Supreme Court Rules Strip Search of 13-Year-Old Girl Unconstitutional - WSJ.com

Supreme Court Rules  - WSJ.com.

WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court ruled 8-1 Thursday that a school's strip search of an Arizona teenage girl accused of having prescription-strength ibuprofen was illegal. The court ruled on Thursday that school officials violated the law with their search of Savana Redding, who lives in Safford, in rural eastern Arizona. Ms. Redding, who now attends college, was 13 years old when officials at Safford Middle School ordered her to remove her clothes and shake out her underwear because they were looking for pills. The district bans prescription and over-the-counter drugs and the school was acting on a tip from another student.

Comments

[Brent Hailpern]

The discussion and positions stated in the article are fascinating. I wonder what rights Justice Thomas thinks students have while at school.

[Briefing Book]

Thanks to the Supreme Court, high school kids everywhere now know the safest place to secrete contraband in school.

[Peter Breslin]

JD- I have no love for our wonderful Justice Thomas, but my guess is that he was misquoted- "secrete" should have been "secret" (Not Frank, that is)

[Selby Kiffer]

Well, one really can't parody this.

[Briefing Book]

"secrete" (verb)-- to put in a hiding place Collins Essential English Dictionary 2nd Edition 2006 © HarperCollins Publishers 2004, 2006

[Deborah LaPerch]

Wow...I can't believe some of you men think this decision is a blow to the school administrators throughout the nation. This was an 8-1 decision!

If this young girl was a daughter of yours I am sure you would have a much different reaction. First of all we are talking about Ibuprofen...and even if it were an illegal substance at issue you don't strip search a minor...girl or boy. There are other ways of compelling a student to hand over hidden contraband.

Maybe our tax dollars should be going towards training administrators on the art of investigation regarding adolescents without having to resort to strip searches. I thought schools were for education?

I think every parent should tell their student to call them before they talk to or strip for any school official. Just MHO...

[Brent Hailpern]

@Deborah - IMHO none of the posts were in favor of the strip search, or were upset that such invasive behavior was considered unconstitutional.

My post pointed out that Justice Thomas (the dissenting vote in the decision) would deny many (all?) rights to students. The remaining 4 were having word fun with the word "secrete".

[Selby Kiffer]

My comment was meant to express dismay at another poster's arrogant attitude about Justice Thomas and his ignorance of the word "secrete." And I'm not sure, Dr. Hailpern, but I would bet that one right that Thomas would not deny to students is the freedom to refer to a school administrator as a "douchebag" on a private blog.

[Brent Hailpern]

@Selby - wow! I didn't think my comment would engender such strong feelings.

I certainly used no inappropriate language concerning Justice Thomas - either regarding his person or his opinion in this case. Having read the indicated article, I merely questioned what rights he did think students had while in school. All I posted was: " I wonder what rights Justice Thomas thinks students have while at school."

I have a personal strong belief in individual rights and i do disagree with his opinion as summarized in the article, but I thought it was ok to disagree or question as long as we do it respectfully.

I don't understand how "douchebag" entered into this discussion.

[Deborah LaPerch]

Hey guys, my intent was not to start a riot here...in fact the only one who hasn't weighed is "Briefing Book" who stated and I quote, "Thanks to the Supreme Court, high school kids everywhere now know the safest place to secrete contraband in school." I don't know how you make that statement and then playfully banter around about the word "secrete" and not speak to the heart of the issue which was the strip search of a minor girl.

I suppose since I am a female I am taking this more personally than if I were a male. However, I am serious when I say students and parents beware of overzealous school administrators.

[Brent Hailpern]

@Deborah - I agree with you 100% on the issue. I would be furious if my son's body was searched by some school official.

[Michael Gordon]

What I find so interesting about the Safford majority is that it seems to have been driven by the nature of the object of the search: an over-the-counter pain medicine. Consider that in Morse v. Frederick, the so-called Bong Hits for Jesus case, the Supreme Court held that it was ok for a principal to suspend a student who unfurled a banner off school grounds because of the contents of that banner -- the now immortal and nonsensical phrase, "Bong Hits for Jesus" -- notwithstanding the student's First Amendment rights. The Court's decision in Morse was based upon its view that the student's gibberish could reasonbly be taken as advocating illegal drug use, something absent in Safford. Now put those two cases together, and you come away with what seems to be a sliding scale system for assessing possible civil rights violations predicated on the presence or absence of illegal drugs. One would test that system with a case in which the object of the search is not just Advil, but, rather, heroin or crack or ecstasy or pot. I wonder whether the Court in that case would hold that an invasive strip search of a 13-year old girl or boy would be justified by the overarching need to control out-of-control drug use.

