Posted on 04/02/2008 3:39:20 PM PDT by neverdem
There are two kinds of people in the world: the kind who think it's perfectly reasonable to strip-search a 13-year-old girl suspected of bringing ibuprofen to school, and the kind who think those people should be kept as far away from children as possible. The first group includes officials at Safford Middle School in Safford, Arizona, who in 2003 forced eighth-grader Savana Redding to prove she was not concealing Advil in her crotch or cleavage.
It also includes two judges on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, who last fall ruled that the strip search did not violate Savana's Fourth Amendment rights. The full court, which recently heard oral arguments in the case, now has an opportunity to overturn that decision and vote against a legal environment in which schoolchildren are conditioned to believe government agents have the authority to subject people to invasive, humiliating searches on the slightest pretext.
Safford Middle School has a "zero tolerance" policy that prohibits possession of all drugs, including not just alcohol and illegal intoxicants but prescription medications and over-the-counter remedies, "except those for which permission to use in school has been granted." In October 2003, acting on a tip, Vice Principal Kerry Wilson found a few 400-milligram ibuprofen pills (each equivalent to two over-the-counter tablets) and one nonprescription naproxen tablet in the pockets of a student named Marissa, who claimed Savana was her source.
Savana, an honors student with no history of disciplinary trouble or drug problems, said she didn't know anything about the pills and agreed to a search of her backpack, which turned up nothing incriminating. Wilson nevertheless instructed a female secretary to strip-search Savana under the school nurse's supervision, without even bothering to contact the girl's mother.
The secretary had Savana take off all her clothing except her underwear. Then she told her to "pull her bra out and to the side and shake it, exposing her breasts," and "pull her underwear out at the crotch and shake it, exposing her pelvic area." Sometimes it's hard to tell the difference between drug warriors and child molesters.
"I was embarrassed and scared," Savana said in an affidavit, "but felt I would be in more trouble if I did not do what they asked. I held my head down so they could not see I was about to cry." She called it "the most humiliating experience I have ever had." Later, she recalled, the principal, Robert Beeman, said "he did not think the strip search was a big deal because they did not find anything."
The U.S. Supreme Court has held that a public school official's search of a student is constitutional if it is "justified at its inception" and "reasonably related in scope to the circumstances which justified the interference in the first place." This search was neither.
When Wilson ordered the search, the only evidence that Savana had violated school policy was the uncorroborated accusation from Marissa, who was in trouble herself and eager to shift the blame. Even Marissa (who had pills in her pockets, not her underwear) did not claim that Savana currently possessed any pills, let alone that she had hidden them under her clothes.
Savana, who was closely supervised after Wilson approached her, did not have an opportunity to stash contraband. As the American Civil Liberties Union puts it, "There was no reason to suspect that a thirteen-year-old honor-roll student with a clean disciplinary record had adopted drug-smuggling practices associated with international narcotrafficking, or to suppose that other middle-school students would willingly consume ibuprofen that was stored in another student's crotch."
The invasiveness of the search also has to be weighed against the evil it was aimed at preventing. "Remember," the school district's lawyer recently told ABC News by way of justification, "this was prescription-strength ibuprofen." It's a good thing the school took swift action, before anyone got unauthorized relief from menstrual cramps.
© Copyright 2008 by Creators Syndicate Inc.
You and Joe Stalin.
Your argument is moot. The Arizona Constitution of 1910 adopted the Federal Constitution as the supreme law of the land, and therefore any other arguments are irrelevant.
Only a dirty minded statist such as yourself could equate the desire for constraints on federal, state and local powers and the protection of individual liberties with the mindset of a Joe Stalin, who recognized no rights for individuals and no constraints on state power whatsoever.
Actually, I wanted to know what age he feels is appropriate to give consent to strip in front of adults. Obviously, he thinks it is under the age of 13, because he thinks this girl gave informed consent to strip, and was not coerced.
My personal goal is now to get to 10,000.
You want a national hegemony. I don't.
That and a quarter...
It's perfectly ok Roscoe to say you cannot form your own opinion. Most of us already know that from your intellectual dishonesty.
will perhaps embarrass a Bush appointed Princetonian / Yalie judge that he has made an awful botch of a case, and the whole world now knows about it. Next time he will think more carefully about the consequences of his opinions and whether they are soundly grounded in law. He ought to have known better.
Fortunately, Alex Kozinski is presiding judge, and might be making some progress in curbing the historical pattern of excess for which this Circuit has become a national laughing stock.
9,010 views. Just 990 posts and I will retire from kicking your forked tail around this particular post. I will, however, keep a watch elsewhere.
“Not based on statements or actions by school staff.”
So you’re proposing the use of statements by the perpetrators of the crime to explain and justify the behavior of the victim. Is that what passes for lawyering in liberal fantasy land?
metmom would be/is a great student. IMO she makes a poor subject though.
A few years ago some Dim proposed a bill that was supposed to combat “violence” in school. The bill proposed that when a student was involved in any kind of conflict which resulted in violence the principal would be given broad powers. He could require the parents to provide a list of any and all weapons the student had access to or were stored in the home. This specifically included baseball bats and butter knives in addition to other items.
If the parents refused to provide the list they would be committing a felony. Once the list was provided the principal could dictate how those ‘weapons’ would be stored. Once again it was a felony for the parents to fail to comply.
All of this authority given to principals under this bill. thank goodness it never passed but it shows how sick these people really are.
Do folks realize how far this strays from anything actually having to do with education? My son attended a Catholic school. The disciplinary powers of the teachers was broad and reaching, extending to demerits, Saturday work in the grounds and fields, extra homework, and preemptory visits to the headmaster. Searches beyond cleaning up messy lockers were never conducted, yet these powers were sufficient to keep kids enough in line that the teachers could focus on their primary job of English and Math and Latin, which the students were forced to take 4 years of.
The problem is not that the schools lack sufficient disciplinary powers, but they fail to engage the students by teaching thereby relieving themselves of the necessity of the students to act out their shear and utter boredom.
“The problem is not that the schools lack sufficient disciplinary powers, but they fail to engage the students by teaching thereby relieving themselves of the necessity of the students to act out their shear and utter boredom. “
I totally agree. Its not money or lack of teachers. Its the pure socialist agenda that is focused on indoctrination instead of education.
You want to impose your will on everyone. I don't.
I know. You like Clinton, his appointee and the ACLU.
At least all your fantasies aren't about child molestation.
"Redding denied bringing pills to school, denied distributing pills to her classmates, and told Wilson that she did not mind being searched."
Redding is the student.
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.