The Supreme Court today announced its decision in Safford Unified School District v. Redding.

The school district had strip-searched a 13-year-old female student after another female student alleged that she had obtained a prescription-strength ibuprofen from the 13 year-old.  The school did not alert the student’s parents or summon police prior to having the school nurse and an administrative assistant require the girl to remove her clothing in a closed office.

The court ruled that the search violated the girl’s rights under the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution, which forbids “unreasonable searches”. 

As the Washington Post Reports, the court reported an 8-1 decision, with Justice Clarence Thomas the lone dissenter.  Apparently, Justice Thomas would have deferred to the discretion of the school administrators, writing in his dissent that “"Judges are not qualified to second-guess the best manner for maintaining quiet and order in the school environment.“

As far as that statement goes, it’s a platitudinous truism.  What judges supposedly are qualified to do is recognize patently unconstitutional actions of low-level bureaucrats when they see it.

Ok Bill, here is my concession: If the school acted on just one girl’s accusatory word alone—that & nothing more—then no that isn’t enough to pull someone into a room & strip search them. But at the same time I would apply to that anything—pot, heroin, LSD, even an accusation of illegal weapons.

What’s irked me since the beginning is the constant focus of: ‘It was 13-year old girl and it was ONLY ibuprofen!‘

Thirteen year old girls can be just as bad, just as guilty as 47-year old girls. And ibuprofen can possibly be dangerous when in the wrong hands.

The drivers of this media story (which includes also the original Barticles post) purposely used the ‘sweet innocent 13-year old girl’ illustration to get folks all riled-up—in order to sell THEIR pre-formed idea about search abuses.

Hitler used the same tactic with his blonde hair, blue eyed little girl stuff too. So did the Klan in the 1920s.

Its a clever tactic, but not enough to sell me into the mob.

In closing, let us NOT send the message that little 13-year old girls are exempt from enforcement of rules, whether it be city statutes or school rules against carrying ibuprofen. I’m not exempt—YOU aren’t exempt. They need to learn the same way as us.

This was my actual angle from the very beginning.

According to the court decision -

“School officials violated the Constitution’s ban on unreasonable searches and seizures.“

They “falsely suspected”

The court ruled that because there was no evidence that a commonly used painkiller presented a danger to the student body and there was no evidence that the honor student was concealing drugs in her underwear, the school overreacted by strip searching the student.

The moronic school officials were not held liable because of what is called

“Qualified Immunity” which says that government officials are immune from liability when they VIOLATE the Constitution in novel ways that previously haven’t been addressed by the court.

We are all entitled to our own opinions but we are not entitled to our own facts.

P.S. - I suggest you be careful to not sprain your shoulder from patting yourself on the back so much.

Larry -

<sigh> This is getting tiring.  I do not expect you to admit you’re wrong or to prostrate yourself and and offer your most humble and sincere apologies.  But sheesh, you’d think a guy would at least admit when he has entered into discussion of a topic he really knows nothing about.  I mean, if the topic were short-wave radios, I would say “got nuttin.“  I don’t know the first thing about them.  And you apparently do.

Anyhow, once again, you claim I said something I never actually said.  And again, you completely miss important distinctions. 

You claim that I “said there was no reason to believe that she even had the pain relievers.“  No.  I did not say there was “no” reason to believe she had them.  I said they did not have adequate objective, reliable evidence that she had given the pills to the other girl and that they did not have sufficient reason to believe she had them to conduct a strip search.  Clearly, they has SOME type of belief that she had the pills - but what they had was based primarily on the bare accusation of another 13-year-old girl.  Which is insufficient for the search they conducted.  Go back and re-read and you’ll see I never said there was no reason whatsoever to believe she had the pills.  I didn’t suggest they randomly grabbed any old student walking down the hall.  The problem is what they had was simply not enough to go beyond looking in her backpack and searching her outer clothing.

So strike one, Larry.  Sorry that you got confused by the plain language of my prior postings.

