Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Middle-School Strip Search Ruled Unconstitutional

timothy posted more than 5 years ago | from the moment-of-claritin dept.

Privacy 528

yuna49 writes "The US Supreme Court today ruled 8-1 that the strip search of a 13-year-old girl by officials in an Arizona middle school was unconstitutional. However, by a vote of 7-2, the Court also ruled that the individual school officials could not be held personally liable. A suit for damages against the school district itself is still going forward. We discussed this case at length back in March when the Court decided to hear the case on appeal."

cancel ×

528 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

This is America (4, Insightful)

MrMista_B (891430) | more than 5 years ago | (#28471731)

This is America, where children are the Enemy.

Re:This is America (3, Insightful)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 5 years ago | (#28471801)

This is America, where children are the Enemy.

Which is odd, because last week I thought we were destroying civil liberties to save them. I do wish the government would make up its mind. Should we be building more private prisons to hold them cheaply, or should we be cherishing them and making sure they don't see Janet Jackson's nipple?

Re:This is America (4, Insightful)

garcia (6573) | more than 5 years ago | (#28471907)

or should we be cherishing them and making sure they don't see Janet Jackson's nipple?

Well at least we now have a Supreme Court decision that stops overzealous administrators and staff from seeing children's nipples in search of non-existent over-the-count drugs. Now, if only the administrators were actually held liable for their stupid decisions.

Re:This is America (5, Interesting)

Ethanol-fueled (1125189) | more than 5 years ago | (#28472387)

Hey, at least that time they were actually looking for drugs.

Awhile back in a suburb of San Diego, an overzealous administrator had the good idea to round up [signonsandiego.com] all of the girls at the dance and check their panties so that the filthy whores wearing thongs(or less) could be sent home to change.

And about that, from the link:

Garvik's sophomore daughter was forced to go home and change before she could enter the dance, although thongs are not barred in the school dress code. The code states that undergarments, including "boxers, tank-top undershirts or underwear" should not be exposed.

Some people with authority(especially those in certain government agencies, but I digress) seem to make up the rules as they go along. That's what makes them dangerous.

Re:This is America (1, Insightful)

JordanL (886154) | more than 5 years ago | (#28471959)

C'mon, lets be serious.

All governments are about control, and they want to control the children as much as the adults.

Re:This is America (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28471993)

Should we be building more private prisons to hold them cheaply, or should we be cherishing them and making sure they don't see Janet Jackson's nipple?

The kids can ram it. Join me and my fellow Middle School Deans from across this land as we tell these ungrateful bastards to fuck off. We are applying en masse to the peace corp so we can assist more grateful African children.

Besides, has anyone ever considered that with a little government money to train my brothers and I in basic medical screening techniques we could be years more advanced in the level of health care delivered to our young people. Decades of pre-teen co-ed athletes have marched through the shower room of my Middle School - that is *DECADES* of young women I could have helped with *MY OWN HANDS* !!

Think of the children my ass.

Re:This is America (4, Funny)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 5 years ago | (#28472073)

The kids can ram it. Join me and my fellow Middle School Deans from across this land as we tell these ungrateful bastards to fuck off. We are applying en masse to the peace corp so we can assist more grateful African children.

Yes, I guess it will be easier to get a look at girls' chests in countries with flimsy constitutional protections.

Besides, has anyone ever considered that with a little government money to train my brothers and I in basic medical screening techniques we could be years more advanced in the level of health care delivered to our young people. Decades of pre-teen co-ed athletes have marched through the shower room of my Middle School - that is *DECADES* of young women I could have helped with *MY OWN HANDS* !!

Yeah, I want you around my kids.

Re:This is America (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28472151)

Well, at least he has an, albeit twisted, sense of humor...

Re:This is America (4, Informative)

gnick (1211984) | more than 5 years ago | (#28472329)

Yeah, I want you around my kids.

You're responding to Anonymous Coward.

Rule #1 of parenting is never leave your kids alone with someone until after they agree to tell you their name.

Re:This is America (1)

Stephan Schulz (948) | more than 5 years ago | (#28471997)

Should we be building more private prisons to hold them cheaply, or should we be cherishing them and making sure they don't see Janet Jackson's nipple?

Why, of course we put them into prisons, both private and public, with no access to TV, or the Internet, or subversive books (like Huckleberry Finn or Common Sense, or Winnie-the-Pooh), to protect them from dangerous nipples and thoughts. Exceptions can be made for Good Kids (tm) by giving them access to selected chapters of the KJV and Conservapedia.

Re:This is America (2, Funny)

Hognoxious (631665) | more than 5 years ago | (#28472385)

KIng James Vible?

Re:This is America (1)

mwvdlee (775178) | more than 5 years ago | (#28472233)

The general theme being that civil liberties are being destroyed.
No particular reason, no specific cause, just destroying civil liberties wherever they can.
I guess it'd make for a conveniently docile population that dares not speak up.

Re:This is America (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28472259)

Should we be building more private prisons to hold them cheaply, or should we be cherishing them and making sure they don't see Janet Jackson's nipple?

Yes - profit whilst cherishing them.

Re:This is America (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28471875)

I thought all new legislation was based on 'thinking of the children'

Re:This is America (2, Insightful)

SoupGuru (723634) | more than 5 years ago | (#28471885)

No no, this is America where we have to ruin a child's life in order to prevent them from ruining their life. I suggest 5-10 years of jail for sexting!

Re:This is America (2, Interesting)

ushering05401 (1086795) | more than 5 years ago | (#28472333)

Wasn't there some third reich psychologist who came to America during Paperclip and was known for espousing that the only way to govern a nation was to make the majority of the citizens your enemy? Or prevent them from being able to get through life without breaking the law at some point or something?

I can't find a link - but your comment reminded me of this.

Re:This is America (1)

Reikk (534266) | more than 5 years ago | (#28471895)

I'd like to review the evidence for myself. Somebody post the pics.

Re:This is America (3, Interesting)

ArcherB (796902) | more than 5 years ago | (#28471919)

This is America, where children are the Enemy.

If you've ever had to be responsible for a bunch of kids, you would understand.

Now, I don't agree with strip searching kids, especially for something stupid like Advil or something. However, the second you state that school officials are not allowed to check your underwear, that's where everything starts getting hidden. Unfortunately, the only way to keep this from being abused and still having some effectiveness would be to publicly allow this type of search, but ban it privately.

It seems that the judge agrees with me. From TFA:

Had Savana been suspected of having illegal drugs that could have posed a far greater danger to herself and other students, the strip search, too, might have been justified, the majority said, in an opinion by Justice David H. Souter.

I also hope that the student that gave the "tip" that this poor girl had pills in her underwear gets an ass-whoopin severe enough to make her grandkids wince when sitting down!

Re:This is America (5, Insightful)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 5 years ago | (#28472007)

Now, I don't agree with strip searching kids, especially for something stupid like Advil or something. However, the second you state that school officials are not allowed to check your underwear, that's where everything starts getting hidden. Unfortunately, the only way to keep this from being abused and still having some effectiveness would be to publicly allow this type of search, but ban it privately.

That's when you call the cops and have it done by professionals who know how to do it properly. Even if my kid was carrying drugs in his or her underwear, I would not want a school administrator doing the search. You think you've got that much evidence, then you pick up the goddamned phone and phone the goddamned cops. If you're a school employee, your job is not to do strip searches, and I hope the kid's lawyers bankrupt the goddamned school. They overstepped their bounds so badly that it's difficult to imagine how they're judgement could have been any worse.

Re:This is America (2, Insightful)

ArcherB (796902) | more than 5 years ago | (#28472191)

Now, I don't agree with strip searching kids, especially for something stupid like Advil or something. However, the second you state that school officials are not allowed to check your underwear, that's where everything starts getting hidden. Unfortunately, the only way to keep this from being abused and still having some effectiveness would be to publicly allow this type of search, but ban it privately.

That's when you call the cops and have it done by professionals who know how to do it properly. Even if my kid was carrying drugs in his or her underwear, I would not want a school administrator doing the search. You think you've got that much evidence, then you pick up the goddamned phone and phone the goddamned cops. If you're a school employee, your job is not to do strip searches, and I hope the kid's lawyers bankrupt the goddamned school. They overstepped their bounds so badly that it's difficult to imagine how they're judgement could have been any worse.

Agreed. However, for the sake of argument, consider the following hypothetical:
You received a credible tip from multiple sources that a girl has... I don't know... cyanide or something stuffed in her panties. So, you place this girl under "observation" to make sure she doesn't ditch anything while you call her parents and the police. The police say they will be there as soon as they can, but it may be two hours or longer. Her parents are at work and won't be coming at all.

About 20 minutes into the waiting, she claims she has to go to the bathroom. What do you do? Do you forbid her from going to the bathroom or do you send someone in there with her to watch her so she doesn't flush the evidence?

Re:This is America (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28472299)

Do you forbid her from going to the bathroom

Well of course you do.

Re:This is America (3, Funny)

iamhigh (1252742) | more than 5 years ago | (#28472367)

Well, unlike your argument/hypothetical situation, a 13 year old can hold (their) water.

Re:This is America (1)

diskis (221264) | more than 5 years ago | (#28472371)

Put her into a closet with a jar and this: http://p-mate.com/eng/intro.html [p-mate.com]

Re:This is America (3, Insightful)

dgatwood (11270) | more than 5 years ago | (#28472379)

Neither. You watch her surreptitiously until the police or the parents get there. You do not do anything to tip her off to the fact that she is being watched..

Re:This is America (1)

Tiro (19535) | more than 5 years ago | (#28472205)

But the court also ruled that the school officials could not be held responsible for violating her rights (qualified immunity). FTA:

Dan Capra, a Fordham Law School professor, issued a statement in which he said that the fundamental question about the ruling in Safford Unified School District v. Redding, No. 08-479, is "is whether school officials will ever actually be liable for such searches."

"According to the court, the law on the subject was not clearly established, and so the officials had qualified immunity," Mr. Capra said. "But every case will be an application of law to fact. Officials now know they can't do exactly what was done in Safford. But what if there is any change of material fact in the circumstances?"

If they had called the cops, the cops would have been held to a higher standard. So any lawsuit won't win. (IMO, absurd.)

Re:This is America (1)

martas (1439879) | more than 5 years ago | (#28472237)

mod parent up. something this extreme should never be done in a school. what's next, searching kids' homes? holding cells in the basement for punishment? you're not cops, you're supposed to educate those kids!

although, maybe they just wanted to see a naked 13 year old girl. it's hard to resist, if you think you have the opportunity... i've said too much.

Re:This is America (2, Interesting)

fyrewulff (702920) | more than 5 years ago | (#28472423)

The problem is school districts think they are god and above the law. They get even more power hungry than the most power hungry cop, and much less accountable.

For instance, a year or two back, a girl claimed she was sexually assaulted in the stairway of a school.

What did the school do?

Call the cops?

No.

Call the parents?

No.

They sent a teacher to go 'investigate' the stairway. Instead of you know, calling the cops, who are trained in questioning and scene investigation, they send a portly tenured person down to go contaminate the scene because they didn't know what the hell they were doing.

This is just a lighter one of their instances of pulling that shit. They always like to try and bury things before they get outside the school or to the press, and often tried to intimidate kids into not talking about something.

Re:This is America (1)

Jaysyn (203771) | more than 5 years ago | (#28472089)

Call the fucking cops or at least call the kids damn parents. They didn't do either.

Re:This is America (3, Insightful)

KCWaldo (1555553) | more than 5 years ago | (#28472113)

Uhh, Outside of a immediate threat to others what is wrong with calling the parents in to oversee a search of a minor? Personally if I was the girls father the vice principal and nurses would not have heard the end of it.

Re:This is America (2, Insightful)

ArcherB (796902) | more than 5 years ago | (#28472261)

Uhh, Outside of a immediate threat to others what is wrong with calling the parents in to oversee a search of a minor?

Personally if I was the girls father the vice principal and nurses would not have heard the end of it.

I agree, but I don't know what would be worse, getting strip searched by the vice principal or getting strip searched by my vice principal while my mother looks on. (Although, I think having the parent in the next room would be sufficient if that's OK with the accused and the parent.)

And if I were the parent and nothing was found, there would be hell to pay whether I was called or not!

Re:This is America (1)

dmatos (232892) | more than 5 years ago | (#28472241)

This decision states that, in this particular instance, with the evidence in his disposal, the administrator's decision to strip-search the student was unreasonable, and thus unconstitutional. That is all. It does not prevent strip-searching future students should more compelling evidence be found.

Re:This is America (4, Insightful)

BlackSabbath (118110) | more than 5 years ago | (#28472373)

> However, the second you state that school officials are not allowed to check your underwear, that's where everything starts getting hidden

In case you didn't realise just how bad that sounds I've taken the liberty of rephrasing it for you:

"However, the second you state that school officials are not allowed to check your vagina or anus, that's where everything starts getting hidden."

You see how people might have a problem with that? "School-issue speculums" just doesn't have a comforting ring about it.

Re:This is America (1)

Greyfox (87712) | more than 5 years ago | (#28472439)

That's because they don't vote. If every 18-21 year old in the country registered to vote and made the legal drinking age an issue, you can be damn sure it'd get set to whatever they wanted it to be.

Unless... (5, Insightful)

Misanthrope (49269) | more than 5 years ago | (#28471755)

Unless the district had a policy that made this a requirement of the officials, they should be held personally accountable for these horrid actions.

Re:Unless... (3, Insightful)

afidel (530433) | more than 5 years ago | (#28471941)

Exactly, making it unconstitutional but shielding the bad actors means NOTHING. As long as these people can do such incredibly stupid stuff and just have the taxpayers pick up the tab there is no real disincentive for them to act badly and they won't be forced to stop and think of the ramification of their actions.

Re:Unless... (1)

hamburger lady (218108) | more than 5 years ago | (#28472283)

well, the limited liability applied by the court is supposed to be a one-time-only thing. so there is a disincentive now.

i disagree that the liability should have been limited at all, but that's the way the majority found.

Whys hould a policy help them? (4, Insightful)

The Creator (4611) | more than 5 years ago | (#28472265)

Unless the district had a policy that made this a requirement of the officials

Do you really think that "We were just following orders" would be a legitimate exuse?

Re:Unless... (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28472343)

I fail to see how the 'district' can make official policy which could possibly amount to 'sexual assault of a minor' in the court system. These people, and a lot of ISD board members need a good thorough kick to the head... err.. awakening if they think that this that type of behavior by school administrators is acceptable in the name of zero tolerance. And don't get me started on 'zero tolerance......

Several people need to lose there jobs over this, and possibly have criminal charges pressed against them.... I'll leave the criminal charges up to the discretion of the victim and the D.A.

My Rights Online? (0)

The Yuckinator (898499) | more than 5 years ago | (#28471759)

How exactly is this "online"?

Re:My Rights Online? (1)

selven (1556643) | more than 5 years ago | (#28471819)

67% of the name of the category fits with this article. I'd like to see a category that fits better.

Re:My Rights Online? (0, Flamebait)

Captain Splendid (673276) | more than 5 years ago | (#28471823)

They're about your rights, and you're reading it online.

Fucking parsers...

Re:My Rights Online? (1)

Bigby (659157) | more than 5 years ago | (#28471859)

The story is posted "online"...right?

Re:My Rights Online? (2, Funny)

calmofthestorm (1344385) | more than 5 years ago | (#28471903)

Good point, it's interstate commerce!

Re:My Rights Online? (1)

KarlIsNotMyName (1529477) | more than 5 years ago | (#28471899)

Well, it's "Your rights" online. Not necessarily your "online rights".

Re:My Rights Online? (2, Interesting)

interkin3tic (1469267) | more than 5 years ago | (#28472047)

They posted pics of the whole thing online. I would have sued about that too, but then again, they were suprisingly tasteful. I mean, she did use one of them as her yearbook photo.

Re:My Rights Online? (1)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 5 years ago | (#28472105)

It was reported on line.. perhaps that is how low the bar is now?

Re:My Rights Online? (4, Funny)

CorporateSuit (1319461) | more than 5 years ago | (#28472311)

Because now we know that we can store torrents and pirated files in children's underpants (aka UnderWarez) that cannot, constitutionally, be searched by their school administrations.

Never has the suddenoutbreakofcommonsense tag fit (1)

jockeys (753885) | more than 5 years ago | (#28471829)

quite as well as it does now.

I may not be the only rabid libertarian posting here that thinks this was an awful violation of 4A (yeah yeah, I know, 4A doesn't always apply in schools) but I'll go one further and say that the offenders ought to be sent off to federal PMITA prison and branded as sex offenders.

All for a fucking Advil!

Re:Never has the suddenoutbreakofcommonsense tag f (1)

arashi sohaku (228013) | more than 5 years ago | (#28471995)

A nonexistent Advil at that...

Re:Never has the suddenoutbreakofcommonsense tag f (1)

dunkelfalke (91624) | more than 5 years ago | (#28472267)

Has nothing to do with being libertarian. Even in the USSR - which most slashdotters associate with complete absence of civil rights - a strip search of a teen girl by a school official never could have happened.

P.S. just for your information, the only two parties here in Germany really acting for civil rights are the pirate party and the communists. German libertarians are only pro civil rights when they are in the opposition. When they are in the ruling coalition they happily stamp civil rights to the ground.

sue the school? (0, Redundant)

blueskies (525815) | more than 5 years ago | (#28471831)

I'm assuming the school district is still libel for the actions of it's employees even if the principal got a free pass.

Strip search a 13 year old girl? They better be looking for nuclear weapons or at least yellow cake.

Re:sue the school? (1)

Bigby (659157) | more than 5 years ago | (#28471939)

It is still against the 4th amendment to strip search for nuclear weapons. I hope this moves right into airline security. If the school can't search a student without a warrant, why can the TSA (government agency) search our bags and persons without a warrant?

Re:sue the school? (1)

jonbryce (703250) | more than 5 years ago | (#28472023)

TFA says that searching bags and outer clothing is fine, and that's generally what they do at an airport.

Re:sue the school? (2, Insightful)

Phroggy (441) | more than 5 years ago | (#28472131)

I hope this moves right into airline security. If the school can't search a student without a warrant, why can the TSA (government agency) search our bags and persons without a warrant?

The theory is that although attending school is required by law, you don't have to fly. By choosing to fly, you voluntarily agree to be searched. Of course the reality is that other forms of long-distance travel are prohibitively inconvenient, but they're right that everyone who chooses to fly understands the rules beforehand.

Re:sue the school? (1)

camperdave (969942) | more than 5 years ago | (#28472319)

Of course the reality is that other forms of long-distance travel are prohibitively inconvenient, but they're right that everyone who chooses to fly understands the rules beforehand.

Don't be so cavalier. The DHS has jurisdiction on all forms of mass transportation. They could just as easily set up shop at a bus station, a train station, or a subway station.

And the "!" in the 8 to 1 is... (5, Insightful)

nebaz (453974) | more than 5 years ago | (#28471837)

Clarence Thomas, who 'asserted that the majority's finding second-guesses the measures that educators take to maintain discipline "and ensure the health and safety of the students in their charge."'

I can't imagine how forcing a 13-year old girl to strip ensures anyone's health and safety, especially since they were looking for IBUPROFIN, for heaven's sake.

Re:And the "!" in the 8 to 1 is... (1)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 5 years ago | (#28471945)

That was Clarence Thomas. He probably thinks forced strip searches are a damned good idea, and is probably in with his secretary exploring it further.

Re:And the "!" in the 8 to 1 is... (3, Interesting)

ArcherB (796902) | more than 5 years ago | (#28471999)

Clarence Thomas, who 'asserted that the majority's finding second-guesses the measures that educators take to maintain discipline "and ensure the health and safety of the students in their charge."'

I can't imagine how forcing a 13-year old girl to strip ensures anyone's health and safety, especially since they were looking for IBUPROFIN, for heaven's sake.

The majority agrees with that part. From TFA:

Had Savana been suspected of having illegal drugs that could have posed a far greater danger to herself and other students, the strip search, too, might have been justified, the majority said, in an opinion by Justice David H. Souter.

Re:And the "!" in the 8 to 1 is... (2, Insightful)

Allicorn (175921) | more than 5 years ago | (#28472227)

The majority agrees with that part. From TFA:

Had Savana been suspected of having illegal drugs that could have posed a far greater danger to herself and other students, the strip search, too, might have been justified, the majority said, in an opinion by Justice David H. Souter.

Holy forking schnitt.

We like to have a good ol' joke and whinge about government and judiciary living in la-la-land and, true enough, they can often look fairly freakin' "out there" but from exactly how high do you need to have been dropped on your head as a baby to think that strip-searching school children is ever appropriate behaviour?!

