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.
Reader Comments:
Greta, I was searched one time in high school & then found nothing on me. Oh, they were mad too—they searched both me & my locker UP-and-DOWN but they didn’t find anything. Prior to that I had no discipline problems. And they found NOTHING on me. And they were mad that they found nothing.
I ate the joint 10 minutes or so beforehand. I was tipped-off by office assistant Mike W**fe (thanks Mike, I still ya buddy!) that the search of me was going to occur.
But technically I was not innocent. I did have the stuff that day. And they knew it. They just couldn’t prove it.
Idl-Why don’t you read the article?
First of all she was accused by another female.
She denied the accusation.
She had no prior history of discipline problems.
They searched her back pack-which they were allowed to do.
They found nothing.
They searcher her bra and panties-which they were not allowed to do.
They still found nothing.
To the best of my knowledge the other female never even produced any ibuprofin pills.
They were idiots.
They were wrong on all counts.
I admitted that I had no perspective in this case.
But you have no sense either common or uncommon in this instance.
I will bet that my parents were just as
strict as yours but I will also bet that they would not have just sat back and assumed that I had done something wrong just because I was accused. All parents know that an accusation by a same gender same age peer is always suspect.
And now a precedent has been set by the courts.
You’re right Greta—you have no perspective. This girl willfully broke a rule she must’ve known was serious…why else would she stash the ibuprofen in her bra (?) or panties or whatever it was.
...and then lie?....
My parents raised kids too, but that doesn’t exempt the rest of the worlds kids from being punishment, or searching or whatever. In fact, its irrelevant here.
“The content of suspicion failed to match the degree of intrusion.“ Justice Souter.
“Here is a case where clearly established law meets clearly clearly outrageous conduct.“ Justice Stevens.
These school officials should have gone to the prison for insensitive morons.
I have no perspective whatsoever. Once having actually been a 13 year old girl and raising three girls who of course were once 13, and for all the 13 year old girls (and boys) out there bravo to the courts.
I can only speak for my parents, here. THEY would back the school’s authority. My folks were all for me following rules (not that I always did) and my being held accountable when I didn’t.
It’s true!
But parents now are much more concerned with encouraging their children to ‘buck’; to not “take any mess” from “the system”; to go for the Big One - the Big lawsuit, THAN they are concerned with their kids behaving. Whether its distributing prescription strength ibuprofen (which IS against Federal Law btw—a Federal crime)or any other sneaky behavior.
Bobby Soxer, I do not think the 13 year old would be one of ours. However if the shoe fits…
Intresting comments from one woman and one psuedo liberal male, Biscuit. And anymouse.
First anymouse, the Supreme court does not swoop down and save you. You have to file suit.
And to biscuit. yes, money is a part of lawsuits. Do you think just winning a case and a point of law would stop defendants from doing stupid things ? And
the lawyer has to be paid. His paralegal,
the court costs, ect. If you knew the cost of waging a lawsuit instead of being so altruistically smug, you might get it.
Well, Greta as awoman seems a little more upset than others. A case in point for gender for perspective.
And suppose it was your 13 year old daughter or sister ? Or for that matter, son or brother ?
And I agree with you Biscuit. This just doesn’t seem to be worthy of the Supreme Court. Its ridiculous, such a small local school thing like that.
Furthermore, had innocent little dolly did the right thing in the first place & admitted what she did, then she wouldn’t have gotten searched!
‘Yeah, I gave her a couple ibuprofen. I’m sorry, but really what’s big deal?‘
But no, little dolly decided to play the role of sneaky drug dealer—catch me if you can hahahahahah!
You hate to see a case like this even get to the Supreme Court because the case was ambiguous.
It isn’t clear either whether she is due for monetary damages which is sometimes the true motivation for pursuing the case.
Hmmm: “Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg that her all-male colleagues had failed to appreciate the trauma that such a strip search would have on a developing teenage girl.“ So the real issue is “trauma” not the use of or hiding of drugs. If so, why does the govt. have a war on drugs that produces such trauma among teens, inner city elements, suburbanites, etc.? I guess there were no suspicious actions on the part of the perp.
Of course this is probably why the schools did away with gym classes, a way to reduce “trauma” among teens.
Post Your Comments:
