NationStates Jolt Archive

Link (http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/nation/bal-scotus-strip-search0421,0,2211272.story)

WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court gave a skeptical hearing Tuesday to lawyers who were urging a rule against strip searching students at school.

Instead, most of the justices voiced concern that students could hide dangerous drugs such as crack cocaine or heroin in their clothes.

The case before the court concerns an Arizona girl who was strip searched in a nurse's office after a school friend said the 13-year-old, Savana Redding, had brought white pills to school. The pills were extra-strength ibuprofen, which is commonly taken for headaches and cramps.

Last year, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the humiliating strip search of the girl was unreasonable and unconstitutional, since the missing pills were ibuprofen. And, it held the school officials who ordered the search liable for damages.

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. said the school officials should be shielded from being sued since the law governing school searches is not clear. In the past, the court has said public officials cannot be held liable for damages unless they violate a "clearly established" right.

Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, though a swing vote on many issues, has voted regularly to give police and school officials greater leeway to search for drugs.

He objected when Adam Wolf, an American Civil Liberties Union lawyer for Redding, argued the strip search was unreasonable because there was no evidence she was hiding anything in her underwear.

"What if it were methamphetamine?" Kennedy asked. "Is the nature of drug irrelevant? What if it was meth to be consumed at noon?"

Wolf insisted that even in this instance, school officials would not have reasonable grounds for strip searching the honor student. There was no reason to think she had pills in her underwear, he said.

That reply did not appear to convince Justice Stephen G. Breyer. It is "a logical thing" for adolescents to hide things. A student might stick something "in their underwear," he said, provoking laughter when he said this had happened to him at school. "It's not beyond human experience," he said when the laughter subsided.

For a moment, Justice David H. Souter tried to put himself in the mind of the vice principal who ordered the strip search. The year before, a middle school student became violently ill after taking mysterious pills at school. The official may have feared a repeat. "Better embarrassment [of one student] than the risk of violent sickness and death," Souter said.

A lawyer for the Safford Unified School District urged the justices to rule that school officials have broad authority to search students. The vice principal in this case had been told some students had pills, and they were to be passed around at lunchtime. Based on that report, "he was entitled to search any place where contraband might reasonably be found," said Matthew Wright, the school district's lawyer.

What about a "body cavity search?" asked Justice Antonin Scalia.

Wright replied that no school official would undertake such a search, but he insisted it would be legal.

Wolf, the ACLU lawyer, said it will "send shudders down the spine" of children across the nation if the high court approves strip searches at school. A Justice Department lawyer urged the justices to say that strip searches are out of bounds unless officials have strong, clear evidence that a student is hiding something dangerous in her underwear.

The tone of the argument gave little hint the justices will set such a limit, however.

A ruling in the case of Safford School District v. Redding will be issued by late June.



So what does NSG think, should the school be shielded from lawsuits for strip searching students?
Is the right to not be strip searched a "clearly established" right?
Has the war on drugs gone to far, and if the drug were different in this case would it change your opinion?

*Edit* link (http://altlaw.org/v1/cases/190760) to ruling in court of appeals
and a slightly more recent report in the kansas city star (http://www.kansascity.com/444/story/1154688.html) which is actually abit more enlightening than the original so

Supreme Court justices on Tuesday revealed sharp differences over whether Arizona school officials acted properly in strip-searching a 13-year-old girl.

Conservative justices stressed schools' need to combat drug abuse. Other justices suggested that the specific search, involving ibuprofen, might have gone too far. The court's final answer will guide educators nationwide, as the justices determine when standard constitutional protections give way to school safety.

"Having an aspirin tablet does not present a health or safety risk," Justice David Souter said.

Justice Stephen Breyer added that the strip-search of eighth-grader Savana Redding may have been "a little extreme," and Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg conveyed dismay at the search's intrusiveness.

Chief Justice John G. Roberts and Justice Antonin Scalia, however, sounded sympathetic to the school's actions, with Scalia in particular suggesting that "the drugs must be in her underpants" if every other reasonable hiding place on the student had been searched.

"As long as (the vice principal) had reason to suspect, he was entitled to search anyplace," argued Matthew W. Wright, an attorney for the Safford Unified School District, adding that "students will often secrete" contraband in underwear.