As far as whether the act of carrying prescription medicine in anything other than its original bottle or dispensing them to others is also a violation of federal law, so what?  That is yet another irrelevant fact that you toss out there.  Again, presuming that is true, that does not provide the school authorities with the power to legitimately strip-search that 13-year-old girl under the specific facts and circumstances.  There are lots of things it’s illegal to do.  But just because a particular act is illegal does not authorize strip-searching anyone without some pretty damn good evidence that person might have done that illegal act, AND that there are exigent circumstances warranting a strip-search.  Again, the question is whether the authorities’ actions were reasonable under the circumstances at the time.  In this case, they clearly were not.

So strike two.

And o.k., prescription pain killers can be dangerous.  But if you had read the opinion, you would have seen that the administrators had determined that the pills were essentially “strong” Advil and not harmful.  And - again - this question is mostly beside the point.  As is the fact that there have been accidental deaths from ibuprofen.  Again, totally irrelevant to the facts and circumstances of this particular case.  There also have been accidental deaths from WATER!!  <gasp!  omigosh!>  So should we strip-search 13-year-old girls who are suspected of carrying bottles of water? 

Strike three.  Three swings, three misses.  But Larry is still at bat!

OK, so you never used the exact words that “the school authorities were within their rights to strip search that girl.“  But quite clearly that has been your argument all along - or am I once again transported through the looking-glass?  I never claimed that you had said that exact phrase - but it is a fair summation of your argument.  Otherwise, what the hell has been going on all day here?  Your entire proposition from the get-go was that they “had the goods on her” and she was just a little liar and trying to “get one over” on them, etc.  Clearly your position is that there was nothing wrong with them strip-searching her.  Remember, that’s what this whole thing is about?  I expressed the opinion that they were wrong to do it, and you expressed your opinion that they were not wrong?  I never put quote marks around the words, attributing them to you as if you had stated that exact phrasing.

Strike four.  Man, I think you need to hit the showers.

“Damn! Is it really THIS easy to be a Commonwealth’s Attorney?“

Hardly.

Bill, my argument (method) was masterful because I just let you talk yourself into a jam! Give ‘em enough rope…Ok, here it is:

You just now said that, “There was no reason to believe the girl had chloral hydrate or ephinephrine [...] BUT SIMPLE PAIN RELIEVERS, which girls her age commonly take to relieve pain from menstrual cramps.“

Earlier, you said there was no reason to believe that she even had the pain relievers!!!—Now all of a sudden its a common thing, and you admit there was reason.

Will the real Bill T. stand up? Did you not just admit what you earlier refused to admit earlier?—That there was reason to believe that she had the ‘profen?

(Do I really need to remind you here that carrying prescription drugs of ANY variety, in any vessel OTHER THAN its original bottle is a violation of Federal Law? And that dispensing them to others is also a violation of same law?)

Number 2: I brought up the hypotheticals to illustrate that yes, non-narcotic prescription drugs could possibly be dangerous (the reason for the federal law, btw). Especially with stupid kids.
Earlier you had tried to paint those ibuprofens as harmless candy.

And since you robbed me of a complete day’s work—I got absolutely nothing done today thanks to you—perhaps I go as far as find actual CASES of accidental deaths from ibuprofen. Woulja like that?

Lastly, SHOW ME ONE PLACE where I “stated repeatedly that they were within their rights to perform a strip search of the girl.“ I never used those exact words! Looks like it is you who’s trying to put words in other people’s mouths, using straw-man argument, etc.

*****************************************

Damn! Is it really THIS easy to be a Commonwealth’s Attorney?

Larry -

I guess what’s funniest is how you think your arguments are so masterful that I need to “bow out gracefully”.  And yet you continue to so totally and completely miss the mark.  Hey, at least you’re consistent.

See, now you’re bringing in “what ifs” - hypothetical suppositions to make totally different arguments.  Potential, hypothetical circumstances, none of which existed here. 

