Author Topic: Strip-search of US girl illegal (Read 13116 times)

MicroBalrog · « **on:** June 25, 2009, 06:50:28 PM »

Strip-search of US girl illegal

The US Supreme Court has ruled that school staff broke the law when they ordered a 13-year-old girl to strip while searching her for painkillers.

The Arizona school, which bans prescription and over-the-counter drugs, suspected Savana Redding, then 13, of carrying ibuprofen.

After no drugs were found in her bag, she had to remove her clothing, and then move her bra and underwear.

However, the court said individuals could not be held liable in a lawsuit.

The school principal acted on a tip-off from another student that Savana was carrying ibuprofen.

Justice David Souter said: "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," Associated Press reported.

"We think that the combination of these deficiencies was fatal to finding the search reasonable."

The justices said the lower courts would have to determine whether Safford United School District No. 1 could be held liable.
Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/americas/8119392.stm

Published: 2009/06/25 15:26:11 GMT

Â© BBC MMIX

Micro Sez: Finally, sense!

Jamisjockey · « **Reply #1 on:** June 25, 2009, 06:51:43 PM »

Half sense. It still allows for the idiocy of no-tolerance policies.

lupinus · « **Reply #2 on:** June 25, 2009, 07:02:07 PM »

BS. Everyone of the bastards should be legally liable.

If you think the girl needs to be searched beyond her locker, bag, and emptying her packets they should have to call a police officer to take over from there.

Under no circumstances should school officials be allowed to search beyond a students locker and bags.

Nick1911 · « **Reply #3 on:** June 25, 2009, 07:06:05 PM »

Quote from: lupinus on June 25, 2009, 07:02:07 PM

BS. Everyone of the bastards should be legally liable.

If you think the girl needs to be searched beyond her locker, bag, and emptying her packets they should have to call a police officer to take over from there.

Under no circumstances should school officials be allowed to search beyond a students locker and bags.

Agreed.

The individuals involved should be personally liable.

I though we got rid of "I was just doing my job" with the Nuremberg trials...

Balog · « **Reply #4 on:** June 25, 2009, 07:15:23 PM »

I thought it was crazy the "take off your shirt and pants" parts was ok, and it was only "unreasonable" when they asked her to pull out her bra and panties.

And not holding these bastards liable is a slap in the face.

cassandra and sara's daddy · « **Reply #5 on:** June 25, 2009, 07:17:34 PM »

remains to be seen if they are held liable the court didn't rule on that

Balog · « **Reply #6 on:** June 25, 2009, 07:18:16 PM »

Quote from: cassandra and sara's daddy on June 25, 2009, 07:17:34 PM

remains to be seen if they are held liable the court didn't rule on that

Perhaps I misread the article, but I was pretty sure it said they couldn't be. Hope I'm wrong tho.

MicroBalrog · « **Reply #7 on:** June 25, 2009, 07:19:31 PM »

Oh, no, it's not a perfect ruling. But it puts a lid on the entire "School administrators can do whatever the hell they want, "children" are subhumans" idiocy that we in so many schools.

cassandra and sara's daddy · « **Reply #8 on:** June 25, 2009, 07:21:02 PM »

yea the district can still be held liable, maybe but the court did say the individuals were not liable. that is weird kinda like those cases where they find the guy innocent of a crime but guilty of obstruction how can you obstruct if there is no crime?

AZRedhawk44 · « **Reply #9 on:** June 25, 2009, 07:21:39 PM »

C&SD: The individual administrators can't be held liable, but the district as a whole can...

Great way to manufacture a ponzi scheme, IMO.

I'm a principal. I'll order your daughter to do a strip search if you'll split the civil suit proceedings with me down the middle. We'll get millions from the district... I'll lose my job but then I'll go buy a thousand acres out in the mountains and live like a king. And I'll never feel an ounce of heat for my decisions. In fact, I'll get rewarded.

MicroBalrog · « **Reply #10 on:** June 25, 2009, 07:32:45 PM »

Well, AZRedhawk, maybe the districts can avoid such things if they make out strict rules limiting the powers of officials to strip-search children (and I note here that principals are not law enforcement), and then they wouldn't be held liable for people doing arbitrary stuff.

Maybe they can even start respecting the dignity of students - but that'd probably be "utopian" of me.

Balog · « **Reply #11 on:** June 25, 2009, 07:36:33 PM »

Quote from: AZRedhawk44 on June 25, 2009, 07:21:39 PM

Great way to manufacture a ponzi scheme, IMO.

