School officials may have had sufficient information to perform some kind of search of Savana for prescription-strength ibuprofen. There is little question that a search of Savanas backpack and her pockets would be constitutionally permissible, given that Savanas friend and classmate Marissa had reported that Savana had provided her with the ibuprofen. But the appropriate inquiry is whether a strip search was justified at its inception. See, e.g., Phaneuf v. Fraikin, 448 F.3d 591, 597-600 (2d Cir. 2006); Cornfield v. Consolidated High Sch. Dist., 991 F.2d 1316, 1321 (7th Cir. 1993).
The only credible connection between Savana and an impending distribution of prescription-strength ibuprofen was Marissas statement that Savana had provided her with the pills found on her person. However, our sister circuits have concluded properly in my view that student tips alone are insufficient to support a constitutionally permissible strip search. See Phaneuf, 448 F.3d at 598-99 (While the uncorroborated tip no doubt justified additional inquiry and investigation by school officials, we are not convinced that it justified a step as intrusive as a strip search.); Williams v. Ellington, 936 F.2d 881, 888 (6th Cir. 1991). To overcome this legal difficulty, the school attempts to additionally justify the search on the basis that (1) Jordan falsely reported that Savana, several months prior, had a party at her home at which alcohol was served; (2) Savana admitted to owning a planner later discovered to contain cigarettes, lighters, and a knife that she had given to her friend Marissa.2 The school does not explain how this information sufficiently corroborates and supports a strip search for pills. Indeed, the Second Circuit recently held that violation of a schools tobacco policy cannot be the basis of a strip search for another drug. Phaneuf, 448 F.3d at 599-600; see also Cornfield, 991 F.2d at 1321
But you were just claiming that they were searching for "Advil" and now you're quoting (from the dissent) to prove your own claim false.
That's an interesting line of "reasoning".
Indeed, the Second Circuit recently held that violation of a schools tobacco policy cannot be the basis of a strip search for another drug. Phaneuf, 448 F.3d at 599-600; see also Cornfield, 991 F.2d at 1321
Why does the court call it a strip search? There was no strip search. Doesn't this clown know how to read?