Supreme Court and the Strip Search Case

By Jeralyn, Section Supreme Court
Posted on Mon Apr 20, 2009 at 08:48:00 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

If my kid, when he was a kid, was strip searched in the 8th grade at school because they thought he had ibuprophen, I would have been up in arms.

Tuesday, the Supreme Court hears arguments in the case of an Arizona student who was strip searched at school.

Savana Redding was an honors student at a middle school in Safford, Ariz., with a clean discipline record. A friend of Savana’s, who was found in possession of pain relievers, told school authorities that Savana had given her 400-milligram ibuprofen pills, a prescription -level dose of the pain reliever in over-the-counter Advil and Motrin, used to treat headaches and menstrual cramps.

I don't care if it was percodan or dilaudid. You don't strip search kids. [More...]

Based on this information, a male assistant principal had Savana taken out of class and strip-searched by two female employees. Savana was told to pull her bra in a way that exposed her breasts, and to pull out her underwear to expose her pelvic area. Savana, who was too scared to refuse, later called the search “the most humiliating experience” in her life. No drugs were found.

If there was any way to ensure that a normal kid would end up at Port authority with a cigarette hanging from her mouth, a needle in her arm and a tatoo on her as*, a strip search is it.

This should be a 9 to 0 opnion, filled with outrage. But now that Alito and Roberts have joined the team, all bets are off. [More..]

From the LA Times:

The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday will hear her case. Its decision, the first to address the issue of strip-searches in schools, will set legal limits, if any, on the authority of school officials to search for drugs or weapons on campus.

If limits on searches are imposed, the school district warns, its ability to keep all drugs out of its schools would be reduced.

Maybe then they can try a program that works...and it's not one that fills kids with fear of arrest and humiliation.

< Report: Indigent Systems in Crisis | Journalistic Credit >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

TalkLeft's DMCA Infringement Notice Policy

Supreme Court and the Strip Search Case | 40 comments (40 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

My opinion (5.00 / 1) (#2)
by joze46 on Mon Apr 20, 2009 at 07:14:23 AM EST

"These are important concerns, but so -- as the founders made clear in the Fourth Amendment -- is the right of every American to be free from unreasonable searches."

Just the other day I was shopping in a discount store called Aldi Inc. of Illinois. The generic label called WELBY of fifty tablets containing 200mg each of Ibuprofen has been on sale for years here. It appears anyone of any age can shop here and buy this or any other product in the discount store.

What if this was aspirin? Do we strip search ? Don't think so. Is this a breach of the Fourth Amendment ? You bet! Moreover...

Actually this and any telephone message that is wire taped with out a warrant is in a sense a strip search. In both cases the invasion is personal without complaint or oath or affirmation in violation of some statue.

Especially in the sense of a telephone tap, or wire tap, a person has the ability to expand a personal dimension of imagination which is not a true picture or motive to take any action, there may be goodness or a total foul imagination but it is a personal liberty. Only affirmation or oath to actions that show a regression to an end of braking the law should warrant wire tapping.

"Up in arms"... (5.00 / 1) (#4)
by kdog on Mon Apr 20, 2009 at 08:09:44 AM EST

you're kinder than me J...if it was one of my beloved nieces I'b be swinging arms...it is child abuse bordering on sexual abuse.

And you'd have lost... (5.00 / 1) (#5)
by tokin librul on Mon Apr 20, 2009 at 08:26:40 AM EST

The Constitution does, in fact, and previous SCOTUS opinions notwithstanding (Fortas in "Tinker"), end at the school-house door.

They can do anything they want, and there's nothing you can do about it, unless you've got the resources to take your kids out of school...

The solution? (1.00 / 0) (#6)
by tokin librul on Mon Apr 20, 2009 at 08:28:44 AM EST

Legalize It!


: Uh, ibuprofen is legal, librul (5.00 / 2) (#9)
by Cream City on Mon Apr 20, 2009 at 09:15:43 AM EST

<pay attention>
The point is what is legal for schools to do, not the substance.

Once again (5.00 / 1) (#7)
by txpublicdefender on Mon Apr 20, 2009 at 09:12:07 AM EST

Once again, the same old canard:

If limits on searches are imposed, the school district warns, its ability to keep all drugs out of its schools would be reduced.

