The way a story is “spun” sure seems to determine public reaction.

Fatal on June 26, 2009 at 12:55 PM

Yes. It behooves people to reserve reaction until after they’ve attempted to see past the spin.

“The content of the suspicion failed to match the degree of intrusion,” Justice David Souter wrote for the majority.

So basically, if the school had reason to suspect that this student was in possession of marijuana or cocaine or methamphetamine, or something more “dangerous” then a “strip search” by school officials would have been okay.

By the way, the use of the term “strip search” in this case is a misnomer used simply in a rather callous attempt to increase the “outrage” at the conduct. The girl stripped down to her bra and panties in front of a female school nurse, so she was left wearing clothing similar to that which she would have voluntarily appeared in, in front of her male teachers and classmates, at any beach or swimming pool. Since she never was required to be naked, the use of the term “strip search” is used simply for its shock value.

Also, there is a lot of bad info being put forward on this thread.

. . . about half of all search warrants are issued for wrong addresses or against innocent people based on the word of felons.

Unless you have some facts to back up this assertion, I am going to say this is a blatant untruth. All applications for search warrants are reviewed by a judge and the warrant itself is issued by a judge. The vast majority of search warrants are perfectly legitimate and upheld despite the best efforts of attorneys to get evidence thrown out of court on every silly theory under the sun.

If its not imminent, or pose some danger, the cops can’t just track you down and search you. They can ask you questions, but if they don’t see somthing THEN to give probable cause (that a crime is currently being commited), they can’t search you.

This is also not accurate. If a police officer has “probable cause” to arrest a person, regardless of whether that is based on something the officer themselves observed, or based on what they’ve been told by other police officers, etc, then the officer can “track you down” even if its for something you did days, weeks or months prior (although its “best” to get an arrest warrant, is it NOT required in most states). They can then arrest you, search the arrested person without a warrant (its called a search “incident to arrest”) and can search for any evidence of the crime for which the person is being arrested, any contraband, any weapon or anything that could be used as an “instrumentality of escape” (including something as small as a handcuff key). The idea that the police officer has to “see” you committing a crime in order to have probable cause is just plain wrong. Reminds me of the guy who, under oath, in court, in front of the judge, admitted to driving on public streets when his license was criminally suspended, but claimed he could not be found guilty because the police officer who arrested him never actually “saw” him driving. Needless to say, the Judge soon disabused him of that wrong notion.

I wonder if the reactions would be different if this story had been: “Student dies after being given prescription-only controlled substances by another student!” Then continued that: “The tragic death occurred despite the fact that school officials had been told by other students that the offending student was carring controlled substances around the school. School officials decided that they could do nothing and did not have authority to conduct a search of the offending student based on recent court rulings. The offending student was the child of a single-mother who was apparently at work at the time and was unable to be contacted. Local law-enforcement was unable to respond (due to personnel shortages caused by recent budget cuts) but had assigned an officer to follow-up with a telephone interview at a later time. The local police chief defended that reaction pointing out that “mere rumors” among members of the student body were insufficient to justify police involvement.”

The way a story is “spun” sure seems to determine public reaction.

Judge Thomas simply seems to be saying that the courts have so tied the hands of school officials that the doctrine of “in loco parentis” can no longer be said to exist and in a society where parents no longer discipline their children (a good percentage simply for fear they will be charged with some form of abuse), that we are raising generation after generation of children who are essentially free to run wild, thumbing their nose at any and all authority figures all the while being backed up by threats of law-suits by lawyers out to make a buck any way they can.

I was shocked that this one was ever in doubt. Hell, I was shocked that school officials would have even thought this was a reasonable, legitimate course of action. But then again, I’ve seen some stupid administrators in my time……

Soooo, what case law are ya’ll referring to in coming to the conclusion that Thomas is wrong? I would hope you’re not arguing that we should decide based on the EMPATHY we feel for the young girl in question?

Let’s say it was a boy who was suspected of being a gang member instead, accused of selling drugs. Still against it?

I agree that this particular case has a compelling defendant. But other cases that will use this law as precedent may not have sweet little Tylenol users.

hawksruleva on June 25, 2009 at 3:36 PM

.
Yes. They violated reasonable on so many levels it is terrifying.

Reading through the news reports of this case, she wasn’t actually required to strip, but rather pull clothing away from her body to allow any contraband to fall.

I’m of two minds on this one. If it’s one of my daughters, they damn well better call me or I will raise some hell. Schools do have a lot of leeway with searches (lockers, bags, etc. without probable cause–only justification) and in fact have more authority to search than police officers on school grounds. I believe Souter’s opinion said that because schools are public (and government-run), they are acting as government officials (or something to that effect). Well than what about private schools? And no one has address Thomas’ point about kids now having a place to hide contraband…Lot to think about on this one…

1.) No nudity, just emptying pockets and bags?
2.) If the suspected substance was weed? Cocaine?
3.) If it was a boy instead of a girl?
4.) If the evidence were stronger?

dedalus on June 25, 2009 at 5:50 PM

I would say under any of these scenarios: Still, call the police. School officials do not get paid NEARLY enough to deal with me in the event that they try to search my child like this girl was searched.

In almost every federal circuit, the standard required in order to strip search SOMEONE BEING PLACED INTO PRISON POPULATION, is reasonable suspicion that they are carrying a weapon, drugs, contraband, etc.

So, with NO level of suspicion, so to speak, one would hope that kids in a school setting would be subject to the same level or protection as felons and potential felons being locked up.

As a matter of public policy, however, I would opt for NO such searches by school officials. If there is a reason to believe a kid is carrying illegal or at least school-banned substances, the school officials should put their money where their mouths are, and being in the police (someone in a supervisory capacity) to determine whether a search is warranted, and whether it is legal, and to perform it. Law enforcement is at least theoretically trained and will not take unnecessary risks either way in deciding whether to search. But school officials…. nay.