Re:And the "!" in the 8 to 1 is... (1)

Bigby (659157) | more than 5 years ago | (#28472033)

I didn't know the 4th amendment of the Constitution gave an exception for health and safety. How can a person who is charged with the sole responsibility of interpreting the Constitution add his own words? Does he interpret a "reasonable search" as one that has to do with health and safety? Wouldn't that encompass all searches?

Re:And the "!" in the 8 to 1 is... (4, Informative)

hansamurai (907719) | more than 5 years ago | (#28472145)

Thomas has had a lot of history with the 4th amendment, usually siding with the enforcement side, so maybe his decision isn't too surprising.

See: Samson v. California, or Board of Education v. Earls. However, in Kyllo v. United States he agreed with the defendant that thermal imaging without a warrant violates the 4th.

Re:And the "!" in the 8 to 1 is... (1)

hansamurai (907719) | more than 5 years ago | (#28472275)

By defendant in the Kyllo case I mean Kyllo, the side defending their 4th amendment rights.

Re:And the "!" in the 8 to 1 is... (1)

AndersOSU (873247) | more than 5 years ago | (#28472317)

Souter's saying that no matter how much evidence you have it's never reasonable to strip search a 13 year old if you're only looking for ibuprofen (or something similarly benign.)

He's leaving the door open for possible future strip searches of 13 year olds if they're looking for something genuinely dangerous - but you'd still have to meet at least the reasonable suspicion, if not the probable cause threshold. Presumably if you meet these thresholds the search isn't unreasonable.

This actually reinforces the 4th amendment, because it clarifies that not every search is reasonable just because you have a reasonable suspicion that a crime was committed - the severity of the crime also factors into reasonableness.

Also Thomas is an asshat.

Re:And the "!" in the 8 to 1 is... (1, Informative)

AuMatar (183847) | more than 5 years ago | (#28472051)

Does this surprise you? Thomas' opinion of the law is pretty much the government can do whatever it wants, as long as its not done by a democrat.

Re:And the "!" in the 8 to 1 is... (2, Interesting)

qbzzt (11136) | more than 5 years ago | (#28472057)

I can't imagine how forcing a 13-year old girl to strip ensures anyone's health and safety,

If they were looking for something really dangerous, on the basis of credible evidence, I'd be the first to applaud them. It sucks, but kids have been used for fighting before [wikipedia.org] .

However, in this case they were just enforcing a "zero common sense" policy.

Re:And the "!" in the 8 to 1 is... (1)

macbeth66 (204889) | more than 5 years ago | (#28472091)

I can't imagine how forcing a 13-year old girl to strip ensures anyone's health and safety, especially since they were looking for IBUPROFIN, for heaven's sake.

You can't imagine? I guess you don't know thirteen year olds today. They can be very nasty little things. My kids will be 19 next week, and even they are shocked at some of the things the younger kids do. Last year, a seventh grade girl was expelled for giving a boy on the bus oral sex. Incredibly, it was for just a few bucks.

BTW, I do agree with your sentiment about a strip search over Advil.

Re:And the "!" in the 8 to 1 is... (-1, Flamebait)

Nimey (114278) | more than 5 years ago | (#28472107)

Clarence Thomas: the best argument against affirmative action.

Re:And the "!" in the 8 to 1 is... (1)

martas (1439879) | more than 5 years ago | (#28472125)

are you kidding? what if somebody got a headache, and took the pill to feel better? can you imagine the damage to The Children's fragile minds from seeing someone take a pill not prescribed by a doctor?

Re:And the "!" in the 8 to 1 is... (0)

LostInTaiwan (837924) | more than 5 years ago | (#28472171)

We went from Thurgood Marshall to Clarence Thomas. This is what happens when we nominate people on the basis of their skin color.

Too Bad (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28471851)

I'm a middle school principal who likes to finger my students.

Well... (-1, Offtopic)

XPeter (1429763) | more than 5 years ago | (#28471857)

...I clicked on TFA to see if the girl was hot, but theres no picture. Sigh...even teenage geeks cant get love :(

Re:Well... (2, Funny)

cervo (626632) | more than 5 years ago | (#28471953)

You'll get used to it by the time you hit 20 :)

Re:Well... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28472009)

But current federal United States laws dictate that by seeing anybody under age of 18 nude or even hot-like you're considered a pedophile and therefore must be imprisoned for at least three years and required to register as a sex offender for the rest of your life even though you're in the same age group, no exceptions!

