| Author | Post |
|---|
The Donkey
Regular Member
| Joined: | Thu Sep 21st, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 508 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jun 26th, 2009 12:00 am |
|
The Supreme Court ruled today that school officials violated the constitutional rights of Savana Redding, a 13-year-old Arizona girl who was strip searched based on a classmate's uncorroborated accusation that she previously possessed ibuprofen. This is the biggest victory for students’ rights in the last 20 years. . . .
We thought you would like to hear about this case straight from Savana. Below is a post she wrote for our blog this afternoon.
Civics 101
by Savana Redding
People of all ages expect to have the right to privacy in their homes, belongings, and most importantly, their persons. But for far too long, students have been losing these rights the moment they step foot onto public school property -- a lesson I learned firsthand when I was strip-searched by school officials just because another student who was in trouble pointed the finger at me. I do not believe that school officials should be allowed to strip-search kids in school, ever. And though the U.S. Supreme Court did not go quite so far, it did rule that my constitutional rights were violated when I was strip-searched based on nothing more than a classmate’s uncorroborated accusation that I had given her ibuprofen. I’m happy for the decision and hope it helps make sure that no other kids will have to experience what I went through.
Strip searches are a traumatic intrusion of privacy. Forcing children to remove their clothes for bodily inspection is not a tool that school officials should have at their disposal. Yet, until today, the law was apparently unclear, potentially allowing for the most invasive of searches based on the least of suspicions. Every day, parents caution their children about the importance of not talking to strangers, looking both ways before crossing the street, and following directions at school. But I imagine they never think to warn them that a school official, acting on a hunch, may force them to take their clothes off in the name of safety. And now, thankfully, they won’t have to.
Our fundamental rights are only as strong as the next generation believes them to be, and I am humbled to have had a part in preserving and promoting the Fourth Amendment to the Bill of Rights.
|
Dr. Fresh
Regular Member
| Joined: | Thu Mar 13th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 371 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jun 26th, 2009 12:38 am |
|
Good. They were totally and completely out of line.
|
Huck
Regular Member
|
Posted: Fri Jun 26th, 2009 01:18 am |
|
| Is there anything about criminal charges against the jerks who did that? A lawsuit?
|
Citizen
Founder's Club Member
|
Posted: Fri Jun 26th, 2009 03:27 am |
|
Huck wrote: Is there anything about criminal charges against the jerks who did that? A lawsuit?
From FlexYourRights.org:
Unfortunately, despite upholding the 4th Amendment in this case, the Court left the door wide open for future violations of student rights. The justices agreed by a 7-2 vote that the school officials who carried out the illegal search should not be held liable because the caselaw was unclear at the time. Now that the central legal issues are settled, similar incidents could invoke liability in the future, but the ruling itself will fail to prohibit such searches in many instances. By placing heavy emphasis on the negligible threat posed by prescription Ibuprofen, the Court implies that a different outcome may have been reached depending on the type of contraband in question. It's possible, for example, that the search would have been upheld if it involved marijuana.
http://www.flexyourrights.com/
Also: http://www.fourthamendment.com/blog/
Both are good websites to add to your Favorites.
Last edited on Fri Jun 26th, 2009 03:27 am by Citizen
|
hsmith
Regular Member
| Joined: | Thu Mar 29th, 2007 |
| Location: | Virginia USA |
| Posts: | 1670 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jun 26th, 2009 04:15 am |
|
The War on Drugs has another victory for the power of the government.
|
KBCraig
Regular Member
| Joined: | Tue Aug 7th, 2007 |
| Location: | Northeast Texas |
| Posts: | 1497 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jun 26th, 2009 08:02 am |
|
Unfortunately, the reasoning behind the the decision doesn't bode well for future rulings. They found the search unconstitutional because there was no significant immediate danger even if the girl did have the alleged ibuprofen. What if someone had alleged she had a knife, a bomb, or --gasp!-- a gun?
|
old dog
Regular Member
| Joined: | Thu Feb 5th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 281 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jun 26th, 2009 10:21 am |
|
First, I'm sorry the young lady had to endure this assault. Schools take "in loco parentis" much too far. Maybe this will reduce the abuses.
Second, if the essay is in fact the product of a 13-year-old she is a rare treasure. The clear, focused exposition, the use of social and legal concepts not normally associated with middle-school thought indicate a level of accomplishment beyond her years.
|
The Donkey
Regular Member
| Joined: | Thu Sep 21st, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 508 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jun 26th, 2009 02:45 pm |
|
old dog wrote:
Second, if the essay is in fact the product of a 13-year-old she is a rare treasure. The clear, focused exposition, the use of social and legal concepts not normally associated with middle-school thought indicate a level of accomplishment beyond her years.
Was 13 at the time of the incident. Is 19 now.
|
old dog
Regular Member
| Joined: | Thu Feb 5th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 281 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jun 26th, 2009 07:45 pm |
|
| You're right, of course. Stupid of me.
|
Alexcabbie
Regular Member
|
Posted: Sat Jun 27th, 2009 04:27 pm |
|
| This search was too much even for Justice Antonin Scalia, who was the Justice I expected to have dissented. But no, the dissenter was Justice Clarence Thomas. Frankly I'm baffled. Need to look up the opiniom and dissent.......
|
Current time is 07:49 am | |
|