You continue to suggest that, as long as school officials “feel” they have “good reason” to believe the girl is “hiding something”, they can strip search and even potentially do a body cavity search.  That’s pretty frightening.  And totally inconsistent with about a hundred years’ worth of constitutional law.

We could posit all kinds of wacky hypotheticals.  None of which mean anything here. 

Back to the FACTS of THIS CASE.  You stated repeatedly that they were within their rights to perform a strip search of the girl.  My question was not under what circumstances would they be entitled to do a BCS (by the way - correct answer: NEVER.  They are middle school administrators, not LEOs or medical professionals), but rather, and I quote myself: “Would the school administrators have been within their rights to perform a body cavity search of that 13 year-old girl, because they really really “FELT” she had prescription-strength Advil somewhere on her person?“

You finally have hit on something, though, in which you are right - the specific facts and circumstances are important in determining whether a particular search is “reasonable.“  And the potential danger to health and safety of the students certainly would play a part in determining how far to go in searching someone.

But another major fact and circumstance that plays into the determination of whether they acted “reasonably” is what were the objective, articulable facts that gave them their claimed reason to suspect she had drugs?  How strong was their suspicion?  It has to be more than a bare hunch. 

IN THIS CASE, which, after all, is the issue here - not some wacky hypo, we know what information they had.  There was no reason to believe the girl had chloral hydrate or ephinephrine or speed or quaaludes or crack or heroin - but simple pain relievers, which girls her age commonly take to relieve pain from menstrual cramps (which, by the way, was the reason the other girl had the prescription-strength pills in the first place, at least according to accounts of the story published several months ago).  And they had nothing more than the word of another 13-year-old girl, who actually DID have pills on her, who claimed that she got them from this other girl.

You start rolling out all kinds of what-ifs and suppositions.  We don’t need to do that here.  We know what the facts of the case are - we can go read the lower court’s opinion and the SCOTUS opinion.  And from that, it should be clear that, UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, the strip search of the 13-year-old girl were unreasonable to the point of being unconstitutional, as 8 of the justices correctly found.  Officials cannot act on bare suspicion or hunches.  They cannot strip search a kid because “Amy is really acting like she’s lying here.”  Even if they totally believe the kid absolutely is lying, that does not give the administrators free rein in searching the kid.

Oh, and BTW, Larry - you can continue to try to concoct whatever arguments and far-out hypotheticals you want to, and you can talk trash about how you’ll “allow me to bow out gracefully” and such nonsense all you want.  It seems to me at this point you’re just arguing for argument’s sake – off the cuff, from the gut, based on what you “feel” is right.  None of that will change the fact that you don’t know what you’re talking about here, and you’re most certainly not going to change my view that you’re simply wrong.

Bill, ok but just remember you asked for it. I will address where the I think the line should be drawn, with respect to (a.) the substance being sought and (b.) the body part to search:

Since prescription drugs can seriously harm a child who doesn’t really know what they are doing (even, possibly, ibuprofen!), I can’t say the line should be drawn only at illicit drugs. So for the substance question, I’ll draw this line right below prescription drugs, regardless of whether or not they are ‘narcotics’.

As far as where the line should be drawn, with respect to body cavities ...then we go right to what the others are asking, ‘Well how badly do we need to find this stuff?‘ Is it an explosive? Or is it harmless pills…

...(so now Bill grins because he thinks he got me here)...

...but how harmless is that ibuprofen? If in fact there is 75 of ‘em jammed into the delicate membranes of the buttox, where YES the drug can be absorbed! AND…

...how do we know they are just ibuprofen??? Maybe the girls’ THINK they are ibuprofen when in fact they are choral hydrate!

So how do we know IF it is ‘dangerous’ or an imminent threat UNTIL we do the search?

