13-year-old's school strip search case heads to SCOTUS

[Gooblah]

Link.

The justices in January accepted the Safford school district case for review, and will decide whether a campus setting gives school administrators greater discretion to control students suspected of illegal activity than police are allowed in cases involving adults in general public spaces.

The case is centered around Savana Redding, now 19, who in 2003 was an eighth-grade honors student at Safford Middle School, about 127 miles from Tucson, Arizona. Redding was strip-searched by school officials after a fellow student accused her of providing prescription-strength ibuprofen pills.

The school has a zero-tolerance policy for all prescription and over-the-counter medication, including the ibuprofen, without prior written permission.

"In this case, the United States Supreme Court will decide how easy it is for school officials to strip search your child," Adam Wolf, an attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union who is representing Redding, told CNN Radio on Sunday.

Wolf told CNN Radio his client was traumatized by the search.

"School officials undoubtedly have difficult jobs, but sometimes they overreact -- and this was just a clear overreaction," he said.

Redding was pulled from class by a male vice principal, escorted to an office, where she denied the accusations.

A search of Redding's backpack found nothing. Then, although she never had prior disciplinary problems, a strip search was conducted with the help of a school nurse and Wilson's assistant, both females. According to court records, she was ordered to strip to her underwear and her bra was pulled out. Again, no drugs were found.

In an affidavit, Redding said, "The strip search was the most humiliating experience I have ever had. I held my head down so that they could not see that I was about to cry."

At issue is whether school administrators are constitutionally barred from conducting searches of students investigated for possessing or dealing drugs that are banned on campus.

A federal appeals court found the search "traumatizing" and illegal.

Some parents say older children deserve the same constitutional rights as adults, but educators counter a school setting has always been treated differently by courts, and a ruling against them could jeopardize campus safety.

While a federal magistrate and a three-panel appeals court found the search was reasonable, the full 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of Redding last year.

"Common sense informs us," wrote the court, "that directing a 13-year-old girl to remove her clothes, partially revealing her breasts and pelvic area, for allegedly possessing ibuprofen ... was excessively intrusive."

The court said the school went too far in its effort to create a drug- and crime-free classroom. "The overzealousness of school administrators in efforts to protect students has the tragic impact of traumatizing those they claim to serve. And all this to find prescription-strength ibuprofen."

In its appeal to the Supreme Court, the school district said restrictions on conducting student searches would cast a "roadblock to the kind of swift and effective response that is too often needed to protect the very safety of students, particularly from the threats posed by drugs and weapons."

School officials said the court was "wholly uninformed about a disturbing new trend" -- the abuse of over-the-counter medication by teenagers.

The high court has a mixed record over the years on students' rights.

In a famous 1969 ruling, the justices said students do not "shed their constitutional rights ... at the schoolhouse gate." But decisions in the 1980s gave administrators greater discretion, including one case that said officials need not be required to have a warrant to search a student's locker. Such a search was permitted if there were "reasonable" grounds for believing it would turn up evidence and when the search was not "excessively intrusive."

Opinions in 1995 and 2001 allowed schools to conduct random drug testing of high school athletes, and those participating in other extracurricular activities.

And in a well-publicized 2007 ruling from Alaska, the Supreme Court upheld the suspension of a student who displayed a large "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" banner at an off-campus, but school-sponsored, event. The decision did not endorse a broader argument that students in general have limited free-speech rights when they interfere with a school's vaguely defined "educational mission."

The court could now be asked to clarify the extent of student rights involving searches, and the discretion of officials regarding those they have responsibility over.

The case is Safford United School District No. 1 v. Redding (08-479).

Really, a strip search? We're going to that extreme?

That's all the bias from me in the OP. Discuss.

 

[Cutlass]

There are a lot of people running schools in the US that belong in prisons. Unfortunately the courts are too conservative to care about justice and law

 

[Mark1031]

The should have done a body cavity search. Can't be too safe, you never know what lengths kids will go to to smuggle Advil into our schools.

 

[Formaldehyde]

I'm astounded it even got this far and how long it took.

 

[Cutlass]

Cases like this make me wish I was the president, so I could publicly rip that school system a new anal orifice. I would try and talk every parent of a student in that school to remove their students from the school until the principle and any other involved people were fired.

 

[JollyRoger]

Since the student is not a corporation, the conservatives on the Court may not be so quick to take her side.

From the Bong Hits for Jesus Case:

"we hold that schools may take steps to safeguard those entrusted to their care from speech that
can reasonably be regarded as encouraging illegal drug use."

From a corporate entity case decided the same day:

“[when the] First Amendment is implicated, the tie goes to the speaker”

“when it comes to defining what speech qualifies as the functional equivalent of express advocacy ...we give the benefit of the doubt to speech,not censorship,”

 

[Kraznaya]

The thing is, the appeals court sided with her. The Supreme Court apparently believes there are grounds to possibly reserve this.

 

[.Shane.]

I was reading about this the other day on Boing boing, I think.

At any rate, this is completely ludicrous. Other than the accusation, they have, per the article, nothing to go on. Honors student, no discipline issues, she said she had nothing, and a cursory search revealed nothing.

They couldn't call the parents?

As a parent of 3, I tend to actually come down on the side of the schools very often because I know what a pain in the ass most parents can be... "my kid would never do that"... "why are you giving my precious a B?" etc... Plus, I have a lot of teachers in my family, so I tend to be very sympathetic to schools in a lot of these cases.

All that said, this is insanity. If they did this to my kid WITHOUT CONTACTING ME OR WITHOUT MY CONSENT it would hit the fan.

The other thing that's galling in so many of these types of cases, be it a strip searched student or, say, a traveler strip searched by the TSA because they claimed some terrorfied citizen "heard" got the willies, is that the accusers get away scot free. Jesus H., you can completely ruin someone simply by making a accusation. I'd like to see people prosecuted when they make a charge that is patently false or just plain stupid.

I've got another similar event that I'll post here in a sec.

 

[GoodGame]

The should have done a body cavity search. Can't be too safe, you never know what lengths kids will go to to smuggle Advil into our schools.

Bottom line is it is illegal to be handing out prescription drugs, without a prescription.
Even Ibuprofen has a lethal dose.

Other bottom line is strip searches are an invasion of privacy. So, why a strip search on the basis of an unqualified accusation? Maybe, if the student was caught in an incident (red-handed abusing) in front of authorities but I think not without the guardian's permission, unless a violent crime is being commited by the student.

Students should have limited rights when dealing with public property, but strip search in this case is going way too far. Strip search for a weapon use, maybe. Strip search because someone said something is probably going way too far. Especially without guardians' approval.

Follow up: What if this had been a semi-strip search of the type that you get at an airport (e.g. shoes removed, pockets emptied, luggage examined), would this have been as much a problem? Would the school be going to far if it acts on a tip from another student, without credible evidence, even if only a semi-strip search? For a non-violent accusation, should the studen be allowed to refuse a semi-strip search? Should the school have a contract with it's students that if they refuse a semi-strip search, they may be removed from the school?

 

[.Shane.]

Bottom line is it is illegal to be handing out prescription drugs, without a prescription.

Ibuprofin is not a "prescription drug". For god sakes, you can buy all you want from Amazon.

 

[GoodGame]

Ibuprofin is not a "prescription drug". For god sakes, you can buy all you want from Amazon.

It may seem trivial but dosage is what counts. OTC amounts differ from prescription amounts. 200mg pills are standard for OTC. A prescription amount would be a 1000mg pill, for instance. Just arguing that prescription levels are there for a reason...medical supervision. OTC amounts are the safe amounts, assuming the user follows the label. Sure, anyone can just disregard the OTC label and take 5 at once, but that's not the point.

 

[Gilder]

Yeah, school's have a tendency to over do it.

I know my own high school that I graduated from last year as become increasingly reactionary. They've got cameras in all the rooms now, a trigger-happy police officer instead of the cool dude they used to have, and some other junk too. It's all really stupid too, discipline wasn't really a huge problem for the school.

 

[Kraznaya]

I heard water has a lethal dose too. Let's ban that from schools as well.

 

[GoodGame]

I heard water has a lethal dose too. Let's ban that from schools as well.

So does sugar, check the MSDSs of any materials that you use, before you do.

Sugar AFAIK, is never medically prescribed, though.


EDIT: Lethal Doses of common substances http://chemlabs.uoregon.edu/Safety/toxicity.html

 

[.Shane.]

It may seem trivial but dosage is what counts. OTC amounts differ from prescription amounts. 200mg pills are standard for OTC. A prescription amount would be a 1000mg pill, for instance. Just arguing that prescription levels are there for a reason...medical supervision. OTC amounts are the safe amounts, assuming the user follows the label. Sure, anyone can just disregard the OTC label and take 5 at once, but that's not the point.

So what? Do you think his justifies a strip search w/out even calling the parents? Over something that she could walk down to school and buy and chug a bottle of?

Seriously, this is ****ed up.

edit: having re-read your prior posts, I can see you're not justifying the school. That said, I'm not sure what your arguing for. I mean its a readily, easily available substance. And, again, so what. What if they had accused her of having tabs of acid? Would a strip search based on 1 accusation and no other evidence and no call to the parents be OK?

 

[GoodGame]

So what? Do you think his justifies a strip search w/out even calling the parents? Over something that she could walk down to school and buy and chug a bottle of?

Seriously, this is ****ed up.

My opinion was probably not (already stated). I don't believe an accusation is reasonable cause, especially from another minor. And definitely no searches without the guardians' approval. SCOTUS said it was inappropriate anyways.

I was just defending the school's zero tolerance policy to misappropriating prescription drugs, and the concept that student's don't have absolute rights on public property. A similiar modern problem is minors abusing OTC drugs. A school would be negligent if it ignored an obvious problem. Especially if a student were dealing drugs from class.

The school's tact in executing its policy obviously failed common sense and values, and that's what SCOTUS said. The middle ground between policy and rights is where I have a question. If it had been a violent incident, a strip search might have been warranted, post haste. In that case, waiting for a guardian to show up might actually put the public in danger(e.g. what if the student was hiding a second weapon?).

My follow up interest is this though-to what middle ground should a school pursue? Contracts with students that they can be expelled if they choose to not comply with a search? Limiting searches to TSA-type searches (many schools have metal detectors already, not sure if they do the TSA-thing)? Limiting reasonable suspicion to real incidents, not accusations? Making guardians sign waivers that the school is totally hands-off, so their kids go to school at their own risk?

 

[Bllasae]

The should have done a body cavity search. Can't be too safe, you never know what lengths kids will go to to smuggle Advil into our schools.

Lol, I wish it was Advil in our schools. Gosh, I hate to know what goes in and out.

 

[.Shane.]

I was just defending the school's zero tolerance policy to misappropriating prescription drugs, and the concept that student's don't have absolute rights on public property. A similiar modern problem is minors abusing OTC drugs. A school would be negligent if it ignored an obvious problem. Especially if a student were dealing drugs from class.

Fair enough and a valid discussion/point.

Not sure about HS, but at my kids elementary school, they are not allowed to have OTC drugs. They must be given to the office for dispensation.

As for how the school could've better handled this.... no school anywhere, ever, should be doing strip searches. If a matter is that serious, call the police. This case, this subject isn't within a 1000 miles of being a serious enough issue to warrant that. They should've let her go after the questions revealed nothing and then went back to the accuser and asked her WTH.

 

[woody60707]

So is Obama going to let these people off the hook too? lol

But really, if the SC finds the school had no right to do this, will these people be persecuted? If you illegally force someone to take off there clothes against there will - then you broke the law.

And yet, I don't see any of these people doing jail time,.....i wonder why?

 

[Trajan12]

It just boggles the mind...how does one go about making such a stupid decision?

Hopefully, once the drug war gets into their schools, people will finally wake up to how over-zealous this country has become.