Posted on 06/27/2009 9:37:26 PM PDT by neverdem
WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that a strip search of a 13-year-old schoolgirl by administrators looking for banned medication was unconstitutional.
The high court held in the 8 to 1 opinion that a male assistant school principal in Arizona and a female nurse violated student Savanna Redding's rights when they ordered her to partially undress in a fruitless search for a tiny amount of Ibuprofen pain relief pills.
Only Justice Clarence Thomas dissented in the "regrettable decision" by the majority, reveling in the details of the teen drama.
The conservative justice even questioned whether Redding was really strip-searched - arguing that the term is reserved for those required "to fully disrobe in view of officials."
"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," soon-to-retire moderate Justice David Souter wrote in the majority opinion.
The justices described how the Safford Middle School official, Kerry Wilson, told Redding to "pull her bra out and shake it, and to pull out the elastic on her underpants, thus exposing her breasts and pelvic area."
The search - prompted by schoolmates who ratted Redding out as a pill pusher - came up empty.
But the 'tween girl, who had described standing exposed before the school administrators as "humiliating," felt vindicated.
"I'm pretty excited about it, because that's what I wanted," Redding told the Associated Press. "I wanted to keep it from happening to anybody else."
Liberal-leaning Justice John Paul Stevens said Redding's forced nudity - even if partial - was "outrageous conduct."
"I have long believed that it does not require a constitutional scholar to conclude that a nude search of a 13-year-old child is an invasion of constitutional rights of some magnitude," Stevens wrote.
“The conservative justice”
Can’t forget the tag! Not pointing out that Thomas is conservative would make the Muse of Journalism cry.
Apparently Justice Thomas had issues with the facts of the case, which affects the application of the law.
A conservative Judge doesn’t rush to judgment.
Thats the best way to teach the powerful a lesson. Take some money out of them.
Remember this?
Sheesh!
According to the above wording from the Dailey News the schoolmates who reported a so-called pill pusher are the bad guys (or rats).
Unbelievable.
From ABC: “The court said, however, that school officials are protected from personal liability in the case.”
But, one supposes, still could be convicted of a crime.
Sue for $ 10 Million plus $ 100 Million in punitive damages !
I’m surprised that they didn’t replay the salty and salacious sexual harassment allegations that came up during Thomas’ Senate confirmation. Sure sounds like a broad hint in that direction.
Haven't you learned anything from Saul Alinsky? Make it **personal**!
Go after people **personally** to destroy them. We must sue the teachers and principals directly and threaten their houses, savings, reputations, and careers.
One would need to know more to know how fair the comment was. Did the fellow students who “ratted” knowingly exaggerate?
The court ruled personal liability out, fortunately or unfortunately as the case may be from one’s viewpoint.
Possibly a prosecutor could be moved to charge them with a crime, however.
Have to disagree with Thomas on this one. The fact that they were searching for a common over the counter medication is simply ridiculous, as far as I am concerned the no tolerance rules they have in schools today are nothing but petty tyranny.
If you violate someone's rights thats exactly what should happen to you. You have the better idea in this case. The state should not shield them. Perhaps then people would think before they violate someone's privacy and rights over ibuprofen.
“I’m surprised that they didn’t replay the salty and salacious sexual harassment allegations that came up during Thomas’ Senate confirmation.”
That’s not quite what I was getting at. The article is careful to label another justice as liberal-leaning. My concern is more on the level that it was completely unecessary to point out the political affiliation or judicial philosophy of any of the justices in this case. Thomas didn’t so much dissent because he is conservative or because he’s an originalist. Nor did Stephens join the majority because he’s liberal.
It was an 8-1 decision, for pete’s sake. Other conservative justices went against Thomas and on board with the liberals. Must superficial partisan politics be inserted into every story, no matter how irrelevant?
Why does the liberal media take pot shots at conservatives whenever they can?
Why does the ocean roar?
“If you violate someone’s rights thats exactly what should happen to you”
Yeah, it never made sense to me why one can sue a landlord for violating your “civil rights” if he denies you a lease, but not if an agent of the government steps on the 4th amendment. Don’t give me crap about giving the benefit of the doubt to officials because they have to do their job, and who knows what’s legal and what’s not? It’s up to them, in my opinion, to err on the side of caution. Especially when it comes to famous things like the security of our persons against unwarranted searches.
Or maybe they were being cautious, attempting to avert disaster amidst an emergency. Sorry, but possible violation of a silly policy (i.e. zero tolerance) does not an emergency make. The kids pants weren’t on fire, and ibuprofen isn’t a bomb. They could just as easily have called her parents, sent her home, kept her waiting in the office to see if she’d crack, rather than dig around inside her.
Saul Alinsky taught that we should hold them to their own rules.
So?....What would happen to a parent on neighbor who had done this to a 13 year girl? Huh? Would the child protection social workers be banging on that neighbor's or parent's door?
If so, then we should **demand** that teachers and principals be held to the **same** standards as parents or neighbors. They should be held to the same standards of punishment and harassment as well!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.