[Robert T Dixon]

Hi Mike:

Let's take it a step further: suppose the advil had been found-probably the same ruling don't you think?

Suppose the object of search was heroin AND it was discovered? I wonder what the Court would have decided on that one.

Bob D

[Selby Kiffer]

I realize that nuance is difficult to convey online, but really.

I read (correctly I believe) Mr. Breslin's comment as (1) disparaging Justice Thomas and (2) contending that Thomas or a reporter misspelled the word secret with a terminal "e." My comment that "one can't really parody this" was referring not to the Supreme Court ruling but to someone trying to show off his superior language knowledge but instead exposing his ignorance.

I probably should not have extended my post further, but I was trying to make a point about leaping to conclusions about the way a justice might rule. Sonia Sotomayor, who I would guess most observors would consider more "liberal" than Clarence Thomas, ruled against an appeal by Avery Doninger, a high school student who was prevented from holding office in student government because she referred to school administrators as "douchebags" in her blog. I think Thomas would defend that as free speech.

But, that's a long way from where this started. So, Brent, if you interpreted any animus towards you on my part, I can assure you that none was intended. And, Deborah, I don't feel any comments of mine were inappropriate.

Now I have to go back and read Mr. Gordon's comments.

[Michael Gordon]

Bob, my guess is that if the Advil had been discovered, or if the Advil and, say, heroin had been discovered, the search still would have been ruled impermissible because the purpose of the search was to find out whether or not the student was secreting [sorry, I couldn't resist] a legal substance. Even though school policy prohibited students from possessing that legal substance, the nature of the search was so over the top in view of its purpose that it was, from the start, wrong. Of course, I don't wear the judicial robes, so we'll have to keep reading to see where our courts take us.

[Brent Hailpern]

@Selby - thanks for clarifying and explaining. I clearly misunderstood your meaning - in fact, I misunderstood almost everything related to your posts. My bad.

[Robert T Dixon]

Hi Mike:
Me again. Thanks for your time helping us understand the legal aspects of this ruling. Not arguing-just trying to understand.You say: you think the search would have been ruled impermissible no matter what was found because the search was based on determining whether a student was hiding a legal substance.

Then you talk about another issue: the search was so over the top in view of its purpose.

Perhaps ( and I am just asking) are there two separate issues here that together are confusing we lay observers?

Bob D

[Robert T Dixon]

Hi ALL:

Saw this today:

In the Arizona case, the high court said school officials violated Savana Redding's rights when they strip-searched her for prescription-strength ibuprofen. The court said educators cannot force children to remove their clothing unless student safety is at risk.

Bob D 7/2/09

[Michael Gordon]

Hi Bob, there really is one issue here: was the search reasonable under the circumstances. To measure the reasonableness of the search, the Court asked why the school officials subjected the student to such an invasive search. It shouldn't matter what was ultimately found if the purpose of the search was to determine whether or not the student was hiding Advil in her underwear. As the Court put it, "nondangerous school contraband does not implicate the specter of stashes in intimate places." The fact that the school officials in this case were hunting for nondangerous material, even though prohibited in school, made their search unreasonable. What the Court left open, of course, was whether such an invasive search would be legitimate if the initial purpose was to locate pot, cocaine, etc.
Hope that helps. Happy 4th. Mike

[Robert T Dixon]

Hi Mike:

Thanks for the reply

I guess that what the court left open still leaves a big question mark in the minds of school administrators.

I wonder what policy the K-L school district operates under. Perhaps don't ask- don't look would be the easy way out. Is there a policy?

We plan to have a great 4th with big neighborhood block party-lots of fireworks, etc. Its been dry-hope we do not set any roofs or lawns afire!

Bob D

Bob D

[Michael Gordon]

Bob, the Court has stated, on a number of occasions, that it does not want to dictate to school administrators how they should run their schools. That puts a real premium on good judgment and good counsel. As for KLSD, we spent a great deal of time on our substance abuse policies last year. Those are reflected in our policy manual. Most recently, we revamped our Code of Conduct for Extracurricular Activities. It's worth a read. You should also know that, with respect to the 4th Amendment issues raised by the Safford case, we began the year hearing our counsel discuss the legal boundaries that impact the actions that the District can take to combat substance abuse.

Given the wet weather up here, a little bone dry might be nice. Cheers, Mike