Log In

Home
    - Create Journal
    - Update
    - Download

LiveJournal
    - News
    - Paid Accounts
    - Contributors

Customize
    - Customize Journal
    - Create Style
    - Edit Style

Find Users
    - Random!
    - By Region
    - By Interest
    - Search

Edit ...
    - Personal Info &
      Settings
    - Your Friends
    - Old Entries
    - Your Pictures
    - Your Password

Developer Area

Need Help?
    - Lost Password?
    - Freq. Asked
      Questions
    - Support Area



sharkie ([info]wolfshark) wrote in [info]unfunnybusiness,
@ 2009-06-25 12:19:00


Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend!  Next Entry
Current mood:Validated

It took them long enough...
SCOTUS finds that strip search of 13 year old girl unconstitutional



Supreme Court Says Child’s Rights Violated by Strip Search
SIGN IN TO RECOMMEND
E-MAIL
SEND TO PHONE
PRINT

By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Published: June 25, 2009
Filed at 10:46 a.m. ET

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that a school's strip search of an Arizona teenage girl accused of having prescription-strength ibuprofen was illegal.

The court ruled 8-1 on Thursday that school officials violated the law with their search of Savana Redding in the rural eastern Arizona town of Safford.

Redding, who now attends college, was 13 when officials at Safford Middle School ordered her to remove her clothes and shake out her underwear because they were looking for pills -- the equivalent of two Advils. The district bans prescription and over-the-counter drugs and the school was acting on a tip from another student.

"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," Justice David Souter wrote in the majority opinion. "We think that the combination of these deficiencies was fatal to finding the search reasonable."

But the court ruled the officials cannot be held liable in a lawsuit for the search. Different judges around the nation have come to different conclusions about immunity for school officials in strip searches, which leads the Supreme Court to "counsel doubt that we were sufficiently clear in the prior statement of law," Souter said.

"We think these differences of opinion from our own are substantial enough to require immunity for the school officials in this case," Souter said.

The justices also said the lower courts would have to determine whether the Safford United School District No. 1 could be held liable.

A schoolmate had accused Redding, then an eighth-grade student, of giving her pills.

The school's vice principal, Kerry Wilson, took Redding to his office to search her backpack. When nothing was found, Redding was taken to a nurse's office where she says she was ordered to take off her shirt and pants. Redding said they then told her to move her bra to the side and to stretch her underwear waistband, exposing her breasts and pelvic area. No pills were found.

A federal magistrate dismissed a suit by Redding and her mother, April. An appeals panel agreed that the search didn't violate her rights. But last July, a full panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals found the search was "an invasion of constitutional rights" and that Wilson could be found personally liable.

Justices John Paul Stevens and Ruth Bader Ginsburg dissented from the portion of the ruling saying that Wilson could not be held financially liable.

"Wilson's treatment of Redding was abusive and it was not reasonable for him to believe that the law permitted it," Ginsburg said.

The case is Safford Unified School District v. April Redding, 08-479.



(Post a new comment)


[info]persona
2009-06-25 05:25 pm UTC (link)
Do you have a link for those who don't have accounts at the NYT?

Just from the headline, though: About time.

(Reply to this)(Thread)


[info]cat_mcdougall
2009-06-25 05:37 pm UTC (link)
CNN has it too

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]wolfshark
2009-06-25 05:37 pm UTC (link)
I've added the text from the article to the post.

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]scifantasy
2009-06-25 05:48 pm UTC (link)
What a relief. I'm willing to accept the "no personal liability" line, though of course I'd have liked it if Stevens and Ginsburg had carried the day, but still, a victory.

I read about this case when it was on appeal from the 9th Circuit. Then I heard that the questioning had been harsh on Redding's lawyers, and started to worry.

For the record, here's the AP's quotation of the lone dissent:

Justice Clarence Thomas found the search legal and said the court previously had given school officials "considerable leeway" under the Fourth Amendment in school settings.

