Supreme Court to rule on legality of strip-searching 13 year olds for ibuprofen....

[SirFozzie]

WHA?????????

Court to hear case of teen strip-searched for ibuprofen - CNN.com

[JediKooter]

Ok, I'm not up on the times, but, is there something kids are doing with ibuprofen that is not normal? i.e., mixing it with something to get high...

I understand schools having a zero tolerance policy, but, um...a strip search? Strip searches done to minors should only be done in the presence of their parent or guardian and only with their consent AND ONLY if it is suspected that it is illegal drugs and not over the counter stuff. I think that school took it way above and beyond what it needed to.

My opinion, of course, is formed only from reading the article.

[EagleFan]

Ibuprofen? People are actually taking them as a "drug". I have had perscription strength ibuprofen and have never noticed any affect that would make me suspect people would take it for anything other than just minor pain relief.

[SirFozzie]

The school's barred all prescription/over the counter medicine without written approval. It's all about the "Zero Tolerance" that way, they don't have to make grey-area decisions, they just can act.

[EagleFan]

Originally Posted by JediKooter

Ok, I'm not up on the times, but, is there something kids are doing with ibuprofen that is not normal? i.e., mixing it with something to get high...

I understand schools having a zero tolerance policy, but, um...a strip search? Strip searches done to minors should only be done in the presence of their parent or guardian and only with their consent AND ONLY if it is suspected that it is illegal drugs and not over the counter stuff. I think that school took it way above and beyond what it needed to.

My opinion, of course, is formed only from reading the article.

It's perscription strenght so it's not quit like it was buying a bottle off the shelf. With that said I have used this before when I had an infection following a dental procedure and it did not do a damn thing so I can't see the demand for taking this.

Now for this stuff I was given when I was in the hospital one time, holy shi... Can't remember what it was, some name I had never heard before. I just remember that I had morphine earlier and it bowled me over (hated the initial rush that thing gives you, just too much of a loss of control of what is going on around you) but this other stuff seemed stronger than the morphine but didn't have the initial rush like the morphine had (seemed to gradually get me).

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by EagleFan

It's perscription strenght so it's not quit like it was buying a bottle off the shelf. With that said I have used this before when I had an infection following a dental procedure and it did not do a damn thing so I can't see the demand for taking this.

Now for this stuff I was given when I was in the hospital one time, holy shi... Can't remember what it was, some name I had never heard before. I just remember that I had morphine earlier and it bowled me over (hated the initial rush that thing gives you, just too much of a loss of control of what is going on around you) but this other stuff seemed stronger than the morphine but didn't have the initial rush like the morphine had (seemed to gradually get me).

Oh ok. I thought maybe kids have found a way to mix it with something that would get them high or something.

Mmmmm morphine...instant puke.

[SirFozzie]

Love this quote from anothera article I found on this:

They also said that because judges do not understand the "shifting trends in drug abuse," they should defer to the judgment of school officials.

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by SirFozzie

The school's barred all prescription/over the counter medicine without written approval.

No problem with that.

It's all about the "Zero Tolerance" that way, they don't have to make grey-area decisions, they just can act.

Again, no problem with that. The part I don't agree with is how they acted.

The only action the school should have taken was to call her parents, let them and her know how many days she's suspended and send her home.

I'm sorry, but, there is no reason whatsoever to strip search a 13 year old girl who has not been arrested by the police and being processed into jail. As a step father of a 13 year old girl, I'm really scratching my head on this and wonder how the dad did not go down there strip search that principal with his fists.

[DaddyTorgo]

jedi - read the article - the strip search was done by all females

but still - way over the line

[Surtt]

Originally Posted by JediKooter

The only action the school should have taken was to call her parents, let them and her know how many days she's suspended and send her home.

Um, maybe the other girl was lying to get herself out of trouble.
They did not find anything and that was all the evidence they had.

[SirFozzie]

several other places reported that the other girl was not accurate when they said that the girl was the one who gave her the ibuprofen

[JPhillips]

I never knew I could get girls to undress if I said I was just looking for ibuprofen.

[MrDNA]

Seriously, 12 posts before this got to getting chicks naked? I'm disappointed in all of you.

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

jedi - read the article - the strip search was done by all females

but still - way over the line

No, I caught that. It was the principal that ordered the strip search though. Yes, definitely way over the line.

[SackAttack]

Told Foz, if I had a kid who got strip searched by a school official, I'd be having that child swear out a molestation complaint to the police.

Sorry, but if you're going to strip search my kids without probable cause, I don't give a good goddamn what the Supreme Court has ruled. Your life = as much a living hell as I can make it from that point on.

[albionmoonlight]

This case will most probably provide central to the analysis:

New Jersey v. T. L. O - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

[EagleFan]

Originally Posted by MrDNA

Seriously, 12 posts before this got to getting chicks naked? I'm disappointed in all of you.

That because it's 13 year old girls. Now if it were college chicks...

[Surtt]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

This case will most probably provide central to the analysis:

New Jersey v. T. L. O - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Two female New Jersey freshmen were caught smoking cigarettes in the bathroom. Smoking at the school in itself was not prohibited; however, students were only supposed to smoke in a designated smoking area.

It is ok for New Jersey high school kids to smoke in school???

[SirFozzie]

This (the New Jersey case) happened pre-1985 (they heard it in 1984, and it had to move its way up the chain)

[cougarfreak]

I'm in a semi-administrative role in the high school I'm at, and there is NO way anything like this would ever occur.

[Marc Vaughan]

My daughters 15 - if anyone tried to strip search her who wasn't a member of the police they'd be regretting it for the rest of their (likely short) lives ...

[Tekneek]

I will be surprised if SCOTUS rules against drug searches in public schools. My recollection of decisions issued over the past several years on this front has most, if not all, of these going in favor of the public schools and their requirement to keep the place drug free. Almost like anything is ok as long as it can be tied to the war on drugs.

[Glengoyne]

I don't think this policy is about drug abuse. Most grade schools I'm aware of have the same zero tolerance policy against medication. Even over the counter meds like plain old ibuprofen, or aspirin, or a cold tablet are against this policy. This avoids the liability that could arise when one child offers another a decongestant that they brought from home. If there is an alergic reaction or the like, there could be a law suit. I'm aware of these rules because of a cough drop my daughter took to school. So call me jaded, but this isn't so much about drug abuse, as it is about control.

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

So call me jaded, but this isn't so much about drug abuse, as it is about control.

Of course, and its origin is found in the War on Drugs.

[RendeR]

I don't really care about the reasoning behind it, the fact is no such search should be carried out or even considered until the parents of the child are on the premises.

Strip searching teenagers is simply too far above and beyond ANY necessity of a school to enforce. IMO. If that ever happens to a child in my kids' schools they'll be pulled from those schools.

[Tekneek]

I hope SCOTUS goes against it, but I don't expect it.

[Noop]

So if your kid is buying drugs from another kid; and ODs you wouldn't want that other kid to stop selling to others? I say let Darwin's theory do its work...

[RendeR]

Originally Posted by Noop

So if your kid is buying drugs from another kid; and ODs you wouldn't want that other kid to stop selling to others? I say let Darwin's theory do its work...

Lets not be a total dumbass here noop. There are SO many steps and requirements that should be in place before a strip search is even considered, let alone implemented without parental consent and presence.

Kids can be searched without removing their clothing. Police in areas with a drug presense/problem are pretty much guarenteed to have access to a drug sniffing dog.

This comes down to what the school has a right to do and stripping a child is NOT one of them.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

Told Foz, if I had a kid who got strip searched by a school official, I'd be having that child swear out a molestation complaint to the police.

Sorry, but if you're going to strip search my kids without probable cause, I don't give a good goddamn what the Supreme Court has ruled. Your life = as much a living hell as I can make it from that point on.

I so agree with this. My kids' school decided to authorize random drug testing for all students this year -- without any sort of meetings with the community to talk it out. Then they sent home a consent form that all the parents had to sign, essentially explaining to us that they were going to do it and we were being notified that it was now policy.

I signed it with a lengthy caveat that I explicitly was *not* giving them permission to test my son unless I was notified at least 24-hours in advance and I was present for the testing. Further, my minor child wasn't allowed to sign any paperwork or medical forms without my counter-signature prior to any procedures.

(That was just the tip of the iceberg: bottom line for me was that if I made it onerous enough, they'd be much better off just ignoring my kids' numbers if they pop up in the random drug test lottery.)

As far as school systems making these sorts of unilateral decisions without doing the work to get parent buy-in first (whether it's drug testing, strip searches or uniforms): they can go fuck themselves.

[Noop]

Originally Posted by RendeR

Lets not be a total dumbass here noop. There are SO many steps and requirements that should be in place before a strip search is even considered, let alone implemented without parental consent and presence.

Kids can be searched without removing their clothing. Police in areas with a drug presense/problem are pretty much guarenteed to have access to a drug sniffing dog.

This comes down to what the school has a right to do and stripping a child is NOT one of them.

Actually I could care less that a kid is stripped searched. I believe the kid who swallows to many marbles shouldn't grow up and have kids. Just saying...

[Drake]

What is the cut off for "too many marbles"? I'm actually curious about this.

[Noop]

Originally Posted by Drake

What is the cut off for "too many marbles"? I'm actually curious about this.

Enough to make the kid not eat ever again.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by Drake

I so agree with this. My kids' school decided to authorize random drug testing for all students this year -- without any sort of meetings with the community to talk it out. Then they sent home a consent form that all the parents had to sign, essentially explaining to us that they were going to do it and we were being notified that it was now policy.