And we really hate to do body searches—really, we do—but jeez we think little Suzie IS telling the truth here, that Amy gave her (what she thins is) prescription ibuprofen. And Amy is really acting like she’s lying here….if she’s got pills in her cavity it could kill her…

WOULD YOU LIKE FOR ME TO GO ON BILL? I could just allow you to bow out gracefully…

Larry -

Sorry to hear you’re so willing to live in a police state. 

You actually could do something about it - it’s called a Section 1983 case for violating your constitutional rights. 

You’ve never heard of an “unwarranted” search or seizure?  If the police did what I described, they would be so very clearly violating the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.  Do you honestly believe that the police have the legitimate power to enter your home like that and do what I suggest, going on nothing more than my phone call to them?  Short answer is they don’t. 

And you continue to blithely side-step my question about where you draw the line.  Would the school administrators have been within their rights to perform a body cavity search of that 13 year-old girl, because they really really “FELT” she had prescription-strength Advil somewhere on her person?

And show me where I said that the Gitmo detainees should be released.  I advocated for the notion that many of them likely should have the right of habeas corpus.  That is a long way from advocating they all should be let go.

And - in reference to one of your prior posts in a different topic - my use of the word “should” is not really the issue.  There is a big difference for explaining what the law IS versus advocating for what the law SHOULD BE.  I can state what the law is, yet be in complete disagreement with it.  Just because I - or anyone else - states what the law requires doesn’t mean I support that requirement.

Can you really not see any of the significant distinctions in all of these things?

“Where the heck did you ever get the idea that I think Gitmo detainees are ‘innocent’?“

Uh, by saying they should be released?

And Bill, yes you could do that, they could search me (and find nothing), and you know what (?)—I couldn’t do a damn thing about it! And BTW I never admitted to any drug use. That was anonymouse—not me.

Larry -

I guess my incredulity and frustration with your statements is the utter lack of anything resembling sound reasoning.  That, and you apparently don’t understand what the 4th Amendment is about. 

Let’s get one thing out of the way: where the heck did you ever get the idea that I think Gitmo detainees are “innocent”?  More of your incredibly flawed reasoning and arguing.  You seem to view all things as black or white.  The issue is not whether they are innocent or guilty.  Just as that is not the issue here.  And again, the whole Gitmo debate has naught whatever to do with this question. 

As I understand your argument, the school administrators “felt pretty sure” the girl had drugs, and in your experience, she probably was guilty anyhow, so therefore, they were right to strip search a 13-year-old girl without notifying either her parents or law enforcement authorities.  Wow.

You have totally side-stepped this question twice before, so I will ask you for the third time: where do you draw the line?  Would a body cavity search have been acceptable?  I mean, after they peeked in her bra and panties and found nothing, maybe she was “one step ahead,“ as you suggest, and had those nasty, scary Advil pills tucked safely away where the sun don’t shine, right next to her hand grenades, sawed-off shotgun and fully-automatic AK-47. 

And if they REALLY, REALLY “felt” that she really really had those nasty drugs, and because she was a lying little snot-nosed brat who probably was guilty anyhow, well then what the heck?  Why not do a full body cavity search?  That would be ok too, right? 

The 4th Amendment protects the guilty as well as the innocent.  It protects from UNREASONABLE searches.  That protection is not predicated on the person being innocent.  To do so would be completely circular logic.  The question is not whether you found anything in your search or whether the person was guilty.  The question is whether the search itself was constitutional - and that is judged based on whether it was “reasonable” under the circumstances.  Under these circumstances, what they did was patently unreasonable. 

Using your <ahem> “logic”, I could call the police and say “Hey, I just bought some pot from Larry Lanberg.  Yeah, he lives over near VCU - go check him out.“  And they could come knock down your door, rummage through your stuff, and strip search you in your own home.  I mean, after all, they have dealt with you in the past, and by your own admission, you have done drugs in the past.  And based on my allegation, they have “good reason” to “feel” that you have drugs.  And you’re probably guilty anyhow, so bend over and spread `em for the friendly officer with the cold hands. 

And that’s constitutional in your universe?

Post Your Comments: