oh sunshine, I know and I'm with you

This whole situation just got the best of me


I apologize

no problem sweetness lol

I posted it for discussion is all

while school officials have an authoritative role in students lives while in school.

I plum dare any teacher, vp, prin to strip search my child while in school, but again this was back then. When there were any problems, a school official would contact you and have you come in, not take it upon themselves to have 'minor/students' remove their clothing down to their underwear.

that was exactly my point before....the parents should be notified. let's say the kid has crack....the parents should be notified and the police as well to investigate. the school should only be allowed to give detention, suspend or expel.

I doubt they even care

was proving you and I think alike

although it looks like the court of appeals overturned the responsibility and can hold the guy responsible

don't be scared, be very very scared

Actually from what I heard today they gave the school and it's employees immunity in this case. What's really bad here is that they didn't actually say they could strip search a child. What they said was that it wasn't warranted in this case. They were looking for prescription strength ibuprofen, which is something that would not likely endanger the student searched or any of the other student body. Had it been something more lethal the court would not likely have had the same findings. While I do have some understanding there when there is potential risk of life I don't see how or why they would not be required to contact the parents before even thinking of doing a strip search, that is just plain irresponsible (yes Kim I saw where you had suggested that).

(((davey)))

this is the part where I interpreted it was over turned

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.

did I read that wrong?

No you didn't, but even though the ruling said they could be held responsible, from what I read they were offered immunity from monetary repercussions for testifying.


(((((((((Rose)))))))))))

woudn't that fall into personal responsibility?

yes but I'm fairly sure the immunity was all inclusive. The effect here is that they have defined a little better what's justifiable and anyone in the future trying such things will have no excuse and not be getting any kind of immunity.