There are sound reasons for limiting the legal rights of public schoolchildren, and for banning prescription and even over-the-counter drugs at school. But it was a relief to see the U.S. Supreme Court draw the line today at strip-searching 13-year-old girls in search of ibuprofen — and with a strong 8-1 majority, leaving only Justice Clarence Thomas to defend the authorities at an Arizona middle school.
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- Skeptic on Death penalty review promised
- cosmos_originally on Death penalty review promised
- Daniel on Open thread 11/8
- Boxlock20 on Open thread 11/8
- oliveoyl on Roberts already wants a fourth term
- Boxlock20 on Open thread 11/8
- Daniel on Open thread 11/8
- satatom on Open thread 11/8
- satatom on Shooting is tragic, terrible
- Regular on Open thread 11/8
35 Comments
Clarence Thomas, the only true Conservative non-activist judge on the bench!
Clarence probably wished Long Dong Silver had done the search himself!
Duh.
Leave it to school administrators to make teh dumbest decisions. Just WHO thought strip-searching a 13 year old, to look for over-the-counter pills with no recreational abuse potential and no market for sales, was a good idea?
Idiots.
Almost as idiotic as the “zero tolerance” policies routinely in place in most schools.
When zero tolerance meets bra and panties, you have a problem.
Perhaps, they need to call it 0.1 tolerance.
Wow…I read the story and I am shocked as to what lengths people will go to prove their point.
For what should have been a minor incident instead it becomes a senseless frenzy.
Thomas probably pictured the girl in her underwear and thought it a tragic thing that more girls wouldn’t be forced to strip for his pleasure.
When I read the original story on this I had no idea it went to the top court. Wow! And Thomas is predictable. He hates the 4th amendment.
Maggotpunk
Posted June 25, 2009 at 12:39 pm | Permalink
As usual, you live up to your nic.
Actually, both the article and the heading of thread misrepresented what the questions before the Supreme Court were.
08-479 SAFFORD UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT V. REDDING
QUESTIONS PRESENTED:
1. Whether the Fourth Amendment prohibits public school officials from conducting
a search of a student suspected of possessing and distributing a prescription drug
on campus in violation of school policy.
2. Whether the Ninth Circuit departed from established principles of qualified
immunity in holding that a public school administrator may be liable in a damages
lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for conducting a search of a student suspected of
possessing and distributing a prescription drug on campus.
——————-
That is all. MSM failure + 1.
Just wait until that UN treaty on child rights is enacted and grants kids full constitutional rights. Free speech, no unreasonable search and seizure, no self incrimination. Say goodbye to detention (unless tried and convicted by a jury of peers) and respect for teachers (”Kiss my fanny math nazi!”).
Actually, Reg, it’s not quite that simple. It is clear, and has been for some time, that the 4th amendment applies in schools, though the unique circumstances of schools make the application of that right somewhat different. See TLO v. New Jersey. Searches “will be permissible in its scope when the measures adopted are reasonably related to the objectives of the search and not excessively intrusive in light of the age and sex of the student and the nature of the infraction.”
The question here, then, was such a search so “reasonable” considering the age and sex of the student and the nature of the infraction.
Duh. The student was a 13 yr. old girl; the ‘contraband,’ ibuprofin. Can you really say, with a stright face, that such an intrusive search was justified as “reasonable” for such items?
Idiotic actions by school administrators; in other words, par for the course.
However, this was a civil suit, not a criminal action. The court threw a bone to the school, and held that even though the search was unconstitutional, the administrators were entitled to qualified immunity, finding that the right was not “clearly established,” and citing as evidence the conflicting decisions in lower courts as this case wend its way to the SCOTUS.
And, as usual, an actual reading of J. Thomas’ dissent is in order before the knee-jerk condemnations; you may be quite surprised. But then knee-jerk is much simpler, and doesn’t require any, ya-know, actual thinking.
The decision may be found here:
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/08pdf/08-479.pdf
Dunno GMC, it’s the two questions copied from the Supreme Court Website. :)
Understand that, Reg. Just go read the decision. It’s much more than that.
The majority decided that the strip search was not warranted because the possibility of Redding possessing the contraband, Ibuprofin, was not a threat to the student body.
But if Ibuprofin is not a threat, then why is it contraband?
This is one of the points made by Thomas. Since the drug was banned, it was a threat, and therefore, searching anywhwere where it could be found was legal based on past decisions giving school adminstrators leeway to enforce the rules that pertain to school safety. There was reason to believe that Redding possesed the drug pills.
If Ibuprofin is not a threat, as the majority evidentially thinks it is not, then the school system had no business designating it as contraband.
Such issues where not clear legally before the fact. Thomas’s decision is well founded.
“RFL
Posted June 25, 2009 at 3:36 pm | Permalink
…If Ibuprofin is not a threat, as the majority evidentially thinks it is not, then the school system had no business designating it as contraband. ”
The Court was not asked to rule one whether the substance should have been contraband.