I signed it with a lengthy caveat that I explicitly was *not* giving them permission to test my son unless I was notified at least 24-hours in advance and I was present for the testing. Further, my minor child wasn't allowed to sign any paperwork or medical forms without my counter-signature prior to any procedures.

(That was just the tip of the iceberg: bottom line for me was that if I made it onerous enough, they'd be much better off just ignoring my kids' numbers if they pop up in the random drug test lottery.)

As far as school systems making these sorts of unilateral decisions without doing the work to get parent buy-in first (whether it's drug testing, strip searches or uniforms): they can go fuck themselves.

Hmm. Wonder how far you'd get if your kid came up for drug testing and you took the school to court insisting that every faculty member go through the same damn pee-in-a-cup test, because after all, the adults pose even a greater risk to the children than another child would. How do you know they're not subverting the kids?

[Drake]

That was part of my stipulations letter, Sack. Last year, we had an incident where one of the teacher/coaches was arrested driving the kids to-and-from a sporting event while drunk.

My complaint centered around the notion that they couldn't claim they wanted drug testing in place to protect my kids until they were willing to extend that policy to include faculty (especially after the incident described above). It isn't like I'm naive here: I know that introducing drug testing for staff would devolve into a legal battle -- 'cuz I'd be royally pissed off if my boss suddenly decided that random drug testing was going to be a requirement of my continued employment. I also get that at some point, the school just has to trust that they've hired good people who will make good decisions.

Truth be told, I'm not even opposed to random drug testing for the students. I was just aggravated because they didn't even *try* to get parental support for this (i.e., no public meetings to state their case or even their intention).

Of course, instead of being completely mature about it, what I did was turn around and buy up all the domains most likely to be searched for by people looking for school info and pointed them to a blog I set up for students and parents to talk/complain about the administration's policies.

[SportsDino]

Apparently your kids are just one false accusation away from a strip search at any moment.

No reason to strip search a kid. If you suspect the kid of having something, sit them in an office, call their parents, and wait till they arrive. The kid is not going anywhere. No reason whatsoever for all this.

I hope the family wins. I hope the morons in that school get fired.

I would tell any kid that if they are told to strip search they say "hell no call my parents". Really a school can't do anything to you unless you are actively trying to kill someone... all they can do is sit you in an office, or send you home.

I don't think schools deserve special rights of any kind. The only thing they should have a right to is separate students who are threats into a holding period until their parents or the police can be called in to handle things. Nothing else is necessary, and nothing else is within their skill set to handle anyway as far as I'm concerned. Of course that may be because my school district was completely stupid (you get the book thrown at you for defending yourself if you are an otherwise perfect student, if you constantly get in fights they just laugh and send you back out to fight again).

EDIT: My opinion would be the same if she was accused of having a kilo of cocaine stuffed in her bra, and she DID have a kilo of cocaine on her. Same difference whether it is discovered by a moron school strip search or a strip search later that day with her parents or police and her legal rights asserted.

[Autumn]

I agree, SportsDino and others, a strip search is way excessive. She would have to have a ticking timebomb on her for me to consider that even a remote possibility for the administration to consider. Ibuprofen? Please. There are worse things in the world than someone getting away with something once.

[SirFozzie]

Update: The Supreme Court has decided to hear arguments on this case, and that will happen on April 21st

Strip-Search Case Tests How Far Schools Can Go - NYTimes.com

I love this quote:

Ms. Redding said school officials should have taken her background into account before searching her.

“They didn’t even look at my records,” she said. “They didn’t even know I was a good kid.”

The school district does not contest that Ms. Redding had no disciplinary record, but says that is irrelevant.

“Her assertion should not be misread to infer that she never broke school rules,” the district said of Ms. Redding in a brief, “only that she was never caught.”

Becacuse of course, every student is a lawbreaker that needs to be strip searched at the slightest provocation.

[SirFozzie]

And a final update:

BBC NEWS | Americas | Strip-search of US girl illegal

The search was illegal.

They got it right

[larrymcg421]

If that's Souter's final opinion, it's a good one to go out on. Much respect.

[Samdari]

"Preservation of order, discipline and safety in public schools is simply not the domain of the Constitution,"

OMG, did he (C Thomas) just say he thinks the constitution does not extend to american citizens, on american soil, who happen to be students at public schools?

[JonInMiddleGA]

While I tend to agree with the gist of Thomas' dissent, I'm more curious about one of the other parts of the ruling.

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.

How do you grant individual immunity but sever the system as an entity from that? Well, I don't mean "how", they can do whatever the hell they want pretty much but I don't quite get the logic behind doing so. The individuals were acting on behalf of the school district, the immunity is granted on the basis that previous statements from the court weren't clear, so wouldn't they have been equally unclear to the district as to the individuals?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Samdari

OMG, did he (C Thomas) just say he thinks the constitution does not extend to american citizens, on american soil, who happen to be students at public schools?

