Supreme Court To Hear School Strip-Search Case

foxpaws

Dedicated LVC Member
Joined
Sep 8, 2008
Messages
3,971
Reaction score
0
Location
Denver
by Nina Totenberg

Morning Edition, April 21, 2009 · The U.S. Supreme Court hears arguments Tuesday on whether school administrators may strip-search a student based on mere suspicion that the student may possess drugs.

Savana Redding was a 13-year-old honors student with no prior disciplinary record when she was called out of class by the assistant principal of her school in Safford, Ariz., in 2003. A self-described nerd, Redding says she wasn't worried.

"I've never been in trouble, so I didn't think there was anything I could possibly have done to be in trouble," Redding says.

Although there were plenty of signs in the questions put to Redding, she says she did not understand that the assistant principal thought she might be hiding drugs.

Redding readily agreed to have her backpack searched. When that didn't turn up anything, she was ordered to follow the secretary into the nurse's office.

Strip-Searched

Redding says she was then asked to strip down to her underwear and stood there while the nurse and secretary inspected her clothes and shoes.

"Then, you know, I thought they were going to let me put my clothes back on, but instead they asked me to pull out my bra and shake it, and the crotch on my underwear, too," Redding says.

Redding says her whole body was visible to the school administrators. She kept her head down so the nurse and the secretary couldn't see her fighting back tears.

"When you're that age, you're going through puberty, [and] you're embarrassed of your body as it is," Redding says. "Let alone to have to sit there and stand pretty much naked in front of professional people that you would see every day almost. It's just pretty horrible."

School officials found nothing, but Redding was not allowed to return to class that day. She just sat for hours in the administrative office, watching other students go by.

Redding says she developed stomach ulcers after the incident, didn't return to school for months and ultimately transferred to another school. Her mother, a nurse's aide, believed her daughter was violated. She reported school authorities to the police and ultimately, with her daughter, sued for damages.

The School's Argument

In its brief, the school says the fact that Redding was an honors student who had never been in trouble before is not evidence of good conduct, but only evidence that she had never been caught.

The school views itself as a protector of its students' health and safety, which includes protecting students from both illegal and over-the-counter drugs. From the school's viewpoint, any suspicion that a student possesses drugs may be justification for a strip search.

The Supreme Court ruled in 1985 that schools may conduct searches of a student's purse or backpack without a warrant, but the court did not then address the question of an intimate search.

The Safford officials in Tuesday's case portray their schools as drug-infested and Redding as a likely suspect for a variety of reasons.

Among the reasons given to justify the search: One youngster had already ended up in the hospital from taking drugs, and another student had reported more drugs were about to be given out. School administrators said Redding was seen at a dance early in the year among a group of kids believed to have had alcohol on their breath. Probably most damaging, one youngster who had been found with 400 milligrams of prescription-strength ibuprofen said on the day of the search that she got it from Redding.

'The Totality Of Circumstances'

"This is where you have to look at the totality of the circumstances in the case," says Matthew Wright, lawyer for the school district.

When asked whether such an extensive search made sense for a pill that is the equivalent of two Advil, Wright says school officials cannot have known these were the only pills.

"With hindsight and with calm reflection, we can look back and say, 'OK, what kind of danger really was there on campus?' " Wright says. "But when you're on the ground making on-the-spot decisions, you don't have that luxury. School administrators are not pharmacologically trained in being able to assess the relative dangers any one drug might present, but what they are charged with is to make sure that students are kept safe from such threats of danger."

Redding's lawyer, Adam Wolf, counters that a strip search is entirely different from a search of a purse or a backpack.

"Children call their private parts their private parts for a reason. They not subject to exposure, to observation by school officials. When children are strip-searched, they experience trauma that's similar in kind and degree to sexual abuse," says Wolf.

School lawyer Wright counters, "We just have to ask ourselves, as a policy matter, do you really want a drug-free environment? And if you do, then there are going to be some privacy invasions when there is reason to suspect that those drugs are being dispensed on campus, that they're being used by students."

Constitutional Questions

The question for the Supreme Court is where the Constitution draws the line: Do school administrators have virtual free rein in determining what justifies a strip search?

In this case, for instance, the only direct piece of evidence linking Redding to drugs at all came from a childhood friend. When asked why the friend would make up such a story, Redding said she really didn't know — that maybe she was scared, or embarrassed.

"We weren't really friends anymore, because she was gravitating more towards the gothic group, and she started wearing more black and smoking cigarettes, and she didn't really want to hang out with me anymore because she was embarrassed of me because I was a nerd," Redding says.

Redding's lawyer says the implications of the school's decision are worrisome for students across the country.

"The school took an everyday occurrence, which is finger-pointing or tattling, and turned it into a life-altering event. If the Supreme Court allows a strip search based on these minimal facts, children across the country need to be concerned that when they enter school every day, there's a chance that they very well could be strip-searched."

Redding is now in college. She is a psychology major, hoping to be a counselor for teenagers in the future. She has taken her first plane trip to be at Tuesday's Supreme Court argument and admits she's nervous.
 
I was reading this story this morning.
It was shocking to me they would make this girl strip because another child accused her of having a pill.
A simple call to the parents would have solved this problem.


Redding is now in college. She is a psychology major, hoping to be a counselor for teenagers in the future.
No surprise here.

I have a 14 year old daughter, If the school were she was at did this to her I would be foaming at the mouth.
 
I have a 14 year old daughter, If the school were she was at did this to her I would be foaming at the mouth.

+1 on that!

Anyone touches my future kid without permission and I will have something to say!

Never knew schools had the right to do such things? Figured it would be a job for the police. (in the presence of a parental guardian)
 
If I was the father of that girl.... well I just don't even want to think about it.... I'd be more than pissed!

That is one of those situations where if a school official told me to take my clothes off I'd laugh my :q:q:q:qing ass off and say NO... unless it was my 10th grade biology teacher :)
 
I know that city good and that does suck, i used to live about 48 miles from Safford, AZ.
 
because she had given another student ibuprofen? not some crack, marijuana, ecstasy, or some other ILLEGAL drug. i'd push that one right to the top as well. i can't see how a school has the right to go that far.
i guess that's where the supreme court comes in. do schools have that right.
 
It is hard to believe that the school would want this pushed to the SCOTUS. They have the right to detain the student and go through backpacks, cars in their lot, purses and lockers. If they want they can just call the police and parents and get the same results if necessary without the liability.

I would have thought that the liability issue is something they would want to avoid. There would be liability if the girl was selling drugs on school grounds and the school had previous knowledge that 'might' be happening (the other student saying that she had drugs) and then proceeded to do nothing. However, all they have to do is hold the student and call the police and parents - their liability would then end there.
 
because she had given another student ibuprofen?
No--because a student caught with prescription-strength ibuprofen claimed that it was provided by Redding.

This is complete BS, and it should never have happened--IMHO, there is no excuse for school officials strip-searching anyone, PERIOD. If it's that big if a deal, you CALL THE COPS. They are paid and trained to handle that sort of situation, unlike that piss-ant administrator with delusions of god-hood.

If I'd been the trial judge, I'd have had to recuse myself, because I'd have been damn well looking for a way to find that administrator in contempt so I could make sure he was subjected to a real strip search, complete with a body cavity search...
 
My daughter will be taught to say no that way the cops are involved and they have to call me she is also taught not to talk to cops with out me so she does not get railroaded either
 
you're right soonerls. allegedly given a student. still, anybody with a brain in their head would have seen it wasn't any kind of a street drug. my daughter is almost 13, and i couldn't imagine it happening to her. fortunately i live in a place where people who care about thier childs education are in contact with teachers regularily, and any suspicions would be handled in a much better way.
yep, a simple call to police to deal with this would have absolved the school of liability. whether the girl was actually guilty of something or not.
 
Never knew schools had the right to do such things? Figured it would be a job for the police. (in the presence of a parental guardian)

In loco parentis and the various precedents behind it give schools some fairly wide authority to do more than they really should be doing.

But this was clearly far beyond the mark. Put to a vote, I think the American public would vote in favor of the student by a landslide. Unfortunately the nutjobs who have been advocating Zero Tolerance may have too much sway here too.
 
In loco parentis and the various precedents behind it give schools some fairly wide authority to do more than they really should be doing.

But this was clearly far beyond the mark. Put to a vote, I think the American public would vote in favor of the student by a landslide. Unfortunately the nutjobs who have been advocating Zero Tolerance may have too much sway here too.

Even "zero tolerance' doesn't give school administrators the right or authority to strip search students.

I haven't done any additional reading on this case, but I'm still unsure how a case like this made it up to the Supreme Court level. Who's been appealing it and why?

Is the school appealing it in an effort to prevent a lawsuit?
 
I've heard of things like this.

Diabetic kids that have to shoot insulin, other kids may not know about it and report them. Then they get the full cavity search
 
Arizona Circuit Court found for the school district, it was then appealed to the the 9th circuit court and they found for the girl. The school has moved it to the Supreme Court.

The school is pushing this because schools must be able to exercise any and all precautions necessary to ensure the safe school environment that is required by NCLB as well as several other federal and state level statutes. The schools feel that we shouldn’t value a child’s right to privacy above the threat of harm that the child may pose to a building full of innocent and vulnerable children.

However the appeal court felt that this case went above what the Supreme Court has stated it the past - that a strip search conducted for the purpose of finding unauthorized prescription drugs, or illegal drugs for that matter, does NOT meet the second tier requirement of New Jersey vs. TLO; the search must be ‘reasonably related in scope to the circumstances’.

It sort of goes if the school thought the girl was carrying a weapon – then a strip search would be legal – it posed an immediate threat to many children, a violent crime. However, drugs are not considered at the same ‘danger’ level to students, and constitute a non-violent crime, so hopefully the court will find a strip search isn't warranted in cases like this.

There is a second suit that names the school personnel – that should probably be thrown out. The school employees were acting with the idea that they needed to protect a safe school environment. If the first part of the case is upheld – the fact that a non-violent or non- threatening event does not allow for strip searches by school personal, then, the second part will go away.

Here is a good article about the case –

I especially like this paragraph from the article…
The impact of such a search on a 13-year-old girl being stripped in front of teachers is obvious and severe. Ironically, nurses at most public schools cannot give a student an aspirin without notifying and getting the consent of the parents. Yet, rather than simply hold the student for parents or police, the school can force the child to strip and expose herself without even notice to the parents.
 
"Schools" don't push this. Certain "people" running the schools push this. Never forget that. The entities behind this kind of appalling behavior are people.
 
"Schools" don't push this. Certain "people" running the schools push this. Never forget that. The entities behind this kind of appalling behavior are people.

Good to point out. All to often, this observation gets lost in the shuffle.

I'll be watching this case very closely. No kids, but I do so hate to see the education system getting systematically ruined.
 
Here is a good article about the case –

I especially like this paragraph from the article…
The impact of such a search on a 13-year-old girl being stripped in front of teachers is obvious and severe. Ironically, nurses at most public schools cannot give a student an aspirin without notifying and getting the consent of the parents. Yet, rather than simply hold the student for parents or police, the school can force the child to strip and expose herself without even notice to the parents.

The Supreme Court is not to be concerned so much with the impact of things; only if the action was or was not constitutional.

I am still trying to make sense of the constitutional argument being made, but the case cited, apparently as precedent, New Jersey vs. TLO (1985) is very telling. Here is a brief of it:

Facts of the Case:
T.L.O. was a fourteen-year-old; she was accused of smoking in the girls' bathroom of her high school. A principal at the school questioned her and searched her purse, yielding a bag of marijuana and other drug paraphernalia.

Question:
Did the search violate the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments?

Conclusion:
No. Citing the peculiarities associated with searches on school grounds, the Court abandoned its requirement that searches be conducted only when a "probable cause" exists that an individual has violated the law. The Court used a less strict standard of "reasonableness" to conclude that the search did not violate the Constitution. The presence of rolling papers in the purse gave rise to a reasonable suspicion in the principal's mind that T.L.O. may have been carrying drugs, thus, justifying a more thorough search of the purse.
So... the Supreme Court has established a precedent here were there is a looser standard for when it comes to searches of students in school then there is for other people. That seems to be the angle that the school in this case is coming from.

If that standard is that searching for smoking paraphernalia is constitutionally justified when there is simply "reasonable" suspicion, then, clearly, searching for illegal drug paraphernalia due to simple reasonable suspicion would fall under that standard.

There doesn't seem to be any change in standard for 4th amendment protections when it comes to strip search vs. simple search of a handbag. All that seems to be necessary in either case is a "reasonable" suspicion.

Frankly, the standard of "reasonableness" seems a little vague, IMO.

I do know when I worked at a juvenile jail, we would do a strip search when the "resident" (inmate) was first booked into the jail, but after that, unless there was some weird extenuating circumstance, we only did pat downs. On the adult wing of the jail, they did strip searches when the inmate first came into the jail and after every meeting with a visitor of any sort. That higher standard for juveniles may have been to some legal standard, or, it could just as easily have been due to some standard by an accrediting type organization in order to get some grant money (the jail was very concerned with that).
 
Frankly, the standard of "reasonableness" seems a little vague, IMO.

I agree, although the principle of 'reasonableness' appears to be the standard that SCOTUS is using pertaining to searches of students.

That said, what was deemed as "reasonable" in the TLO case was that a teacher accused TLO of smoking, which provided reason enough for the search to be conducted. Similarly, finding rolling papers was reason enough to suspect the presence of marijuana.

The fundamental question here is less a matter of whether or not a strip search can happen, but whether or not the accusation of another student provides reason enough for the search.

That's where the question of whether or not it is Constitutional comes into play. At least, that is my understanding of it. Helpful, at all? You appear to have a pretty good grasp of this.
 
That said, what was deemed as "reasonable" in the TLO case was that a teacher accused TLO of smoking, which provided reason enough for the search to be conducted. Similarly, finding rolling papers was reason enough to suspect the presence of marijuana.

The fundamental question here is less a matter of whether or not a strip search can happen, but whether or not the accusation of another student provides reason enough for the search.

That's where the question of whether or not it is Constitutional comes into play.

Yep. You nailed it! ;)
 
I think you're carrying a weapon. Mind if I strip search you?

Bryan, is this game where I wear the french maid outfit? If I remember last time you kept telling me to put down the feather duster ;)

333165ghwyps8dcs.jpg
 

Members online

No members online now.
Back
Top