Replies

From the actual decision;

“Wilson then showed Redding the pills he had seized from
Marissa and asked her what she could tell him about them.
After Redding denied having knowledge of the pills, Wilson
told Redding that he had received a report that she had been
passing the pills out to her classmates and asked Redding if
she would object to being searched. Redding denied bringing
pills to school, denied distributing pills to her classmates, and
12860 REDDING v. SAFFORD USD #1
told Wilson that she did not mind being searched. Wilson then
invited Romero into his office, and together, they conducted
a search of Redding’s backpack. After the search proved fruitless,
Wilson asked Romero to take Redding into the nurse’s
office and conduct a search of her person. Romero complied.
Romero took Redding into the nurse’s office and again
invited Schwallier to observe. At the time of the search, Redding
was wearing “stretch pants without pockets and a T-shirt
without pockets.” In Schwallier’s presence, Romero asked
Redding to: (1) remove her jacket, shoes, and socks, (2)
remove her pants and shirt, (3) pull her bra out and to the side
and shake it, exposing her breasts, and (4) pull her underwear
out at the crotch and shake it, exposing her pelvic area. The
search did not produce any pills. Immediately after it had concluded,
Defendants returned Redding’s clothes and allowed
her to get dressed. At no point during the search did either
Schwallier or Romero touch Redding. ***Prior to the search, no attempt was made to contact Redding’s mother.***

(*** = My favorite part)

Just to avoid further misrepresentation on your part, the rest of us are talking about the poor kid that got eye-raped, not the one that was acutally caught with drugs on her. To anyone reading this not named Mojave, the little statist has been trying to pass off the minor child agreeing to be “searched” as her consent to being eye-humped by the school authorities. He does not debate honestly and please do not waste your time.

Sincerely,