are exactly that! :)
Kidding! Kidding!
Look we are just, like I said, going to have to agree to disagree on this. I do thank you for the debate however, it was fun.
catmman on March 24, 2009 at 5:05 PM
Not at all. The court was right, the school was wrong. However, school administrators still need to go to work tomorrow and prevent students from swapping drugs as freely as MP3′s.
Is your point that:
1.) The school should have learned about the Ibuprofen and ignored it because (based on their pharmacological opinion) they think it is an OK prescription med.
2.) The school should have searched her bags but not her clothing?
3.) When one student implicates another in a drug matter the school should only follow up if they can collect additional evidence?
Perhaps your point is that given all the factors the school should have made a different common sense judgement. I’d agree, but other schools should have good guidelines to avoid either unnecessary strip searches or dropping the ball on drug enforcement.
dedalus on March 24, 2009 at 5:09 PM
Well, this kid was breaking the Zero Tolerance policy. Just because you disagree with the policy, that doesn’t mean that it’s ok to break it.
/s
It’s obviously a little silly to say, “Well, if it’s illegal, then it’s wrong, and you should always follow the laws in every instance.” There wouldn’t even be an America if everyone thought like that. Nor would the civil rights movement have happened. I find enforcement of this particular law to be wildly immoral and invasive.
justfinethanks on March 24, 2009 at 5:10 PM
they suspected ADVIL? hilarious. next thing you know they will try to punish a kid for using a nerf gun.
Jamson64 on March 24, 2009 at 5:15 PM
I’d like to point out that girl who was searched DID NOT have any ibuprofen on her. She had broken NO RULES. She was accused by another kid who did.
Ms. Redding was searched on HEARSAY by a vindictive or scared 13 year old.
She was not even asked before hand if she had the drug.
INC on March 24, 2009 at 5:18 PM
Good link. Prescription drugs (though not Ibuprofen) are a big problem. Kids steal them from their parents and trade them. Some kids end up addicted or in the emergency room.
dedalus on March 24, 2009 at 5:19 PM
Actually, that’s more for expediency, but I’m not sure there is much of a legal difference in searching a bag or forcing someone to have everything in their bag in plain view.
Either way, you’re still being forced to allow others to see exactly what you are carrying with no concerns to privacy.
Esthier on March 24, 2009 at 5:19 PM
I think it was an eye witness not a hearsay witness.
dedalus on March 24, 2009 at 5:20 PM
Precisely. When you start tightening the rules to an extreme degree, innocent people suffer. Because the more power that you grant, the more that it will be abused.
justfinethanks on March 24, 2009 at 5:21 PM
Or 4) That parents should have been called before allowing a strip search.
I would think parents would get a say if a school decides one is necessary.
No, she wasn’t actually.
Yes, that is silly. I would be silly if I’d said that. Only, I didn’t.
That’s not the same as finding the law immoral or invasive.
Esthier on March 24, 2009 at 5:23 PM
OK, I’m using the wrong term. It was a supposed eye witness who was in fact lying.
INC on March 24, 2009 at 5:26 PM
I don’t know why a school can’t randomly search backpacks. Some court houses (filled with cops and lawyer) have signs that say “all bags are subject to search”.
dedalus on March 24, 2009 at 5:26 PM
Power being granted to perform strip searches isn’t the same as making substances illegal to bring into school.
Esthier on March 24, 2009 at 5:28 PM
What do you think the school should have done? How might they evaluate if the witness is credible? What if the drug had been cocaine?
dedalus on March 24, 2009 at 5:28 PM
Ibuprofin is bad?
But our Pres want legislation that allows the girl an abortion, birthcontrol etc with zero parental niotification.
Remember a great big speculum and a suction machiine is much more invasive.
seven on March 24, 2009 at 5:29 PM
The Roman Polanski comments was great. It is the first thing I thought about when I saw this thread.
Mr. Joe on March 24, 2009 at 5:30 PM
Read the rest of the column and you can see how flimsy the school knew their case was. They suspected her of carrying ibuprofen because she’d been rowdy at a dance several months previously and staff “thought” they smelled alcohol? Her accuser regarding a pre-dance party wasn’t even there? The whole thing is ridiculous. If they thought there was a problem, then at the time they should have spoken with the parents. Why’d they wait a few months? As it is, they were reaching for justification for their actions.
INC on March 24, 2009 at 5:30 PM
umm.. As a former member of the local school board, this is waaay over the top and totally illegal. The school wasted their money by taking this to the Supremes.