Officials had searched the girl's backpack and found nothing, Thomas said. "It was eminently reasonable to conclude the backpack was empty because Redding was secreting the pills in a place should thought no one would look," Thomas said.

Thomas warned that the majority's decision could backfire. "Redding would not have been the first person to conceal pills in her undergarments," he said. "Nor will she be the last after today's decision, which announces the safest place to secrete contraband in school."


(NB: I don't know whether he actually wrote "secrete" there, or the AP got it wrong. I know what I hope...)

(Reply to this)(Thread)


[info]scifantasy
2009-06-25 05:52 pm UTC (link)
Oh, wow. No, I just found the decision, and Thomas really did write "secrete."

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]rachelmap
2009-06-26 02:51 am UTC (link)
Oh, he's a brilliant legal mind, alright.

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]lady_ganesh
2009-06-26 03:51 am UTC (link)
Yeah, I'm shocked he'd be capable of that level of fail.

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]arionhunter
2009-06-25 06:16 pm UTC (link)
"which announces the safest place to secrete contraband in school."

Coming Soon: Sexy Schoolgirl Strip Search 3: The Secret Secretion

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]pariforma
2009-06-25 06:19 pm UTC (link)
That is an acceptable verb: "to secrete" can mean "to hide something" as well as "to ooze something".

Of course, just because it was a proper use of the verb doesn't mean it wasn't an incredibly stupid thing to say.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]scifantasy
2009-06-25 06:20 pm UTC (link)
Really?

*Google*

D'oh. Well, shows what I know.

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]eleutheria
2009-06-25 07:09 pm UTC (link)
Thank you, I was wondering why the fuss over a perfectly acceptable use of the word. (Thomas is still a douche, however.)

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]scifantasy
2009-06-25 07:18 pm UTC (link)
I was just stuck on the image of someone sweating pills.

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]hallidae
2009-06-25 06:26 pm UTC (link)
You know... given his own history of litigation, that statement is incredibly creepy.

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]naive_wanderer
2009-06-25 06:50 pm UTC (link)
Way to subtly suggest that the poor girl was really "guilty," asshole. (Of course that's directed at the Justice, not you!)

I just don't understand why officials at a middle school would think a 13-year-old girl was hiding ibuprofin in her underwear if they couldn't find it in her backpack. It's not exactly the hardest of drugs. But then, why should I ever expect schools to be reasonable about these things?

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]ahiru
2009-06-25 07:48 pm UTC (link)
It was eminently reasonable to conclude the backpack was empty because Redding was secreting the pills in a place should thought no one would look," Thomas said

Of course, it would also be reasonable to conclude that the backpack was empty because the girl didn't have any pills. But hey, why let get in the way? I mean, she could've been packing two whole Advil! That's hard drugs, there.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]deadwood
2009-06-25 10:18 pm UTC (link)
I heard this guy got addicted to Advil and killed his friends for their unemployment checks.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]neuronin
2009-06-26 11:21 am UTC (link)
That TV movie they made about it was crap, though...if the motive was to get their monthly checks, how did the killer afford the grain silos filled with Advil to smother them with, and why would he bother? I hate it when they take a reasonable, factual event (Advil addiction) and make it crazy and stupid (Advil-themed serial killer).

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]deadwood
2009-06-26 11:46 am UTC (link)
I thought the acting was quite good, though. He really seemed as if he were suffering under the effects of Advil addiction. I mean, popping 1-2 pills every 4-6 hours, stomach ulcers, a complete lack of headache or fever. It was uncanny.

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]brennalarose
2009-06-25 06:39 pm UTC (link)
*growl* Took you morons THIS long!?

(Reply to this)


[info]luthe
2009-06-25 07:22 pm UTC (link)
If you read the decision carefully, you'll notice they leave the door open for searches that are conducted to find drugs that pose "danger to the students from the power of the drugs or their quantity." In short, strip searches are a-ok if you claim the kid was carrying meth!

Bastards.

