Previous 1
Topic: Court says strip search of Ariz. teenager illegal
yellowrose10's photo
Thu 06/25/09 11:14 AM
By JESSE J. HOLLAND, Associated Press Writer Jesse J. Holland, Associated Press Writer – 54 mins ago

WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court ruled Thursday school officials violated an Arizona teenage girl rights by strip-searching her for prescription-strength ibuprofen, saying U.S. educators should not force children to remove their clothing unless student safety is at risk.

In an 8-1 ruling, the justices said that Safford Middle School officials violated the Fourth Amendment ban on unreasonable searches with their treatment of Savana Redding. However, the court also ruled that the Arizona school officials cannot be held financially liable for their search.

Redding was 13 when the educators in rural eastern Arizona conducted the search. They were looking for pills — the equivalent of two Advils. The district bans prescription and over-the-counter drugs and the school was acting on a tip from another student.

The school's search of Redding's backpack and outer clothes was permissible, the court said. But the justices said that officials went too far when they asked to search her underwear.

A 1985 Supreme Court decision that dealt with searching a student's purse has found that school officials need only reasonable suspicions, not probable cause. But the court also warned against a search that is "excessively intrusive."

"What was missing from the suspected facts that pointed to Savana was any indication of danger to the students from the power of the drugs or their quantity, and any reason to suppose that Savana was carrying pills in her underwear," Justice David Souter wrote in the majority opinion. "We think that the combination of these deficiencies was fatal to finding the search reasonable."

Redding said she was pleased with the court's decision. "I'm pretty excited about it, because that's what I wanted," she said. "I wanted to keep it from happening to anybody else."

"The court's decision sends a clear signal to school officials that they can strip search students only in the most extraordinary situations," added her lawyer, Adam Wolf of the American Civil Liberties Union Foundation.

In a dissent, Justice Clarence Thomas found the search legal and said the court previously had given school officials "considerable leeway" under the Fourth Amendment in school settings.

Officials had searched the girl's backpack and found nothing, Thomas said. "It was eminently reasonable to conclude the backpack was empty because Redding was secreting the pills in a place she thought no one would look," Thomas said.

Thomas warned that the majority's decision could backfire. "Redding would not have been the first person to conceal pills in her undergarments," he said. "Nor will she be the last after today's decision, which announces the safest place to secrete contraband in school."

The court also ruled the officials cannot be held liable in a lawsuit for the search. Different judges around the nation have come to different conclusions about immunity for school officials in strip searches, which leads the Supreme Court to "counsel doubt that we were sufficiently clear in the prior statement of law," Souter said.

"We think these differences of opinion from our own are substantial enough to require immunity for the school officials in this case," Souter said.

The justices also said the lower courts would have to determine whether the Safford Unified School District No. 1 could be held liable.

A schoolmate had accused Redding, then an eighth-grade student, of giving her pills.

The school's vice principal, Kerry Wilson, took Redding to his office to search her backpack. When nothing was found, Redding was taken to a nurse's office where she says she was ordered to take off her shirt and pants. Redding said they then told her to move her bra to the side and to stretch her underwear waistband, exposing her ******* and pelvic area. No pills were found.

A federal magistrate dismissed a suit by Redding and her mother, April. An appeals panel agreed that the search didn't violate her rights. But last July, a full panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals found the search was "an invasion of constitutional rights" and that Wilson could be found personally liable.

Justices John Paul Stevens and Ruth Bader Ginsburg dissented from the portion of the ruling saying that Wilson could not be held financially liable.

"Wilson's treatment of Redding was abusive and it was not reasonable for him to believe that the law permitted it," Ginsburg said.

The case is Safford Unified School District v. April Redding, 08-479.

shocked

MirrorMirror's photo
Thu 06/25/09 11:21 AM

By JESSE J. HOLLAND, Associated Press Writer Jesse J. Holland, Associated Press Writer – 54 mins ago

WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court ruled Thursday school officials violated an Arizona teenage girl rights by strip-searching her for prescription-strength ibuprofen, saying U.S. educators should not force children to remove their clothing unless student safety is at risk.