What you describe is fraud, but not a ponzi scheme. Over/mis use of a term robs it of it's effectiveness.

Nick1911 · « **Reply #12 on:** June 25, 2009, 07:42:22 PM »

So, in light of this, for the parents out there; what should you teach your children about dealing with the situation where school administrators tell them to remove their clothes?

Balog · « **Reply #13 on:** June 25, 2009, 07:45:43 PM »

I don't know how people can ship their kids off to public schools, honestly. Thank God for home-schooling.

Nitrogen · « **Reply #14 on:** June 25, 2009, 07:47:44 PM »

Quote from: lupinus on June 25, 2009, 07:02:07 PM

BS. Everyone of the bastards should be legally liable.

If you think the girl needs to be searched beyond her locker, bag, and emptying her packets they should have to call a police officer to take over from there.

Under no circumstances should school officials be allowed to search beyond a students locker and bags.

It should also require a warrant.

Jamisjockey · « **Reply #15 on:** June 25, 2009, 07:49:48 PM »

Quote from: Balog on June 25, 2009, 07:45:43 PM

I don't know how people can ship their kids off to public schools, honestly. Thank God for home-schooling.

Considering the dems consistently remove choice from the table...........

Quote from: Nick1911 on June 25, 2009, 07:42:22 PM

So, in light of this, for the parents out there; what should you teach your children about dealing with the situation where school administrators tell them to remove their clothes?

My kids already know the unequivocal answer to that.

Balog · « **Reply #16 on:** June 25, 2009, 07:51:00 PM »

Quote from: JamisJockey on June 25, 2009, 07:49:48 PM

Considering the dems consistently remove choice from the table...........

My kids already know the unequivocal answer to that.

Yeah, I realize it's not a viable option for some people. But a lot of people could find an alternative if they tried.

MicroBalrog · « **Reply #17 on:** June 25, 2009, 07:56:54 PM »

Quote

Considering the dems consistently remove choice from the table...........

Wasn't homeschooling legal in all 50 states?

MicroBalrog · « **Reply #18 on:** June 25, 2009, 07:58:18 PM »

Found the link. Yes, it is, and relatively unregulated.

lupinus · « **Reply #19 on:** June 25, 2009, 08:00:33 PM »

Quote from: Nitrogen on June 25, 2009, 07:47:44 PM

It should also require a warrant.

It should require the same thing any police search does. Warrant OR probable cause. Perhaps I am wrong, last I checked a police search of a person does not require a warrant, only probable cause.

Jamisjockey · « **Reply #20 on:** June 25, 2009, 08:03:55 PM »

Quote from: MicroBalrog on June 25, 2009, 07:56:54 PM

Wasn't homeschooling legal in all 50 states?

And how do you propose a single parent household pull off working and homeschooling? Or dual-income families that don't make enough for one parent to stay home?

Quote from: lupinus on June 25, 2009, 08:00:33 PM

It should require the same thing and police search does. Warrant OR probable cause. Perhaps I am wrong, last I checked a search of a person did not require a warrant, only probable cause.

By the police. These were school administrators. Last I checked, they weren't law enforcement.

lupinus · « **Reply #21 on:** June 25, 2009, 08:05:42 PM »

JJ, thought that would have been clear from my earlier post where I called BS on school admins doing it.

Sorry for any confusion, edited to add the by the police part.

Jamisjockey · « **Reply #22 on:** June 25, 2009, 08:07:33 PM »

Quote from: lupinus on June 25, 2009, 08:05:42 PM

JJ, thought that would have been clear from my earlier post where I called BS on school admins doing it.

Sorry for any confusion, edited to add the by the police part.

My bad, I see your earlier post.

Balog · « **Reply #23 on:** June 25, 2009, 09:42:57 PM »

JJ: I know it's not a popular opinion, but a double income family could afford it, they just refuse to adjust their lifestyle. I always hate to see people choose material things over their kids best interests. Sad commentary on today's excessive, debt ridden society.

Standing Wolf · « **Reply #24 on:** June 25, 2009, 10:00:00 PM »

Quote

The Arizona school, which bans prescription and over-the-counter drugs, suspected Savana Redding, then 13, of carrying ibuprofen.

So? Is that a violation of the law?

News:

Author Topic: Strip-search of US girl illegal (Read 13116 times)