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.
For the students involved. Nobody did anything illegal. Why call in the cops?
Geez Louise. If the school called the cops you'd be going ballistic with the exact same argument. Give me a break.
When I start writing for a newspaper, then and only then will I start sprinkling in the word "allegedly".
Until then, I'll state my opinion without any help from you.
Good ping me to your posts as I will be here too....Any chance besides owning the schools you own a tool company?
If they didn't do anything wrong how would it make things worse for them? Now you say they did nothing illegal but a few posts ago you were calling the kid a drug dealer. I think it might have made things worse for the school officials.
Geez Louise. If the school called the cops you'd be going ballistic with the exact same argument. Give me a break.
You don't deserve a break, never do, but that's a different subject. Why would I go ballistic? You were just arguing with a parent who said the police should be called in. I agree with her. If the school thinks a strip search is appropriate then they need an appropriate authority to conduct one.
Your lack of regard for basic dignity and civil rights is appalling. But not in the least surprising to anyone on this forum who has run across your postings.
The article said: 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."
Either you can't read, robertpaulson, or you're an out and out liar. Anyone familiar with your posts knows exactly which. ; )
Does Advil posess some properties of which we’re unaware, that would compel a young girl to hide it in a private place?
This sounds insane.
You're in the first group, obviously, and I'm in the second. Nuff said.
Wow! Prescription strength aspirin - heavy duty stuff.
Its none of any school’s business what legal medications any student carries. The people that did this need life incarceration, as they are a clear danger to society.
I said they did nothing illegal. They certainly did do things that were wrong.
"you were calling the kid a drug dealer"
What, you'd like "prescription drug dealer" better?
"If the school thinks a strip search is appropriate then they need an appropriate authority to conduct one."
They had all the authority they needed to conduct the search.
"Your lack of regard for basic dignity and civil rights is appalling."
I lack neither. But your ignorance of the U.S. Constitution, the fourth amendment in particular, and New Jersey v. T.L.O., 469 U.S. 325, 341 (1985) is inexcusable.
That is a lie. The search revealed that the girl in question hadn't done anything wrong.
What, you'd like "prescription drug dealer" better?
Another lie and a false accusation to boot.
They had all the authority they needed to conduct the search.
So says FRs favorite JBT.
This school made it its business Everyone knew the rules. These girls broke them and are now trying to rewrite the rules.
Oops. Too late. The time to do that is before you get caught. You have more credibility that way.
don’t get too excited - I’m not behind you at all.
Have you reported for your search yet? You are reportedly a danger to yourself and the community.
out
There was more to it than that. Here's a link to the case. It's well written and easy to read.
After reading it, I think you'll see it in a different light. Don't expect the above article from the Libertarians over at Reason to be unbiased.
Amendment IVThe right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
It is typical of robertpaulsen's pig-ignorant interpretation of the Constitution that he would consider the accusation of a 13 year old student, already caught with contraband in the school (School's bizarre definition of contraband), is a reasonable probable cause supported by Oath or affirmation. The fact that the girl did not "particularly describe the place to be searched" is just something else to be ignored in his myopic self-centered world.
You wanted the cops called in before the search. At that time, they had reason to believe she did do something wrong, not illegal.
"So says FRs favorite JBT."
So said the court.
So no worries then about Ecstasy or LSD, right? Otherwise the school would have called the police.
If it really was just Advil that the school was looking for, was it necessary to immediately strip search a 13 year old girl?
Another typical tactic of robertpaulsen is to introduce information not presented previously after arguing as if it had for many posts. You will find nothing whatsoever intellectually honest about him. I warned you.
The article describes very well the type of person who thinks strip searching 13 year olds by school authorities for non-criminal infractions of school policy is OK.
Sometimes it's hard to tell the difference between drug warriors and child molesters.
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.