In an 8-1 ruling, the justices said that Safford Middle School officials violated the Fourth Amendment ban on unreasonable searches with their treatment of Savana Redding. However, the court also ruled that the Arizona school officials cannot be held financially liable for their search.

Redding was 13 when the educators in rural eastern Arizona conducted the search. They were looking for pills — the equivalent of two Advils. The district bans prescription and over-the-counter drugs and the school was acting on a tip from another student.

The school's search of Redding's backpack and outer clothes was permissible, the court said. But the justices said that officials went too far when they asked to search her underwear.

A 1985 Supreme Court decision that dealt with searching a student's purse has found that school officials need only reasonable suspicions, not probable cause. But the court also warned against a search that is "excessively intrusive."

"What was missing from the suspected facts that pointed to Savana was any indication of danger to the students from the power of the drugs or their quantity, and any reason to suppose that Savana was carrying pills in her underwear," Justice David Souter wrote in the majority opinion. "We think that the combination of these deficiencies was fatal to finding the search reasonable."

Redding said she was pleased with the court's decision. "I'm pretty excited about it, because that's what I wanted," she said. "I wanted to keep it from happening to anybody else."

"The court's decision sends a clear signal to school officials that they can strip search students only in the most extraordinary situations," added her lawyer, Adam Wolf of the American Civil Liberties Union Foundation.

In a dissent, Justice Clarence Thomas found the search legal and said the court previously had given school officials "considerable leeway" under the Fourth Amendment in school settings.

Officials had searched the girl's backpack and found nothing, Thomas said. "It was eminently reasonable to conclude the backpack was empty because Redding was secreting the pills in a place she thought no one would look," Thomas said.

Thomas warned that the majority's decision could backfire. "Redding would not have been the first person to conceal pills in her undergarments," he said. "Nor will she be the last after today's decision, which announces the safest place to secrete contraband in school."

The court also ruled the officials cannot be held liable in a lawsuit for the search. Different judges around the nation have come to different conclusions about immunity for school officials in strip searches, which leads the Supreme Court to "counsel doubt that we were sufficiently clear in the prior statement of law," Souter said.

"We think these differences of opinion from our own are substantial enough to require immunity for the school officials in this case," Souter said.

The justices also said the lower courts would have to determine whether the Safford Unified School District No. 1 could be held liable.

A schoolmate had accused Redding, then an eighth-grade student, of giving her pills.

The school's vice principal, Kerry Wilson, took Redding to his office to search her backpack. When nothing was found, Redding was taken to a nurse's office where she says she was ordered to take off her shirt and pants. Redding said they then told her to move her bra to the side and to stretch her underwear waistband, exposing her ******* and pelvic area. No pills were found.

A federal magistrate dismissed a suit by Redding and her mother, April. An appeals panel agreed that the search didn't violate her rights. But last July, a full panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals found the search was "an invasion of constitutional rights" and that Wilson could be found personally liable.

Justices John Paul Stevens and Ruth Bader Ginsburg dissented from the portion of the ruling saying that Wilson could not be held financially liable.

"Wilson's treatment of Redding was abusive and it was not reasonable for him to believe that the law permitted it," Ginsburg said.

The case is Safford Unified School District v. April Redding, 08-479.

shocked
:smile: Those school officials sound like pedophiles to me:smile:

tngxl65's photo
Thu 06/25/09 11:23 AM
I've got a couple tylenol if you can find them.....

metalwing's photo
Thu 06/25/09 11:26 AM
Crazy~ Power crazy!

adoptmee's photo
Thu 06/25/09 11:30 AM
yeah funny and 1 one judge who voted in favor, remember what he was involved in

franshade's photo
Thu 06/25/09 11:48 AM
In an 8-1 ruling, the justices said that Safford Middle School officials violated the Fourth Amendment ban on unreasonable searches with their treatment of Savana Redding. However, the court also ruled that the Arizona school officials cannot be held financially liable for their search.


The court also ruled the officials cannot be held liable in a lawsuit for the search. Different judges around the nation have come to different conclusions about immunity for school officials in strip searches, which leads the Supreme Court to "counsel doubt that we were sufficiently clear in the prior statement of law," Souter said.



is that like saying yes they were wrong oh well what
or like saying whhooooopppsssiii my bad

when you hit someone in the pocket they pay more attention.

teachers/officials should be fired - student a minor at that

rant

yellowrose10's photo
Thu 06/25/09 11:51 AM
what I don't get is....minors need to have a parent present when questioning them by police. IF it were legal to strip search (not saying it is or right) shouldn't the parents be present AT LEAST?

franshade's photo
Thu 06/25/09 11:52 AM
as officials are not liable - who gives a rats a$$ frustrated

wow - how times have changed rant

no photo
Thu 06/25/09 12:14 PM
wow

8-1!!

that doesnt happen often

that is kind of a slap in the face to the prosecution

yellowrose10's photo
Thu 06/25/09 12:24 PM
since it mentions the 4th amendment...I thought I'd add it



U.S. Constitution: Fourth Amendment

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

MirrorMirror's photo
Thu 06/25/09 12:26 PM

since it mentions the 4th amendment...I thought I'd add it



U.S. Constitution: Fourth Amendment

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
laugh That's a jokelaugh They don't go by that anymoreohwell

yellowrose10's photo
Thu 06/25/09 12:26 PM


since it mentions the 4th amendment...I thought I'd add it



U.S. Constitution: Fourth Amendment

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
laugh That's a jokelaugh They don't go by that anymoreohwell


which 4th amendment do they go by?

franshade's photo
Thu 06/25/09 12:29 PM

since it mentions the 4th amendment...I thought I'd add it



U.S. Constitution: Fourth Amendment

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.


The word of another minor is the probable cause - they were looking for 2 flipping aspirins.

Granted drugs are not allowed on school premises, even over the counter medicines, but on the word of another minor, to strip search a student... hmmmm maybe the student that told and the official are related??? close friends???


rantno one sees that imaginary line anymore - the line of personal space / respect rant


MirrorMirror's photo
Thu 06/25/09 12:30 PM



since it mentions the 4th amendment...I thought I'd add it



U.S. Constitution: Fourth Amendment

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
laugh That's a jokelaugh They don't go by that anymoreohwell


which 4th amendment do they go by?
ohwell The one that says they can do whatever they want to doohwell

franshade's photo
Thu 06/25/09 12:30 PM



since it mentions the 4th amendment...I thought I'd add it



U.S. Constitution: Fourth Amendment

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
laugh That's a jokelaugh They don't go by that anymoreohwell


which 4th amendment do they go by?


this proves they dont go by any 4th amendment

this is just sad


yellowrose10's photo
Thu 06/25/09 12:31 PM
Fran....I'm not saying what they did is right by any means. I don't agree with them. I just posted the 4th amendment since it was sited in the OP

tngxl65's photo
Thu 06/25/09 12:32 PM




since it mentions the 4th amendment...I thought I'd add it



U.S. Constitution: Fourth Amendment

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
laugh That's a jokelaugh They don't go by that anymoreohwell


which 4th amendment do they go by?


this proves they dont go by any 4th amendment

this is just sad




They can't very well remove it. Maybe they can just change them all to 'The Bill of Suggestions'

MirrorMirror's photo
Thu 06/25/09 12:34 PM
:smile: The Constitution and the Bill Of Rights has about as much value as a roll of toilet paper:smile:

franshade's photo
Thu 06/25/09 12:35 PM

since it mentions the 4th amendment...I thought I'd add it



U.S. Constitution: Fourth Amendment

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.


like all our other rights, it's just more smoke up our ________ rant

boy I am in rare form today - sorry

yellowrose10's photo
Thu 06/25/09 12:36 PM
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated


THAT part is what protects the people and the people in authority that ignore this....will get their come upings.....not in this case for the child....but I suspect these teachers are going to be ridiculed etc for a long time

Previous 1