The case, Safford Unified School District v. Redding, arose in October 2003 at remote Safford Middle School, two hours northeast of Tucson, Ariz. Redding, an honor student with no prior disciplinary record, was ordered to the vice principal's office. School officials had found five pills - four ibuprofen tablets and another type of anti-inflammatory medication - that another student falsely claimed belonged to Redding.

A school nurse and administrative assistant, both female, took Redding into a back room.

"With both officials staring at Savana, she took off her pants and her shirt," Redding's legal brief recounted. "The officials did not notice any pills hidden in Savana's clothing, on her body, or under her panties or bra. Still, they told Savana to pull out her panties and bra and to move them to the side."

The strip search exposed Redding's "genital area and breasts" to the school officials and was "the most humiliating experience" in the girl's life, according to a legal brief. It didn't detect any pills or contraband, and Redding said it harmed her.

"I've had a hard time talking to people and making friends," Redding, who's now a student at Eastern Arizona College, said outside the courtroom after the hourlong oral argument.

An appellate court ruled that the search violated Redding's Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable search and seizure. Officials were acting on vague and uncorroborated allegations and searched too aggressively, it said.

The finding of an unconstitutional search meant that the vice principal, Kerry Wilson, lost legal immunity and could be personally sued. Redding then filed a lawsuit against Wilson, which is awaiting the outcome of the Supreme Court case.

The Obama administration agrees that the strip-search violated the Fourth Amendment but says that the school officials still are immune from lawsuits because the law governing school searches was ambiguous.

Adam Wolf, Redding's attorney, who's based in Santa Cruz, Calif., argued that the school's search was unreasonable no matter what drugs were being searched for. That didn't seem to sit right with several justices, including frequent swing Justice Anthony Kennedy as well as Souter.

"You're saying it's better to have the risk of violent sickness or death than to have the risk of embarrassment," Souter said.

The case is being watched closely, and not just because of its R-rated circumstances. It's pitting school district officials against teachers. The National School Boards Association, representing 14,000 school districts nationwide, doesn't want reasonable school disciplinary actions to be second-guessed with lawsuits. The National Education Association, representing 3.2 million educators, counters that strip-searches are so emotionally harmful that they must be limited sharply.

A 1985 case, New Jersey v. T.L.O., allows school districts more Fourth Amendment leeway in searching students than is permitted in standard police searches. Even so, the standard requires that student searches be "reasonably related in scope to the circumstances which justified the interference in the first place."

I shudder to think of the mental health of pupils who experience this suspicion. I shudder even more when I think about the fact that people who grew up in this athmosphere of suspicion and control will vote. Good bye, civil rights!

... sorry... but.. no.. just no...

if they want to do something to protect the kids from drugs... then have them wear one-piece jumpsuits with NO pockets, and search their bags and shoes.

you know... treat the students like Prisoners. they're practically doing that already with the strip searches.

what's next? the Full Body Cavity Search?

I thought this was gonna be about a different 'SS'.


That aside, no. I dont consider "We're protecting the kids from themselves!" to be a good arguement either. Its just a variation on the 'think of the children!' arguement.

This is silly beyond belief.

I guess it all depends on whose stripping.. Like if it was that hot chick in my English class when I was still in high school... totally.

What about a "body cavity search?" asked Justice Antonin Scalia.

Wright replied that no school official would undertake such a search, but he insisted it would be legal.

Its scary that he thinks cavity searches should be legal.

Link (http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/nation/bal-scotus-strip-search0421,0,2211272.story)



So what does NSG think, should the school be shielded from lawsuits for strip searching students?
Is the right to not be strip searched a "clearly established" right?
Has the war on drugs gone to far, and if the drug were different in this case would it change your opinion?
I'm not sure why probably cause doesn't apply in school. Is it because schools are endowed with parental responsibilities while the children are in attendance?

Although, I don't imagine a little waterboarding would hurt from time to time.

Unbelievable. Those idiots deserve to get sued. Although I hate lawsuits.

I'm really not okay with strip searching students without actual evidence to support such a search. We would find that to flagrantly violate the rights of an adult, and I don't see any reason why such rights should not also apply to minors. Now, the SCOTUS may not be able to rule that way, because it sounds like there are no actual laws protecting such a right, but if so, such laws ought to be made ASAP.

Its scary that he thinks cavity searches should be legal.

And of course it was fucking Scalia who asked the question.

What about a "body cavity search?" asked Justice Antonin Scalia.
It would be Scalia, wouldn't it. :rolleyes:

Edit: *shakes fist at Trve*

Unbelievable. Those idiots deserve to get sued. Although I hate lawsuits.

Oxymoron much.

In all seriousness however, when it comes to the point where strip searching and such might be needed shouldn't law enforcement and the child's parents/guardians be involved not just school officials?

Nothing wrong with it. dont like your schools policy then go to private school.

I said something on another topic about schools becoming prison training camps. As in, training students to get used to life in prison.

If the thought of students having no rights and being subjected to humiliating violations of their body, violations that in other avenues would get people thrown in prison and the students themselves are treated little better than criminals, then maybe it's time they started to really act like criminals.

Honestly, when I sit back and find a topic that makes me question if school shootings are bad things, then I have to admit that it's crossed a major line. And this... this has definitely crossed that line.

Nothing wrong with it.
Why?
dont like your schools policy then go to private school.
Because private schools dont do this, right?:rolleyes:

Its scary that he thinks cavity searches should be legal.

I don't think he was... if this is in reference to Scalia...

A lawyer for the Safford Unified School District urged the justices to rule that school officials have broad authority to search students. The vice principal in this case had been told some students had pills, and they were to be passed around at lunchtime. Based on that report, "he was entitled to search any place where contraband might reasonably be found," said Matthew Wright, the school district's lawyer.

What about a "body cavity search?" asked Justice Antonin Scalia.
Justice Scalia's comment seems like a retort to the lawyer's claim.

I don't think he was... if this is in reference to Scalia...


Justice Scalia's comment seems like a retort to the lawyer's claim.

Yes, I should have been clearer on who I meant by "him" but I meant Wright.

Actually it shouldn't have been necessary to clarify, but its interesting where some people's prejudices have brought them, if indeed that's what they were implying.

Just remember kids, you're fucking property, you have no rights.

Why?

Because it is just a strip search.
OH god someone sees me naked.


Because private schools dont do this, right?:rolleyes:

Not really that's because when the parents directly pay for the school, the school has to listen to the parents or lose their funding.

Just remember kids, you're fucking property, you have no rights.

and also remember, Fucking Property is just as bad as fucking each other. :p

Sorry... should've resisted harder...

Personally i think that the parents should get more involved with teenagers and drugs. It is not just the schools responsibility to do all the work of stopping drugs from getting in the hands of children. Learning right from wrong all starts in childhood right? So if parents instructed good habits to their children, hopefully less kids would do drugs and SSing would not need to be instated.

"What if it were methamphetamine?" Kennedy asked. "Is the nature of drug irrelevant? What if it was meth to be consumed at noon?"

What an idiot. Yes, the nature of the drug is relevant. It was not methamphetamine, and if stupid guards can't tell Ibu-fuckin-profin when they see it and have to go running their filthy fingers along some 13 year old girl to demonstrate this ignorance, maybe it's not drugs that people ought to be fucking worried about.

Because it is just a strip search.
OH god someone sees me naked.
:rolleyes:
Not really that's because when the parents directly pay for the school, the school has to listen to the parents or lose their funding.

Wow, you really believe private schools would never conduct a strip search, dont you?

Now I remember why I had you on ignore. You have nothing of substance to say, back you go!

What an idiot. Yes, the nature of the drug is relevant. It was not methamphetamine, and if stupid guards can't tell Ibu-fuckin-profin when they see it and have to go running their filthy fingers along some 13 year old girl to demonstrate this ignorance, maybe it's not drugs that people ought to be fucking worried about.

Could her parents press charges of sexual harassment? I suppose the court ruling precludes that.

What an idiot. Yes, the nature of the drug is relevant. It was not methamphetamine, and if stupid guards can't tell Ibu-fuckin-profin when they see it and have to go running their filthy fingers along some 13 year old girl to demonstrate this ignorance, maybe it's not drugs that people ought to be fucking worried about.

To be competely fair (and this event still angers me regardless) it is pretty much agreed upon by everyone that the girl was never touched by the officials.


That doesnt make it any less humiliating.

What an idiot. Yes, the nature of the drug is relevant. It was not methamphetamine, and if stupid guards can't tell Ibu-fuckin-profin when they see it and have to go running their filthy fingers along some 13 year old girl to demonstrate this ignorance, maybe it's not drugs that people ought to be fucking worried about.

Here's my question... does this mean that they can stripsearch a 13 year old girl just because she has an inhaler? (Methamphetamines are used in inhalers to treat congestion.)

To be competely fair (and this event still angers me regardless) it is pretty much agreed upon by everyone that the girl was never touched by the officials.


That doesnt make it any less humiliating.

Really? It's hard to imagine a strip search involving no touching. I admit I didn't read too much into it, I was busy being nauseated over how Tony Almeida was turned into an evil character in the latest episodes of 24.

Still, guards shoulda known better, and I'm disappointed with the Justice's completely non-compelling quote here.

:rolleyes:


Wow, you really believe private schools would never conduct a strip search, dont you?

Now I remember why I had you on ignore. You have nothing of substance to say, back you go!

No, I believe if it is an issue of the parents at private schools they will take their kids and money to the schools that do not perform strip searches.
As usual you lack the idea of what money means in a free market society.

Really? It's hard to imagine a strip search involving no touching. I admit I didn't read too much into it, I was busy being nauseated over how Tony Almeida was turned into an evil character in the latest episodes of 24.

Still, guards shoulda known better, and I'm disappointed with the Justice's completely non-compelling quote here.

The report Ive read says that she just got naked in front of a female nurse and assistant principal (also female) and then shook her bra and stretched open her underwear to confirm nothing was hidden in there. No touching involved.


Not that this changes my mind or is meant to change...well...anyone's. I still feel its a gross overreaction and violation of the 4th ammendment, as well as humilating and I still want to see blood (metaphorically).

Damn, and when I saw "SS in schools" I was picturing something about school hall monitors and new uniforms:

http://righteousrants.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/prince-harry-nazi.jpg

I'm not sure why probably cause doesn't apply in school. Is it because schools are endowed with parental responsibilities while the children are in attendance?

Although, I don't imagine a little waterboarding would hurt from time to time.

Probable cause should certainly apply in schools, as should what goes with it: a warrant.

Probable cause should certainly apply in schools, as should what goes with it: a warrant.

They avoid that because it is on school property. Just like you consent to be searched when you go to the airport.

They avoid that because it is on school property. Just like you consent to be searched when you go to the airport.

So my friend can strip search me for no reason just because Im in his house? The post office can strip search me when I go to drop off a letter?


It doesnt work like that.

They avoid that because it is on school property. Just like you consent to be searched when you go to the airport.

Yeah, yeah, they can search your locker any time they like and all that. And certainly kids do not have full citizen rights, but the whole strip search thing is disturbing. If the school administration suspects a crime, detain the student, call the parents, do it in a proper manner. Of course, that might take time ... maybe they could amend FISA ...

So my friend can strip search me for no reason just because Im in his house? The post office can strip search me when I go to drop off a letter?


It doesnt work like that.

It actually does, just however in both instances you have the option of leaving, because he has no authority to hold you there.
Truancy laws make that impossible for a school.
though I was thinking of the genric over coming of the warrant procedure at school. An officer would need a warrant to search your locker, and assistant principal would not.

They avoid that because it is on school property. Just like you consent to be searched when you go to the airport.

but aren't strip searches at the Airport conducte by LEO's? are teachers and principals LEO's?

but aren't strip searches at the Airport conducte by LEO's? are teachers and principals LEO's?

I would hesitate to call TSA LEO's. More like rent a cops.

though now they do these virtual strip searches http://goesdownbitter.wordpress.com/2008/10/21/airport-body-scanners-are-a-virtual-stripsearch/

takes all the fun out of it really.

I would hesitate to call TSA LEO's. More like rent a cops. You may hesitate to call them such, but how often do they do Strip searches?

It actually does

Oh? Want to show me proof that if I go to the Post Office, or over to my friends house, I have consented to a strip search?

You may hesitate to call them such, but how often do they do Strip searches?

The virtual strip search seems pretty often last few times i went though the airport.
As do pat downs. Also last time I had a run in with TSA officers they had to call a local police officer to write me a ticket.

As for come in to a room and get naked. No idea, never get to watch those when I am going through the airport.

I shudder to think of the mental health of pupils who experience this suspicion. I shudder even more when I think about the fact that people who grew up in this athmosphere of suspicion and control will vote. Good bye, civil rights!

School is a much different place than the outside world. We are protecting a students right to go to school and have their education uninterrupted by violance, bullying, or exposure to harmful subsantces

School is a much different place than the outside world. We are protecting a students right to go to school and have their education uninterrupted by violance, bullying, or exposure to harmful subsantces

Think of the children!

Think of the children!

I don't know if your being serious or not but that is actually the idea.

I don't know if your being serious or not but that is actually the idea.

And its a pretty poor arguement.


We're going to go to extremes to humilate you and violate your constitutional rights in order to protect you!

And its a pretty poor arguement.


We're going to go to extremes to humilate you and violate your constitutional rights in order to protect you!


No we're violating the rights of one to protect the rights of many. If we don't do this then people would complain about the drug problem or the number of weapons violations etc. at school.

edit:judging by your signature you and I are at opposite ends of the authoritarian/libertarian scale and are destined to fight.

comparing authority to a police state in the 1930's is a bit much isn't it?

also just how fucked up is the US school system these days...I don't think I remember seeing even pot back in 2006 :confused:

Oh? Want to show me proof that if I go to the Post Office, or over to my friends house, I have consented to a strip search?

If you friend says hey i think you have something I don't want in my house on you consent to a search. You have two options, consent to a search or leave.
You do not have the right to remain in his house against his will.
As for the post office go in the back where the employees are there will be a big sign that's say by being back here you have consented to being searched.
Again you have the option to leave.

No were violating the rights of one to protect the rights of many. If we don't do this then people would complain about the drug problem or the number of weapons violations etc. at school.

Ibuprofen is the 'drug problem'? 'Some highschooler told us' is reasonable search and seizure?

As for the post office go in the back where the employees are there will be a big sign that's say by being back here you have consented to being searched.

Not at any Post Office I go to. Source?

Not at any Post Office I go to. Source?

Really you go back to the employees's section in all your post offices ??

Ibuprofen is the 'drug problem'? 'Some highschooler told us' is reasonable search and seizure?

School administrators are not all knowing. They hear white pills and have no choice but to investigate.

Wow. It's pretty unbelievable that the school authorities would even consider this for a second, let alone go through with it.

If my (as yet unconceived) daughter was strip-searched at her school, I really couldn't be held accountable for my actions. Were her parents informed?

Wow. It's pretty unbelievable that the school authorities would even consider this for a second, let alone go through with it.

If my (as yet unconceived) daughter was strip-searched at her school, I really couldn't be held accountable for my actions. Were her parents informed?

All though I am in favor of unwarrented searches at school, strip searches are going a little to far.

Really you go back to the employees's section in all your post offices ??

About as often as Im sure you do. Source.

At beast, Id believe that it was part of an employees terms of employment. Im still waiting for proof that if I go to the Post Office to mail a letter, Ive consented to being searched.


And even if that is the case, I have the freedom to refuse and leave the property. This girl had no such choice.
School administrators are not all knowing. They hear white pills and have no choice but to investigate.
Yeah, and to use their judgement. They used very poor judgement and humiliated a 13 year old girl.

And guess what? Poor judgement has consequences.

About as often as Im sure you do. Source.

source working at Carrollton,tx post office, then at the post office where I stay at now(location being kept secret). (quick working there once it conflicted with my school schedule.) Veterans have a 180 day hiring priority at the post office and it was a good job, while i waited until school started.

All though I am in favor of unwarrented searches at school. . .

I um...I don't think that word means what you think it means.

The school system didn't humiliate the girl the court system and the new media did.

School administrators are not all knowing. They hear white pills and have no choice but to investigate.

Oh noes! They're smuggling Tic-Tacs. :rolleyes:

The school system didn't humiliate the girl the court system and the new media did.