I for one think the school officials in this case should at very least be publicly humiliated. Making some kid stip because another kid claimed she had ibuprofen??? Come on, that is just stupid.
(BTW I have absolutely no tolerance for ‘zero tolerance’ laws or rules. Zero tolerance policies are ignorant and short sighted IMHO)
Bubble gum could’ve been declared ‘contraband’, therefore bubblegum would constitute a threat. Thus they would be legally authorized to do cavity searches for contraband, if they suspected you were carrying.
That Thomas is a keeper!
Prescription strength ibuprophen. Thomas wrote a well thought opinion and this ruling did indeed make it harder for school officials to do their jobs in keeping all students safe.
The point is, the school officials should have called the police, and notified her parents. If the police had probable cause then it would have been proper action with the parents consent to conduct a thorough search, if the parents refused the search, then the cops could have made a juvenile arrest, and the parents could have fought it in court.
I think the school officials were out of line. But more often than not, it’s the kids who are out of line.
“okobserver
Posted June 25, 2009 at 3:52 pm | Permalink
Prescription strength ibuprophen. Thomas wrote a well thought opinion and this ruling did indeed make it harder for school officials to do their jobs in keeping all students safe.”
All the Justices can write well thought out opinions, and nearly all of the opinions on any case, whether for or against, have some merit. If a Justice couldn’t write a good opinion for or against any case, they would never have made it to the level of SCOTUS.
I am willing to risk some safety for the sake of freedom. I think most people would agree that they are willing to bear the risk that there may be “prescription strength ibuprophen” in a middle school so their kids are not strip searched looking for it.
I do have to agree, zero tolerance policies are ignorant. One size does not fit all. One law does not fit all situations or scenarios.
“Barnie
Posted June 25, 2009 at 4:09 pm | Permalink
The point is, the school officials should have called the police, and notified her parents. If the police had probable cause then it would have been proper action with the parents consent to conduct a thorough search, if the parents refused the search, then the cops could have made a juvenile arrest, and the parents could have fought it in court.
I think the school officials were out of line. But more often than not, it’s the kids who are out of line.”
All very good points Barnie.
It was clearly poor, poor judgement by the school officials.
Parenting has gone out the window. I think private schools do a far better job. So I see nothing wrong with forcing kids to wear shock collars at public schools. Because more often than not, kids provide a poor environment for teachers to teach in. Teachers live in fear of being sued, or fired, if they try to discipline kids in any way. It’s ridiculous.
Typical how CONs come to the defense of the minority side of an 8-1 SCOTUS decision!
You can be as passionate as hell about your political, religious, moral predilections, but sometimes you have to recognize you’re in a tiny shrinking minority.
Twist CONservatism or common sense into balloon animals all you want, but forcing a 13-year-old to perform a strip tease in the Assistant Principal’s office, for most most people (albeit not your typical WE Blog CONs or Long Dong Thomas) is abuse of power.
Hope your referring to someone else. I’m in favor of the 8 to 1 decision. That sounds like a violation of privacy, as well as an unlawful search without the seizure. I know if I were her parents, I probably would of sued the school. I’m just saying, that some kids in public schools are a little out of hand these days. I don’t really think shock collars should be used, I just think kids should be disciplined a little better, and have more respect towards their elders and authorities.
Sex, the one thing the country feers more than drugs. I tell ya, in this country, with that odd sensitivity to strip searches, the best place to carry drugs is yer girlfriend’s —
The high court, however, said the officials cannot be held liable in a lawsuit for the search. The justices also said the lower courts would have to determine whether the school district could be held liable.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,529066,00.html
Leave it to the Government Public Schools to strip search a kid over Advil.
Leave it to the Supreme Court to say that was wrong, but the school can’t be held liable for stripping a 13-year old girl.
Situation under Obama Normal – All Fu kced Up!
Hey, have you seen this news article?
New details about Michael Jackson’s Death Emerge
I was wondering if you were going to blog about this…
I always considered Jackson’s work is the sort of stuff you like, if you like that sort of stuff.
I rillly rilly liked MoTown. And I was blown away at that little kid; the new Stevie Wonder.
I remember the night he debuted the moon-walk on live TV.
“He’s walking forward but going backward!”
As reports trickle out to reveal or remind, there were definitely two Michael Jacksons: the phenomenal performer and some other guy.
It takes a few mental gymnastics, I admit, but I can’t shake the feeling entirely that Michael was not a pedophile. At least in the traditional sense. He was robbed of a childhood and always seemed to seek that summer before guys discovered girls. (See the movie “Stand By Me” to remember that summer.)
There were four other guys that summer who I joined to swim in the creek (a big discussing topic that night was whether it was pronounced “creek” or “crick.” It was important.) And we shared a cigarette some guy stole from his old man. And we strung a trot line and caught one big ol’ catfish and a snapping turtle.
