Replies

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.

Point one, those facts are enough to disgust most of us. If they took pictures and put them on the net and I looked and them I would be charged with Kiddie Porn based upon those facts, regardless of my gender. What difference does the non-intervention of electronic media make in the decision of whether or not these folks are pornographers. Why would the prurient observer from afar be charged with child pornography, but the prurient observer on the spot not be charged with child pornography. The remote observer is physically prevented from touching.

An additional point. Those are facts, but they are not ALL the facts. ALL the facts include that this was in an effort to search for Advil. THAT in our opinion is what sets this case aside from other cases, and that is what violates our "zero tolerance" policy of civic decency.

I am glad that you can at least recognize a fact when you see one.

What is distressing is that you are not outraged by the actions of the state and a bit concerned for the state of justice when judges of an appellate court cannot see the bright line in the sand on this sort of thing. There is no shade of gray here. It is one intrusion too far. It really does shock the conscience.