We have a drug policy…it allows for random drug tests for students involved in extracurricular activities, but it does not allow strip searches, which our lawyer advised against including in the policy. The reason is that students have the right to not be the subject of illegal searches, u know, that provision in the Constitution.
becki51758 on March 24, 2009 at 5:31 PM
The kid gets strip searched because she might have some ibuprophen? That is a bad thing of course. But if she had of been with child they would have arranged a trip to Planned Parenthood and that would have been cool. Don’t we have a lot of things back-ass-wards in this country?
el rey on March 24, 2009 at 5:33 PM
Well, what you actually said was.
Which is a tautology. OBVIOUSLY its illegal to break the law. There is no point to be made by saying that. I thought you were more bright than to simply make this circular statement, and what you meant to say was that it was WRONG to break the law.
So correct me. Did you mean to pointlessly state a self evident, meaningless tautology, i.e. “No matter how you feel about the law, it’s illegal to break it.”
Or did you mean to merely make a statement that’s false, i.e. “It’s always wrong the break the law.”
Uh, I suppose not technically, but just for the sake of clarity, I think that too.
justfinethanks on March 24, 2009 at 5:33 PM
Too late.
Hollowpoint on March 24, 2009 at 5:33 PM
Our schools ban tylenol, aspirin, asthma inhalers, and anything else that isn’t on the cafeteria menu, but girls as young as middle school can get BIRTH CONTROL PILLS through the school without parental notification. Insantity!
Worse still is the presumption of guilt and the asssumption that a clean record equals not getting caught. That is just sick. I wish the vice principal could get jail time for having this girl violated.
Laura in Maryland on March 24, 2009 at 5:34 PM
If they found cocaine on the first girl, call the police and parents and let the police handle it from there. Same with other illegal substances.
For prescription ibuprofen, ask the girl if she had any (which they neglected to do). I taught school and I’m a mom. You get to know pretty quickly who the kids are with integrity and who the ones are who are petty and go after others.
This girl had no disciplinary record. If I knew her and thought she was trustworthy I’d give her the benefit of the doubt. If not, I’d call the mom and ask if she had an ibuprofen Rx for any reason.
That’s off the top of my head. A well run school should have a protocol in place. This was just over the top.
As I said, petty bureaucrats run amok with power.
INC on March 24, 2009 at 5:35 PM
I find it incredible that anyone would take a position that it is OK under ANY circumstances for ANYONE to force a 13 year old girl to show them her genitals; without a court order and a search warrant and in a controlled medical setting by a physician, and with her parents informed of the situation before hand. I don’t care if she had a machinegun in her drawers; you can’t see a little girl’s genitals just because you think it might be a good idea. But she didn’t have even the item they claim to have been looking for, so whatever they say they though she had is irrelevant.
Furthermore, in this case the excuse of
is ludicrous. The school was NOT acting as a parent, as any parent would be immediately jailed for doing what they did. If a girl told a school nurse that her parents had made her show them her genitals the nurse would call the police.
And I do wonder why this story is reported complete with the girl’s name, but not that of the school officials involved. Since when is it OK to identify a minor victim of a sex crime but withhold the identity of the perpetrators?
MikeA on March 24, 2009 at 5:36 PM
We do.
INC on March 24, 2009 at 5:37 PM
A private school depends on tuition for their income. One incident like this and income drops like a stone in a vacuum. So no I don’t think it could just as easily have happened in a private school. You should never piss off your customers, it’s bad for business.
Oldnuke on March 24, 2009 at 5:37 PM
True. I should have phrased that better.
There’s a third choice there. What I meant was that even if a law is wrong (or if you simply disagree with it) that doesn’t mean you should be free from the legal ramifications of your actions.
Which is pretty much what I said though poorly phrased.
More than just technically. Many agree that the enforcement of the law is wrong but still agree with the law.
Esthier on March 24, 2009 at 5:37 PM
Unless of course, your customers are forced to pay you or else suffer jail time.
Esthier on March 24, 2009 at 5:39 PM
Also, I find it more of an offense to my intelligence that you believe I believe all laws are moral by virtue of them being laws than for you to believe that I was trying to make a circular statement.
Esthier on March 24, 2009 at 5:40 PM
Parents can strip search their children. They can also go through their bedrooms and personal possessions to look for drugs when they aren’t home. The Constitution protects people from the state, not children from their parents.
dedalus on March 24, 2009 at 5:40 PM
Schools shouldn’t be performing strip searches. Period. If it’s a matter serious enough that there’s strong evidence that a strip search is called for (possession of narcotics, deadly weapon, etc), they can call her parents or the police.
One girl got caught with prescription ibuprofin (a non-intoxicating, slightly stronger version of an over the counter medication) and blamed another girl. A stern talking to would probably be enough; asking her to empty her purse and pockets more than sufficient.
Public school officials are agents of the government with authority over students. This was a gross violation of that authority- no matter what their self-imposed “zero tolerance” policy is.
Hollowpoint on March 24, 2009 at 5:41 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 Next »