Re:Well... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28472043)

...I clicked on TFA to see if the girl was hot, but theres no picture. Sigh...even teenage geeks cant get love :(

Hrmm...no +1 quasi-pedo, mods?

Make them pay! (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28471863)

Those sons-of-bitches should be fired and prosecuted for child abuse, at the very least. They humiliated and terrified a good child, who had done no wrong previously, over fucking MOTRIN.

Just because it was "clearly established law" doesn't make it right to ignore that abusive treatment. At risk of godwin-ing this early, this stinks of "just following orders."

Re:Make them pay! (1)

afidel (530433) | more than 5 years ago | (#28472055)

The "just following orders" thing is why I was so happy when Florida passed the law requiring zero tolerance (zero intelligence) rules have a justification of stopping significant harm from the students. I really hope that becomes a national trend because having petty dictators expel students because they brought in a GI Joe with a plastic gun 1" long and the like are seriously farking with the mindset of the next generation.

Fresh bosom (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28471897)

From the article

The portion of the ruling exempting the officials from liability is likely to be greeted with relief by thousands of principals, teachers and other school officials who work to impart knowledge and maintain discipline in a fast-changing world, where children are growing up (or trying to) earlier than ever.

and whose luscious young breasts scream out to be exposed and gently carressed. Pretending they had some legit reason to strip search lolita is almost as unbelievable as the supreme court of the US letting these pervs off.

Ibuprofen (1)

oneirophrenos (1500619) | more than 5 years ago | (#28471933)

TFA says they were looking for "prescription-strength drugs", but in fact they were looking for ibuprofen [bbc.co.uk] , a relatively safe, over-the-counter analgesic. Basically they strip searched her on suspection of carrying aspirin. And she didn't even have the drug in her possession!

Re:Ibuprofen (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28472269)

200mg/pill is over-the-counter.
600mg/pill is prescription strength.

...and in Costco you can buy a container with something like 200 of the 200mg.
3 of those should tell you that something doesn't always add up.

200mg is recommended from 25kg and up. Maybe even from 20kg. 600mg hints
that you had an operation.

Re:Ibuprofen (1)

hardburn (141468) | more than 5 years ago | (#28472401)

High dosages generally do need a prescription, so TFA is technically correct. I don't find that a particularly compelling reason for a strip search, though, and certainly not by a school administrator because of an allegation from another student. Call the girl's parents' or the cops if you must.

News For Nerds How Exactly?!!! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28471935)

This is so obviously not an online rights issue. And I would seriously doubt there is any significant portion of the readership of middle school age.

There's no reason for this story to be on slashdot.

Re:News For Nerds How Exactly?!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28472075)

Civil liberties are sometimes "Stuff That Matters".

Re:News For Nerds How Exactly?!!! (1)

interkin3tic (1469267) | more than 5 years ago | (#28472121)

A lot of nerds really like perscription Ibuprofen and are worried they'll be strip searched if they use it.

Re:News For Nerds How Exactly?!!! (3, Funny)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 5 years ago | (#28472221)

A lot of nerds really like perscription Ibuprofen and are hope they'll be strip searched by hot blonde vixens in uniforms if they use it.

There, fixed that for ya.

For once, read TFA. (4, Informative)

powerlord (28156) | more than 5 years ago | (#28471943)

Okay, I'll admit that, like most Slashdotters, I skip the occasional article and jump straight into the comments, but people should really take the time to read this one!

For instance:

Had Savana been suspected of having illegal drugs that could have posed a far greater danger to herself and other students, the strip search, too, might have been justified, the majority said, in an opinion by Justice David H. Souter.

and

Justice Clarence Thomas was the only member of the court to conclude that the strip search of Savana Redding did not violate the Fourth Amendment. He asserted that the majority's finding second-guesses the measures that educators take to maintain discipline "and ensure the health and safety of the students in their charge."

The discussion about wether the School Administrator should be held responsible is similarly contentious.

Its nice to know that they chose well on upholding her rights, but its sad how close a thing it seems from the article.