Well, gee, if your ability to keep all drugs out would be reduced, then it must be Constitutional! I clearly remember the founders being extremely concerned about keeping drugs out of schools! Oh, wait. No, they weren't. What they were concerned about was the government invading our person and our privacy! This is absolutely ludicrous!

Fourth Amendment analysis: Students have a reduced, but not eviscerated, interest in privacy even when at school. A strip search is clearly a search, and is the type of search that is particularly invading of one's privacy and bodily integrity. To perform one, therefore, requires at least probable cause that the child is committing a crime that creates the risk of serious bodily injury or death to other children at the school. (A 400 mg of Advil won't cut it!). Even if the school could make such a showing, they cannot legally perform a strip search without first doing the following: 1) Obtaining a warrant for a strip search from a neutral magistrate; 2) Notifying the parent or guardian of the child to ensure the right of the parent to be present when the search is conducted.

i too would have been up in arms, (5.00 / 2) (#8)
by cpinva on Mon Apr 20, 2009 at 09:15:19 AM EST

but mine would have been wrapped around the throat of the idiot stick principal who told her mother that she should be pleased nothing was found. you see, i'm not nearly as charitable as you jeralyn.

no, they didn't contact (nor even attempt to) her parent(s), prior to conducting this "professional" strip-search. i would have filed criminal charges at the local magistrate's office, for child abuse, child molesting, pedophilia and any other sexual offense i could think of. i also would have contacted every radio and tv station, as well as every newspaper, with my charges of child sexual abuse/endangerment/pedophelia, with names named.

can't work in a school if your on a sex offender's list, now can you?

the principal's home address is listed, i would be in front of it (on public space) with my sign reading "a child molestor lives here!). i bet the tv stations would come a runnin'!

if it were me (and they should thank their gods it isn't), i would have ruined them personally and professionally, forever.

: cp took the words right outta (none / 0) (#30)
by oldpro on Mon Apr 20, 2009 at 12:07:16 PM EST

my mouth.
Beware the enraged mother who belongs to the ACLU.
K-12 schools as well as colleges and universities have abrogated to themselves police powers, whether the issue is drugs (!), long hair on boys or short skirts on girls.
This is bad but not half as bad as the higher ed coverups of rape on their campuses. Worst? The military academies.

Prediction (5.00 / 1) (#10)
by txpublicdefender on Mon Apr 20, 2009 at 09:17:42 AM EST

I actually do predict a big majority finding this unconstitutional. Ginsburg, Breyer, Souter, and Stevens are locks. Kennedy will be in there, too. And I'm trying to imagine the reaction of Justice Roberts to one of his cute little kids coming home and telling him that the assistant principal made him take his shirt off and pull down his short pants and underwear so he could look between his butt cheeks for some aspirin. This also seems like the thing that would actually get Thomas and Scalia pissed off, too. I remember one of them writing a righteously indignant opinion striking down the use of some sort of heat imaging device to "search" a house from the outside for indications of growing pot.

The impact on the girl, I read (5.00 / 2) (#11)
by Cream City on Mon Apr 20, 2009 at 09:18:46 AM EST

has been quite serious. Anxiety effects, had to be home schooled, etc.

The district court was correct: The drug involved was a danger to no one, and "the school could, the court pointed out, simply have kept Savana in the principal's office until a parent arrived."

The petty tyrants in the schools must be stopped.

Had to be home schooled? (none / 0) (#19)
by oculus on Mon Apr 20, 2009 at 10:25:47 AM EST

Civil lawsuit must be pending. (Cynical, I know.)


I expect so (none / 0) (#20)
by Cream City on Mon Apr 20, 2009 at 10:31:47 AM EST

and that may be what it takes.


huh? (none / 0) (#22)
by txpublicdefender on Mon Apr 20, 2009 at 10:42:13 AM EST

Of course a civil suit is pending. That's why this case is before SCOTUS at all. There was no criminal prosecution of the girl because nothing was found. We only know about this because of a civil suit.


Thanks, that's what I thought (none / 0) (#25)
by Cream City on Mon Apr 20, 2009 at 11:02:44 AM EST

in reading the story, but oculus seems to know the law better than I do. . . .


I was suggesting the girl is now (none / 0) (#27)
by oculus on Mon Apr 20, 2009 at 11:24:30 AM EST

being homeschooled to improve her basis for money damages.


I have a funny feeling (5.00 / 1) (#32)
by Steve M on Mon Apr 20, 2009 at 02:07:13 PM EST

that my kids might indeed be legitimately unwilling to return to school if they had been subjected to a strip search there.

