Daylife/Getty Images used by permission
|
In a ruling of interest to educators, parents and students across the country, the Supreme Court ruled, 8 to 1, that the strip search of a 13-year-old Arizona girl by school officials who were looking for prescription-strength drugs violated her constitutional rights.
The officials in Safford, Ariz., would have been justified in 2003 had they limited their search to the backpack and outer clothing of Savana Redding, who was in the eighth grade at the time, the court ruled. But in searching her undergarments, they went too far and violated her Fourth Amendment privacy rights, the justices said.
Had Savana been suspected of having illegal drugs that could have posed a far greater danger to herself and other students, the strip search, too, might have been justified, the majority said, in an opinion by Justice David H. Souter.
“In sum, what was missing from the suspected facts that pointed to Savana was any indication of danger to the students from the power of the drugs or their quantity, and any reason to suppose that Savana was carrying pills in her underwear,” the court said. “We think that the combination of these deficiencies was fatal to finding the search reasonable.”
In fact, no pills were found on Savana when her underwear was examined by two school officials, both women, who were acting on a tip passed along by another student…
Questions of individual responsibility vs. institutional bureaucrat protections will come up in lower courts – if the young lass and her family care to pursue them.
Meanwhile, an important step in rebuilding privacy has been taken.
Yeeeeeesssssssssss!!!!! This one makes my day!
Of course Thomas (a/k/a the potted plant) has to dissent to prove he doesn’t copy off of Scalia’s paper. That happens when his vote wouldn’t change the outcome.
2 great rulings protecting the Bill of Rights by the court. First the 2nd Amend now the 4th.
Hmm…
I prefer the idea of fearing getting shot by the parents being the detourant for stuff like this.
#3,
The 4th amendment can not be fixed until there is a court case that prohibits police from bringing in a dog and telling it to sit down, and then they have probable cause to search people beyond what they would otherwise have.
#5 While I agree, that’s going to be tough. I know of no good case in the appellate pipeline for that one.
I disagree with this ruling.
“But, by a vote of 7 to 2, the Supreme Court held that the individual officials in the case should not be held liable, because ‘clearly established law’ at the time of the search did not show that it violated the Fourth Amendment.”
The Fourth Amendment is clearly established law. The individuals officials should be put on a sex offender list or at least fired.
you left out an important part,
“In today’s ruling, the justices agreed the search itself was unconstitutional, but they also rejected the suit against the school employees because the law had not been clear… The Court did not go as far as banning school strip searches, but did state that officials must have a justified belief, based on suspected facts, that a strip search will reveal the hidden items.” So the district employee’s are free and clear. Second, it doesn’t mean school strip searches are completely illegal, only ones preformed by school officials. they can call the police and have the little daring strip searched by them still. and once the police are involved its all perfectly legal.
Yea in general, the bloggers on this site get a court case wrong. They have improved of late.
Yea in general, Lyin’ Mike is being totally an asshat again. He had improved as of late.
Supreme Court says girl’s right to privacy violated by strip search
Duh! This had to go to the SCOTUS? What are federal judges smoking? Better check their undies.
8 to 1 eh?
Why the FUCK was the ‘1’ that thought the strip search was okay?? I bet he votes Republican!
Good ruling.
We’re under new management now. The violation of Constitutional Rights is at a much higher threshold now.
Evidently, Clarance didn’t get the email.
Of course Thomas (a/k/a the potted plant) has to dissent to prove he doesn’t copy off of Scalia’s paper. That happens when his vote wouldn’t change the outcome.
I was actually surprised it wasn’t Scalia
Before I read the story I was willing to bet it was him.
Why didn’t they just invoke the Patriot act, then she would have no recourse and would not even be able to ask for a lawyer, let alone talk to one.
I bet the school has learnt their lesson…
“sorry sweety you are now a enemy combatant, no you can’t ring mummy or anyone else for that matter and no we can’t tell you why you are being sent for some torture.. I mean water boarding… your other year 2 class mates will pack up your desk… good bye… forever”
What the hell is wrong with Clarence Thomas that he’s think this was fine and dandy?
Hey – be nice to “Uncle” Thomas. He’s sooooo qualified!
Hey! Is that a pubic hair on the Court bench?
So do the people who did the illegal strip search get charged?