Clarence Thomas's Copy of the Constitution (2, Insightful)

scruffy (29773) | more than 5 years ago | (#28472019)

Does he have the same copy as the rest of us?

Re:Clarence Thomas's Copy of the Constitution (4, Insightful)

Bigby (659157) | more than 5 years ago | (#28472203)

In his interpretation, "unreasonable searches" do not exist. Every search has a reason and the 4th amendment is therefore null and void.

Another strike against personal responibility (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28472081)

Some bad (illegal) stuff happened ... but none of the people that made the decisions that resulted in the bad stuff can be held responsible for their actions. WTF?

Qualified Immunity (4, Informative)

Bryan Gividen (739949) | more than 5 years ago | (#28472115)

The reason the officials were not held responsible is because of an idea called qualified immunity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualified_immunity [wikipedia.org] ) which essentially states that public officials cannot be held personally responsible for actions they undertake as part of their public duty and which, if illegal or unconstitutional, must clearly be illegal or unconstitutional.

It is interesting to note that the two Justices that dissented regarding whether or not the school officials were covered by qualified immunity were Justice John Paul Stevens and Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and that Justice Souter was a part of the majority. If Sotomayor is placed on the bench, it is feasible she would rule much closer to Justice Ginsburg and Stevens then to Souter on these types of matters.

Re:Qualified Immunity (2, Insightful)

cockpitcomp (1575439) | more than 5 years ago | (#28472263)

The qualified immunity defense did not work for the cop that violated Rodney King's rights and it should not work here either.

Re:Qualified Immunity (4, Insightful)

u38cg (607297) | more than 5 years ago | (#28472337)

Pardon the pontificating from a bystanding Brit who is by no means as knowledgeable on your Constitution as he should be, but reading TFWA, I note the test is the usual one of a hypothetical "reasonable person". I might not be reasonable all the time, but I'm pretty sure if I was asked to strip-search a 13 year old girl, loco parentis or not, I would be reasonably sure it would be a bad idea.

All I know is one thing... (4, Insightful)

Jaysyn (203771) | more than 5 years ago | (#28472153)

... if I was her brother or father I'd probably *still* be in jail for assault.

Re:All I know is one thing... (2, Insightful)

webdragon (788788) | more than 5 years ago | (#28472303)

... if I was her brother or father I'd probably *still* be in jail for assault.

Depends on how deep you bury the body afterwards Jaysyn.

politicians and voters also share blame (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28472231)

They are the ones that pushed to pass these zero-tolerance and no exception rules.

Whos the oddball (1, Redundant)

BigJClark (1226554) | more than 5 years ago | (#28472251)


That voted, that yes, this was constitutional?

This person should be tarred and feathered.

All bark, no bite (4, Insightful)

XxtraLarGe (551297) | more than 5 years ago | (#28472271)

However, by a vote of 7-2, the Court also ruled that the individual school officials could not be held personally liable

What good is the ruling if there's no consequence? It seems to me that the biggest problem with government is that there's almost no accountability, and that leads to corruption & abuse of power.

Stop blaming the government and schools... (-1, Troll)

DomNF15 (1529309) | more than 5 years ago | (#28472285)

Some may not want to hear this, but it's the parents' responsibility to make sure the kid doesn't bring weapons/drugs into the school. If the courts are ruling no searches of underwear, it's because parents should be aware of what their kids are stuffing into their clothing. The parents' lack of responsibility and accountability is the reason metal detectors and searches have become necessary.

Re:Stop blaming the government and schools... (1, Offtopic)

Blixinator (1585261) | more than 5 years ago | (#28472407)

My parents check my undies every day before I go to work. Just like all good parents should!

Is she a nigger? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28472327)

Most darkie ho's are packin ion, nawadameen?

Public Servants -- !!! (2, Interesting)

Pewpdaddy (1364159) | more than 5 years ago | (#28472413)

Two things, there has to be a happy medium as to what is expected from school officials(these were obviously wrong). 1.) Administrators need to be able to search(strip searching is off the table IMO). 2.) If you think the kid has something(dangerous) hidden there should be a trained police officer on site aka School Resource Officer(SRO) who can make the call as to get the proper authorities involved. Also I concur any administrator who thinks they have the right to strip search a 13yr old student should be pinned to the wall. The extent of their all powerful positions is to expel pupils not strip search them.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>