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.
Here. This explains it better than I could.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/yada
Function:
noun
Etymology:
alteration of earlier yatata idle chatter, probably ultimately from British dialect and argot yatter-yatter to chatter, of imitative origin
Date:
1980
: boring or empty talk *listening to a lot of yada yada about the economy* —often used interjectionally especially in recounting words regarded as too dull or predictable to be worth repeating
School officials have been taking on the role of law enforcement, and I think it is just wrong. The courts usually side with the schools however, so by looking at past cases it is likely that the school will win this one. I find it hard to believe that things have reached this point.
I had my own issues with this, a couple years ago my daughter was alcohol tested by a principal, on an unfounded tip, with no notification to me until after the test was done on her. Her test was negative, but I was not happy that a principal had the right to do something that I see as law enforcement. School officials are not trained as law enforcement and I do not agree with their acting as law enforcement except in extreme cases. If it was suspected that a student had a (real) weapon and the staff felt they and/or other students were in immenent danger, I could see the justification. Otherwise I think school officials need to leave law enforcement up to LEOs and they need to focus on education. I took my daughter out of school after the episode she experienced, because I did research and found out just how far courts have allowed school officials to go. I did not agree with the new role schools have taken on and decided not to subject my daughter to that, it seems things have progressed even further.
I feel there is never a need to strip search anyone for any reason other than one law enforcement would sanction. I also don’t think anyone other than law enforcement should conduct strip searches. How far do you think this should go? Would you sanction a strip search for candy, or a note passed in class? Those are also a violation of school rules in many schools. I see a strip search as a very serious issue; not to be taken lightly. Law enforcement doesn’t even take strip searches lightly. They are only conducted by law enforcement under strict guidelines and by people trained to conduct them.
I don’t think legal drugs should be controlled by school officials. If there is an issue with legal drugs, then that should be addressed by the parents and/or law enforcement. Schools functioned for many years without regulating legal drugs and I don’t recall any issues that the schools were not able to handle through their normal process.
The role of schools is to educate; they need to stay in that role and not take on the role as “acting” law enforcement personnel.
Schools have a remedy, if a student is not following the rules, and it is a serious enough issue- they may suspend or expel them. They need to use that process, with parental involvement and not act as though they are some type of pseudo law enforcement.
I am amazed that anyone thinks strip searches by school personnel are fine and dandy, and should be done in the normal course of enforcing school rules. I wonder if the same people would feel that it was fine if their employer used strip searches as a way to make sure their work place rules were followed.
A strip searh is an extreme violation of privacy, and should never be used except in extreme circumstances.
It's possible to do so, of course, but I don't think you have the brains or the class to be able to do it. Never have I encountered someone so bullish to prove an idiotic, unprovable, classically-subjective statement as you. My hat's off to you, pal---you're one in a million.
I didn't disparage the whole group. I simply told the truth about most of them.
Never have I encountered someone so bullish to prove an idiotic, unprovable, classically-subjective statement as you.
If this issue were not so important I would not be pursuing it. But it is important. It affects the future of our country. We cannot turn away from something so vital just because some feelings might get hurt.
And I am not one in a million. If I were there would be only 300 people who agree with me. In fact, there are millions of people in America who are very, very concerned with the dismal state of public education.
We use "blah, blah, blah" in flyover country.
Then don't support child molesting strip searchers.
If you think strip searching 13 year old girls by non-LEO persons for any reason is acceptable, then you ought to be able to take the heat and accusations.
Every normal person knows it's wrong.
Trying to move this to the backroom are we?
RobertPaulson: “This account has been banned or suspended.”
Oops. Got the ZOT!
Sorry, Robert. Should have pinged you to the previous post.
Nothing like the smell of fresh zot first thing in the evening....
Probably a one day suspension if it’s a first offense. I don’t know the history.
According to his homepage, there is a history.
He was pretty full of himself for one thing, but I can’t believe it’s his first time out.
He never did answer the question about what he did for a living. Maybe a principal who thinks strip searching little girls is OK?
It’s the same mentality that has led to the “We Card Everyone” policies at restaurants and packies. I always ask the server/clerk, “Doesn’t it bother you that your management doesn’t think you’re smart enough to tell that a ‘rode hard and put up wet’ 50 year old man is at least 21?” More often than not, the reply is, “Not really.” We’re doomed, FRiends of Liberty.
robertpaulsen: OMG! Watch out! robertpaulsen is actually supporting his opinions with facts! From the court case itself!
How dare he do that! He should realize that we only go by our "feelings" on these kinds of threads. He's such a party-pooper.
This is really typical of you too. A reply that completely ignores what was said. Intellectually dishonest. After a while it is tiring and pointless to argue against this dishonest adolescent ranting.
I won’t miss him a bit. He clogged up more threads with his absurd arguments against the 2nd Amendment while claiming to be working to save it. FReepers who frequent banglist threads will breath a huge sigh of relief when this news makes the rounds. And for the first time ever I think I get the last word. LOLOL
I noticed that he portrayed himself as a champion of the Constitution, but was more than willing to trash it when it suited his purposes. He must have thought it only applied to him and no one else had any rights.
Sorry I missed out on the fun. I am mildly curious what names the constitutionally challenged twit tried to call me.
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.