I don't understand what the point would be of homeschooling merely to collect damages for having to homeschool. It's a little bit like saying, "I'll break my leg, and then they'll have to pay me damages to have my leg fixed!"


According to (none / 0) (#34)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Apr 20, 2009 at 02:21:29 PM EST

the Arizona Star she did the rest the year's school work at home.

Also, the girl who did have the ibuprofen and said Savana gave it to her was also strip searched that day.

And also that when Savana went to HS the following year, she found that the nurse who strip searched her now worked at the HS, so she left that HS and attended an alternative HS instead.

Lastly, one of the other articles I read said that Savanas' mom went ballistic when she picked up Savana that day after school. And, of course, has for 6 years now pursued this lawsuit.

I wonder if there's any strength to the argument that if the mom didn't make such a big deal out of the incident that it wouldn't have affected her then 13 y/o daughter as much.

Lastly, although I couldn't find it, I found various internet references to Savana having a MySpace page specifically about this incident.


: The opinion notes (none / 0) (#35)
by Steve M on Mon Apr 20, 2009 at 02:55:32 PM EST

that the girl who was actually found with the ibuprofen underwent a less intrusive search than Savana did.
Maybe there's an argument that mom shouldn't have made a federal case out of it, but I have to admit that as a parent it would be really hard for me to let something this outrageous slide. And of course no one imagines in advance that there's going to be a 6-year court battle that goes all the way up.

Wow (none / 0) (#31)
by sj on Mon Apr 20, 2009 at 12:53:04 PM EST

You think that would be the only (or even primary) reason to homeschool? Not because of trauma caused to the student? Not because of the humiliation of knowing that the whole country has heard what happened to her? Not because of parental distrust of the school system?

Nope. It's

"to improve her basis for money damages."

I wish I could say it was (5.00 / 1) (#12)
by Capt Howdy on Mon Apr 20, 2009 at 09:26:43 AM EST

unbelievable.

Misunderstanding purpose of school (5.00 / 1) (#13)
by tokin librul on Mon Apr 20, 2009 at 09:45:33 AM EST

Justice Roberts to one of his cute little kids coming home and telling him that the assistant principal made him take his shirt off and pull down his short pants and underwear so he could look between his butt cheeks for some aspirin.

These dicks never imagine that the powers they permit will ever be used against them or theirs. That's why the make the decisions they do, on civil and human rights...

Reveals you wholly misunderstand the purpose of 'school." The primary purpose is to inculcate obedience, passivity, and dull acceptance of stupid rules. Schools thrive on compelling irrational behavior.

: How else is one going to get (none / 0) (#15)
by SOS on Mon Apr 20, 2009 at 09:49:07 AM EST

a degree that entitles them to sit at a desk their entire lives?

Some Principle running that joint (5.00 / 1) (#14)
by SOS on Mon Apr 20, 2009 at 09:46:57 AM EST

the guy model himself after the Saudi's or something?

With so much media and instant digital (5.00 / 1) (#16)
by SOS on Mon Apr 20, 2009 at 09:53:19 AM EST

communications (internet-etc) we're just beginning to realize how backwards and "insane" this country is and the true depth of our sickness and depravity.

short of a body cavity search (5.00 / 1) (#17)
by Bemused on Mon Apr 20, 2009 at 10:00:33 AM EST

or drawing a blodd or tissue sample this is just about as invasive a search as possible.

In the absence of any countervailing danger to the safety of anyone here, I don't see how any jurist could find this "reasonable." add the fact that we dealing with a juvenile subject, a seeming lack of probable cause (even if we assume the informant is reliable etc., that would not provide PC the pills would be found in her undewear) and even cops doing a Terry stop are limited to a pat down based on reasonable suspicion, unless some memberts of the court is willing to give untrained school personnel unrivalled authoority to invade students' personal privaccy this should be unanimous.

: don't (none / 0) (#28)
by cpinva on Mon Apr 20, 2009 at 11:27:37 AM EST

short of a body cavity search or drawing a blodd or tissue sample this is just about as invasive a search as possible.
give them any ideas!

Based upon my experiences with the school system (5.00 / 1) (#18)
by AX10 on Mon Apr 20, 2009 at 10:20:12 AM EST

(being a student), I have no sympathy for the system. I consider the school system to be of the best methods of birth control out there.
Unlike you Jeralyn, I would not just be "up in arms", I would be out to break their union, empty the bank accounts of the administrators, and salt the earth of the school grounds.

If you want to read something unbelievable (5.00 / 1) (#26)
by Makarov on Mon Apr 20, 2009 at 11:08:46 AM EST

go back (about 2 years) and read the dissent at the federal appeals court level. The court found in favor of the parents/child in their civil suit. The dissenter, no surprise a Republican appointee, had some just unbelievable things to say as I recall.

Lower court opinion (none / 0) (#33)
by Steve M on Mon Apr 20, 2009 at 02:20:43 PM EST

is here.

From the dissent:

The majority favors the term "strip search" to describe a search that took place in a closed office with only a female school nurse and female administrator present, and began with Redding removing her jacket, shoes, socks, pants and shirt, and continued with her pulling her bra and shaking it, partially exposing her breasts, and pulling her underwear away from her body and shaking it, partially exposing her pelvic area. I would reserve the term "strip search" for a search that required its subject to fully disrobe in view of officials, and I think it is useful to maintain the distinction so that we can distinguish such searches from the one in this case.

He probably (none / 0) (#36)
by Bemused on Mon Apr 20, 2009 at 03:02:45 PM EST

got burned once going to a strip club somewhere full nudity is not permitted. Only totally nude clubs should be allowed to call themselves strip clubs.


In my days representing correctional officers (none / 0) (#37)
by oculus on Mon Apr 20, 2009 at 03:16:53 PM EST

I preferred the term "unclothed body search." But, this wasn't even that.


Representing (evil) correctional officers? (none / 0) (#38)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Apr 20, 2009 at 03:41:30 PM EST

Very courageous.


Full employment. But, I never viewed (none / 0) (#39)
by oculus on Mon Apr 20, 2009 at 03:48:06 PM EST

the ones I represented as evil. Of course, they do make mistakes. And some are probably malicious at times.


Yet you still represented them?! (none / 0) (#40)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Apr 20, 2009 at 04:05:16 PM EST

Sorry. I was just riffing on a thread I saw over the weekend that argued the pros and cons of whether it's "courageous" to represent "vile" defendants, like Timothy McVeigh...


: Conflict counsel or refusal to represent (none / 0) (#41)
by oculus on Mon Apr 20, 2009 at 04:31:08 PM EST

for the bad apples. Not moi.

Oh Boy... (5.00 / 1) (#29)
by John776 on Mon Apr 20, 2009 at 12:01:19 PM EST

Oh Boy if you people are mad at this, you had better Google the Student Teacher Safety Act.

This bill has come up a couple times and actually passed congress.

It is SO poorly written and vague as to mean ANYTHING!

This bill REQUIRES that funded schools (public) have a search policy in place. Which can be up to AND INCLUDING strip searches.

Its not even legal for a cop to search someone without probable cause......WHY would anyone want to give more power to a teacher, than a cop?!?!?!?

And I have to wonder WHY this is labeled as a "liberal issue", instead of a "common sense" issue.

The Bill Of Rights hasn't been revoked yet has it!?!?!?

400 mg of Ibuprofen (none / 0) (#3)
by Dadler on Mon Apr 20, 2009 at 07:20:01 AM EST

That still gets me. That is, to be precise, the equivalent of two advil the kid coulda bought anywhere on her own. And the adults that did this, please, have bigger and more prurient personal issues of their own.

: WOD (none / 0) (#23)
by squeaky on Mon Apr 20, 2009 at 10:47:57 AM EST

off specific topic (none / 0) (#42)
by Bemused on Tue Apr 21, 2009 at 11:32:22 AM EST

but the Supreme Court issued an opinion today narrowing the permissible scope of searches incident to arrest in the vehichle context.

link to Gant

Notice the breakdown of the 5-4 decision-- Stevens, Scalia, Thomas and Ginsburg in the majority limiting the parameters of the exception to the warrant requirement and Alito, Roberts, Kennedy and Breyer in the minority seeking to uphold an expansive reading of the exception.

The opinion states that henceforth police may only search a vehicle incident to arrest of a recent occupant "only if it is reasonable to believe that the arrestee might access the vehicle at the time of the search or that the vehicle contains evidence of the offense of arrest.

and Souter in the majority (none / 0) (#43)
by Bemused on Tue Apr 21, 2009 at 11:32:58 AM EST