(Reply to this)(Thread)


[info]rosehiptea
2009-06-25 08:03 pm UTC (link)
I don't get why schools are allowed to strip search anyone ever.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]misswindy
2009-06-25 08:34 pm UTC (link)
In Florida, schools are, per the state Supreme Court's decision, allowed to call police on children as young as 5 - disabled and able-bodied alike - and request that the children be tasered into submission. Even if the child is not acting violently. In one case last year, a 12-year-old girl was tasered repeatedly for walking off school grounds and refusing to return. In another, a profoundly autistic 6-year-old was tasered into unconsciousness for tantruming. Both families sued - and lost.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]wolfshark
2009-06-25 08:40 pm UTC (link)
*blink*

That's just...

I'm going to be over in the corner hugging my cat, because I can't deal with people.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]misswindy
2009-06-26 03:10 am UTC (link)
To be fair, your cat is probably nicer than most people. *g*

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]brennalarose
2009-06-26 03:20 am UTC (link)
Agreed, and mine just clawed my arm to shreds for hugging her.

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]nostariel
2009-06-25 10:51 pm UTC (link)
God, I hate this country sometimes.

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]rachelmap
2009-06-26 02:54 am UTC (link)
Homeschooling: it's not just for religious nuts anymore.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]misswindy
2009-06-26 02:58 am UTC (link)
Haha. I'm "religious", and I homeschool my kiddo, but not for religious reasons, but because schools here treat kids like crap. He has multiple disabilties including moderate-functioning autism, and he gets ranty when he gets anxious/tantrums. He isn't violent and doesn't do anything except rant (loudly) but the local school district made it clear they would have no qualms calling the cops on him if he got "uncontrollable." Thanks, but no thanks!

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]khym_chanur
2009-06-25 07:36 pm UTC (link)
Those Advils can fuck you up real good.

*snorts a line of ibuprofen*

(Reply to this)(Thread)


[info]come_love_sleep
2009-06-25 08:18 pm UTC (link)
*quivering* maaaan. Maaaan. Lemme have some of that, maan. This aspirin just isn't doing it anymore. C'mon. C'mooooon.

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]velvet_mace
2009-06-25 07:55 pm UTC (link)
Wow, Thomas is a dick -- but then he does have a history of not seeing debasement, coercion and humiliation as evil. I feel so good having him on the highest seat.

(Reply to this)


[info]nostariel
2009-06-25 10:38 pm UTC (link)
Yeah. On the one hand, it's good that they said the school was wrong, but on the other hand, this ruling basically says, "If you can come up with only a slightly better reason than this one, feel free to sexually assault your students!" It makes me fucking sick.

(Reply to this)(Thread)


[info]nostariel
2009-06-25 10:47 pm UTC (link)
THE SERVER IS ROBUST

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]indis_earfalas
2009-06-26 01:59 am UTC (link)
What happened to the "tip-off-er"? If that was me, I'd want to see some kind of consequences for that ... because it sounds like someone thought they'd be funny and get Redding in trouble.

(Reply to this)(Thread)


[info]scifantasy
2009-06-26 11:44 pm UTC (link)
it sounds like someone thought they'd be funny and get Redding in trouble.

I figured the other student (who was herself strip-searched, by the way--but she didn't sue, and given this decision, and that she clearly had the ibuprofen on her, if she had, she'd probably have lost) had panicked and said anything to distract attention.

In the school district's brief for certiorari, the district claimed that, I'm paraphrasing, there was no reason for that girl to lie and point the finger at Redding, because it wasn't as if she was offered a deal--"tell us who gave you the drugs and we won't punish you."

Apparently the school district thinks that a child in trouble with the principal will tell the truth unless she has a good reason to lie.

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]librarianmouse
2009-06-27 12:31 am UTC (link)
Why am I not surprised by the fact that this happened not far from me?

Attention Small Town Arizona: This is no longer the Wild West. Please feel free to stop acting as if laws have no meaning.

(Reply to this)


 
   
Privacy Policy - COPPA
Legal Disclaimer - Site Map