I sorta believed MJ when he said “sleeping with boys isn’t the same as SLEEPING WITH boys.” (And frankly, I still don’t understand that euphemism for doing the dirty.
“President Clinton, did you sleep with that woman?”
“Not a wink!”
But I digress…
Like the kid who can paint the edges of the paint with a 97-mph fastball, or the kid who wills himself into being the meanest boxer in the world, or the kid who gets millions and millions of dollars because he can slam-dunk at age 13… some people are lottery winners in a game of chance: The Game of Life.
George WMD Bush won that lottery. I’m not sure he handled it any better than MJ.
Most professional athletes won that lottery.
How they handle it is part of the human drama, perhaps.
The way pop music operates, I’m not sure MJ actually wrote the songs he’s credited with. I suspect he bought at least some of the songs and the write/composer credits.
For example, I think “Human Nature” is one important pop song. But no one covers is because MJ’s performance is the Diamond Standard. Whether he wrote it, or Quincy fixed it, or some guy-with-a-keyboard’s song… it’s MJ’s song now. Part of his legacy.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BjywI7nc_PQ
It’s why nobody sings “Mr. Bojangles” anymore since Sammy did it.
That’s a pop star for ya man.
And it’s why no one has succeeded in the fake-to-third-throw-to-first pick-off since Steve Busby.
It’s why nobody kicks like Juan Marachel. Why nobody puts the bat behind his shoulders and pumps it like Rocky Colavito. It’s why there hasn’t been a second Al Hrabowsky.
Clarence Thomas is a pervert and he would be the one to want to conduct the search. All of the searchers in this case should be charged with sexual harrassment and placed on administrative leave and then probation.
For the better part of a quarter-century, the Supreme Court has issues a number of creepy decisions involving students’ rights, starting with the TLO case in 1985 and, perhaps most recently, the “Bong Hits 4 Jesus” travesty.
It’s a relief that they seem to have finally found a line that was too far to cross.
But that makes it all the more important that Sonia Sotomayor is questioned in detail about the rights of student bloggers.
Quite frankly, after the Obama administration legally supported several Bush outrages (recently “winning”–we lose–by a 5-4 decision in one), and offered an idiotic and morally bereft argument in favor of the Defense of Marriage Act, I’m even less inclined to give her an easy time. I’m not sure what we’re getting.
Uncritical Obama supporters, wake up. He is neither a saint nor a demon, but we need get his attention, and rationalizing away indefensible actions is dumb no matter who is in power.
Support the good, defeat the bad. It’s that simple.
And, as we already discovered during the election (remember his mealy-mouthed defense of his FISA betrayal?), he’s quite capable of outright lies.
“Rage” –
President is a moderate.
He’s got four years to deal with stuff.
I don’t like President Obama’s gay rights gender equality Iraq stuff particularly. But I can understand the rationale of his philosophy of governance.
Yeah, we should pressure him on health coverage reform.
And yeah, his approach to the automobile industry is probably the worst possible strategy…except for all others.
And the salvation of Wall Street was clearly an approach he inherited from George WMD Bush….
And while it’s inevitable, the moment American troops leave Iraq once and for all, that part of the world is likely to turn into an historic, generations-old, good ol’ Arabian bloodbath…
And, in a world without morals or consequences, a few well-placed nukes over Pyongyang might make Americans feel good for ten or fifteen minutes…
We are blessed by God or something the CONs who post to WE Blog have nothing to do with the development of public policy in the United States of America.
MH – can you spell r-a-t-i-o-n-a-l-i-z-a-t-i-o-n? I knew you could.
Given a few years, however, you won’t be able to spell it. Between the exploding inflation, and your exploding tax bill, you’ll be lucky to afford the first few letters.
Monk,
Detroit could have been rescued without a cash bailout. All Obama would have had to do was sell the automakers the Pentagon’s stealth technology- who wouldn’t want a radar-proof car?
“GMC70″ posts from his tax-paid job –
“MH – can you spell r-a-t-i-o-n-a-l-i-z-a-t-i-o-n? I knew you could.”
Well yeah.
Now that you gave me a hint.
“Given a few years, however, you won’t be able to spell it. Between the exploding inflation, and your exploding tax bill, you’ll be lucky to afford the first few letters.”
I love it!
A “Wheel of Fortune” reference!
Since the consonants are free and a contestant has to pay only for the vowels, I just might be able to afford “GMC70’s” challenge!
What do the taxpayers of Butler County pay you, “GMC70,” to post such inanity to WE Blog?
There was a brief moment in time when you actually participated in this forum after hours and on your own tab.
Now I suspect you spend those hours whacking off to Vanna White.
But don’t worry.
That won’t in any way impair your rise in Repubic Party politics, “GMC70.”
And if the pressure gets too much, you can always “hike the Appalachian Trail” over Father’s Day weekend.
hey there dude
nice post i love it… check my website you might like it ;)