God help the school official that performs any kind of physical search of my child.

(But that’s why I would never put a child of mind in public school.)

I’m pleased with the court ruling. Some of these “adults” in our school system are out of control and go beyond the trust and authority granted them. This girl should have simply said “no, you are not searching me, call my parents”. People would be well advised take the responsiblity of being the primary instructor on life for their child seriously, if so a lot less of this stuff would be going on.

However, it seems to me that school officials shouldn’t conduct these kinds of searches at all, but should instead either call the parents or call the police, who (usually) have better training on the conduct of searches.

Agreed.

One think I always knew, if a social worker showed up at my house for any reason (abuse reports are anonymous), I knew enough to tell them to get a warrant and the police, who are trained to interview without leading the “witness”.

Social workers, teachers, most certainly public school administrators are NOT trained to be objective…this would have been lawsuit fodder for me…if the student is a minor, then call the parents!

SCOTUS: Strip-searching teenage girls for Ibuprofen not cool

I wonder what made them swing this way after “Bong Hits for Jesus” was performed on a sidewalk not on “school” property…

blink on June 25, 2009 at 6:26 PM

Just in case there’s any confusion I should add one more thing.

It is also a violation of ARS 13-3411 to intentionally be present in a drug free school zone to sell or transfer prescription-only drugs. However, a student intentionally being present to attend class obviously doesn’t fit this category.

Trust me… not my law.

Romeo13 on June 25, 2009 at 5:59 PM

What does that mean? What’s not your law?

The problem is that the reason she was being searched in the first place DID put it in the category of those statutes that needed law enforcment to be involved.

Not true. Arizona law requires school officials to contact law enforcement for violations of ARS 13-3411.

1. The specific language of ARS 13-3411 only states “Possess or use marijuana, peyote, dangerous drugs or narcotic drugs in a drug free school zone.” Ibuprofen doesn’t fit any of these.

2. BTW, suspected possession isn’t possession.

So, for two separate reasons, this DIDN’T “put it in the category.”

What? Dude, serious logic error.

Just because certain crimes REQUIRE law enforcement involvement doesn’t mean that EVERY statute violation requires law enforcement violation.

blink on June 25, 2009 at 5:48 PM

Trust me… not my law.

The problem is that the reason she was being searched in the first place DID put it in the category of those statutes that needed law enforcment to be involved.

1.) No nudity, just emptying pockets and bags?
2.) If the suspected substance was weed? Cocaine?
3.) If it was a boy instead of a girl?
4.) If the evidence were stronger?

dedalus on June 25, 2009 at 5:50 PM

Great questions. I’m sure certain school district counsel will be asking themselves these same question.

To enforce a Rule? IMO they should not be able to strip search without parental permission…

…the school should not be strip searching children.

Romeo13 on June 25, 2009 at 5:42 PM

1. I have NEVER argued otherwise, BUT USSC might not agree with you. I think they made it clear that the benign nature of the substance involved (Ibuprofen) was a factor in their decision.

2. I have only argued the assertion that it was appropriate to contact law enforcement to handle rule violations.

I probably agree with Clarence Thomas that the school was acting narrowly to address a problem that they view as serious. Prescription drug abuse may not be serious, but that isn’t the job of SCOTUS to decide.

I wonder what single factor would have to change in order to get commentors to support the school?

1.) No nudity, just emptying pockets and bags?
2.) If the suspected substance was weed? Cocaine?
3.) If it was a boy instead of a girl?
4.) If the evidence were stronger?

When it comes to “real” weapons, or drugs, the school HAS to call the cops. Thats the law. They have no discretion on this (at least here in Colorado).

Romeo13 on June 25, 2009 at 5:42 PM

What? Dude, serious logic error.

Just because certain crimes REQUIRE law enforcement involvement doesn’t mean that EVERY statute violation requires law enforcement violation.

There was no evidence to support that claim, Savana was drug free, so the charge against Savana was wrong.

maverick muse on June 25, 2009 at 5:17 PM

Ever heard of a stash? My brother in law, who served for over two decades as a vice principal on both middle and high school campuses, frequently found kids who, when searched, had nothing on them, but, when he retraced where they were travelling, found their drugs (stashes) in bushes, garbage cans, etc. Forensics (fingerprinting) on the bags containing the drugs frequently linked them to the students.

Personally, I think schools should have the same powers as parents; everything a parent can do in searching their kid, a school should be able to do. In liberal land, the reverse is true too — what a school can’t do, a parent can’t do either, since civil rights remain constant regardless of circumstance.

Now students have carte blanc to carry any number of little white (or purple, or whatever) pills they’ve gotten from the medicine cabinet — and searching said students will now be a violation of rights, no matter how deadly the substance might be.

Wrong. Thats the whole reason for search warrants in the first place.

Romeo13 on June 25, 2009 at 5:30 PM

Seriously. Stop being silly. Read the decision of New Jersey v. T.L.O. It’s even specific to school searches.

Imminent danger is certainly NOT a mandatory criterion for a warrantless search.

blink on June 25, 2009 at 5:31 PM

Sorry, but on certain subjects, it is true.

When it comes to “real” weapons, or drugs, the school HAS to call the cops. Thats the law. They have no discretion on this (at least here in Colorado).

She had been accused of a crime. They were searching for evidence of a CRIME. This ratchets up the need to protect HER rights, and to follow the proper procedures so that the search would be legal.

Problem here is the line between Rule and Law.

To enforce a Rule? IMO they should not be able to strip search without parental permission…

To enforce a Law? The school should not be doing it, they should call in Trained Law Enforcement so it can be done properly, and Legaly.

So, IMO, in either case, the school should not be strip searching children.