While on public school property, it's already pretty well established that a number of aspects of the Constitution don't apply the same way as they do elsewhere.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Samdari

"Preservation of order, discipline and safety in public schools is simply not the domain of the Constitution,"

OMG, did he (C Thomas) just say he thinks the constitution does not extend to american citizens, on american soil, who happen to be students at public schools?

He would say that you have constitutional rights there (and everywhere), but they're not implicated by actions of teachers and school administrators. He wouldn't think that schools are restricted in any way from searching lockers and student's backpacks, or censoring the school newspaper, for example.

If the police came and arrested you at school though, everybody would agree that you have constitutional rights associated with that arrest.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

While on public school property, it's already pretty well established that a number of aspects of the Constitution don't apply the same way as they do elsewhere.

This. Under en loco parentis (I'm positive I've spelled that wrong), school systems step into the shoes of children's parents on certain issues. They get a greater latitude in dealing with kids than other state actors would.

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by Samdari

"Preservation of order, discipline and safety in public schools is simply not the domain of the Constitution,"

OMG, did he (C Thomas) just say he thinks the constitution does not extend to american citizens, on american soil, who happen to be students at public schools?

Thomas has a theory, expressed in this case and in the Bong Hits for Jesus case, that schools operate, in effect, as parents, and the Constitution should stay out of what happens between schools and students.

He, from what I can tell, is alone in this belief on the Court.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

Thomas has a theory, expressed in this case and in the Bong Hits for Jesus case, that schools operate, in effect, as parents, and the Constitution should stay out of what happens between schools and students.

He, from what I can tell, is alone in this belief on the Court.

Well it isn't just Thomas' theory... in loco parentis (spelled correctly there) arises from British common law:

In loco parentis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Many provisions of in loco parentis have been upheld over time. New Jersey v. T.L.O. (1985) upheld the search of lockers and other personal space while on school property, indicating that students are not afforded the same rights as adults in other settings and stating that while acting in loco parentis, school officials are still representatives of the state. In Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier (1987) the Supreme Court similarly ruled that "First Amendment rights of students in the public schools are not automatically coextensive with the rights of adults in other settings, and must be applied in light of the special characteristics of the school environment" and schools may censor school-sponsored publications (such as a school newspaper) if content is "...inconsistent with its basic educational mission."

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

The individuals were acting on behalf of the school district, the immunity is granted on the basis that previous statements from the court weren't clear, so wouldn't they have been equally unclear to the district as to the individuals?

This is an interesting question. A quick spin does not turn up an easy answer. But my best guess is that this is pretty much bookkeeping. Basically, because of the way that it decided the suit, the 9th Circuit did not have to address that claim. So, there may be issues related to the claim that were not fully argued in front of the Supreme Court, and the Court would rather not pass judgment on that claim. There is no downside, from the SC perspective, in sending it to the 9th Circuit to finish the job.

It might be that there is a 99% chance, based on the logic of today's opinion, that the school district will be found to be protected by qualified immunity. But, for the sake of the 1% chance that there is some smoking gun memo pointing out clear liability on behalf of the district, the Court played it safe and sent the case back.

(One of the annoying things that the Court does, from my perspective, is only take up the "hot" issue in a case, leaving the other issues to be resolved, if necessary, after it settles the hot issue. I think that that is wrong. It is an appellate court. It should decided cases--not issues. Part of the reason that the appointment process has become so political is because the Justices (liberal and conservative alike) all act like judicial philosophers and not judges. Of course we all end of thinking of the court as a political body.)

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Well it isn't just Thomas' theory... in loco parentis (spelled correctly there) arises from British common law:

In loco parentis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

True--he does not pull it out of a hat. It is based on history. Right now, he is the only 1 of the 9 who adopts it to the extent that he does. But he does support his reading of the Fourth Amendment in schools with lots of history.

Because of his politics, J. Thomas tends to get dismissed pretty easily by most liberals and moderates and just a fringe nutjob. But that does him a great disservice. His writing demands to be engaged, not dismissed. One can still disagree with it (like the other 8 did in this case), but one cannot just shrug it off.

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

Thomas has a theory, expressed in this case and in the Bong Hits for Jesus case, that schools operate, in effect, as parents, and the Constitution should stay out of what happens between schools and students.

He, from what I can tell, is alone in this belief on the Court.

On the surface, this strikes me as a major reason to home school. I wouldn't trust every employee of a school to be acting as my equal.

[billethius]

Originally Posted by Tekneek

On the surface, this strikes me as a major reason to home school. I wouldn't trust every employee of a school to be acting as my equal.

Well ... that and the "quality" of the education that people get in the US.