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.
I always felt free to attack robertpaulsen to his face. Did it for years. He was an idiot and it was fun.
You could always take a break from your fantasizing and try reading the actual decision.
I won't bother to tell you to take a break from your insults because you wouldn't have anything else would you?
Take the time to read the whole thread. I don’t have time to waste explaining what has already been posted. I do have a problem with the school searching any child without their parent’s being there or their permission.
If you ever get your courage up, try answering the facts posted from the actual decision:
The search of Redding’s person was conducted by two employees who were of the same gender as Redding, and the search took place in the privacy of the school nurse’s office with the door securely locked...Redding was not physically touched in any way during the search, and she was not asked to remove her bra or underwear.
I won't hold my breath.
You have no source.
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 would certainly agree with the author's assessment. Anyone who would approve of this conduct is no different than a child molester.
No one wants to rehash this with an idiot.
Wilson did not order the search of Redding’s person based solely on an uncorroborated tip...After Wilson discovered pills, Marissa immediately attributed them to Redding. Even then, Wilson still refrained from immediately conducting a search of Redding’s person. To the contrary, he questioned Redding about her knowledge of the pills and her ownership of the black planner. It was only after Redding had acknowledged ownership of the planner, acknowledged her friendship with Marissa, and conceded that she had, in fact, lent her planner to Marissa with the express purpose of helping Marissa hide contraband from her parents, that Wilson proceeded to order the challenged search.
That's not true. I'm happy to rehash this with you.
Its been posted. Over & over & what would you like me to say that I think its fine & dandy for a school nurse & other females to strip search a 13 yr old girl? Well I don’t. I think its totally wrong. If they thought Savana had drugs then a cop should have been called & her parents should have been down at that school. A female cop & the mother could have done it. We are talking about advil! Not dope.
If that fits your standard of probable cause, to enforce a school policy not a law, then you fit the author’s assessment.
But I don’t want to rehash it with you. That is the point. ; )
Wilson did not order the search of Redding’s person based solely on an uncorroborated tip...After Wilson discovered pills, Marissa immediately attributed them to Redding. Even then, Wilson still refrained from immediately conducting a search of Redding’s person. To the contrary, he questioned Redding about her knowledge of the pills and her ownership of the black planner. It was only after Redding had acknowledged ownership of the planner, acknowledged her friendship with Marissa, and conceded that she had, in fact, lent her planner to Marissa with the express purpose of helping Marissa hide contraband from her parents, that Wilson proceeded to order the challenged search.Pesky old facts versus inventions and fantasies.
Naturally, an idiot doesn’t want to be thrashed. Again.
And now it's time for you to change the subject. Pathetic.
Happy fantasies. Sleep tight.
You can post to me all you want & I really don't care. My child is taught that she has rights. All of my children were & they have the right to call for their parents. They do not have to remove their clothing. I don't care what you say nor your buddy who was banned says. I find this to be a unreasonable search of this child & that is my opinion. I still am allowed opinions so far. If you want your children searched thats fine by me. I would rather have a cop called if the school thinks my child has advil on her person.
So you want to stick to the subject of molestation without bringing in the pesky subject of probable cause? Pathetic. But predictable.
All of this for ADVIL! I am so glad my child won’t be in a school where morons can force her to remove her clothing . And I am glad my town’s schools which have zero tolerance towards drugs do call the home as soon as they think a child is on drug or has drugs. They let the police handle it. To be quite honest I think the police should be the ones who handle these type of cases.
For human beings it’s about right and wrong. For totalitarians it’s about something else. These guys sound just like the ChiCom trolls don’t they?
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.