Uh, no, the school did. Thats why she brought it to court.

source working at Carrollton,tx post office, then at the post office where I stay at now(location being kept secret). (quick working there once it conflicted with my school schedule.) Veterans have a 180 day hiring priority at the post office and it was a good job, while i waited until school started.

Just like you are going to South Korea where you wont have to pay taxes, right?


Guess what, I dont believe your anecdotes. Give me a real source or drop it.

I um...I don't think that word means what you think it means.

Thank you for notifying me about that. What I ment was that I support searches that have probable cause.

Uh, no, the school did. Thats why she brought it to court.

Did the school administrators strip her down in front of everyone? Did they go and tell everyone what happened after it was over? From what I understand the search was somewhere where no one was going to be looking in.

School administrators are not all knowing. They hear white pills and have no choice but to investigate.

They should investigate, but not by doing strip searches.

Did the school administrators strip her down in front of everyone? Did they go and tell everyone what happened after it was over? From what I understand the search was somewhere where no one was going to be looking in.

Uh, no, but two people strip searching you is humiliating. Especially when youre 13.

You do know the girl took this to court over her feeling of humiliation years after the fact, right? Or are you just crying "EVIL COURTZ N MEDIA!" without knowing what your talking about?


You say the school didnt make her feel humiliated. The girl says they did. Guess who Im going to believe?

strip searching is going too far. its bad enough that you have no particular rights in school without being forced to strip. if they have enough reason to suspect that a person is hiding contraban on their person they should call the police and have them deal with it.

Oh noes! They're smuggling Tic-Tacs. :rolleyes:

Why would you smuggle those? White tic-tacs suck orange tic-tacs all the way.

strip searching is going too far. its bad enough that you have no particular rights in school without being forced to strip. if they have enough reason to suspect that a person is hiding contraban on their person they should call the police and have them deal with it.

Yeah, police or the parents. Its not the school's place.

It is "a logical thing" for adolescents to hide things

Wait, what? Isn't it also logical for poor people to steal, and therefore any house inhabited by poor people should be searchable at will?

Guess what, I dont believe your anecdotes. Give me a real source or drop it.

Go to your post office and go to the employee's section and see it yourself.

Here is a sign I could find in 5 minute google, though that's a sign.
http://signsbymibd.com/images/Restricted_Subject_to_Search_1.jpg

Go to your post office and go to the employee's section and see it yourself.

Here is a sign I could find in 5 minute google, though that's a sign.
http://signsbymibd.com/images/Restricted_Subject_to_Search_1.jpg

So, for the employees its a term of their employment. Show me that it applies to the average person.

EDIT: Also notice it says "purses, briefcases, etc" but nothing about a 'person' and nothing about strip searches. So it allows for reasonable searches for people who work there.


Try again.

Uh, no, but two people strip searching you is humiliating. Especially when youre 13.

You do know the girl took this to court over her feeling of humiliation years after the fact, right? Or are you just crying "EVIL COURTZ N MEDIA!" without knowing what your talking about?


You say the school didnt make her feel humiliated. The girl says they did. Guess who Im going to believe?

My school system requires that all medication needs to be cleared with the schools main office. I don't know about this school system but she was probably in violation of the rules. If she really had nothing to hide she would have presented the pills to the school officials and told them what it was.

Just because of one statement is no reason to say I dislike the court system and the media. Although it is true I am not a big fan of the media.

I warned you. (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=578722&highlight=Student%2C+RIghts)

IMO, arbitrary punishment threatens democracy. Students are being indoctrinated to accept arbitrary punishment from an authority figure. So how can adults expect the new generation to uphold their rights and freedoms, when students can't even defend themselves from unfair action taken against them?

My school system requires that all medication needs to be cleared with the schools main office. I don't know about this school system but she was probably in violation of the rules. If she really had nothing to hide she would have presented the pills to the school officials and told them what it was.

Except she said she didnt have what they were looking for and they searched her anyway. You know what they found? NOTHING. So, how can she 'present' what she doesnt have?

Clearly she had something to hide, and so humiliating her was totally ok! But the school didnt really humiliate her, it was the darn courts and media!:rolleyes:

Yeah, police or the parents. Its not the school's place.
word.

it is REALLY not the schools place and since school teachers/administrators dont have legal training its not appropriate for them to conduct that kind of a search. its too much to expect that they will always do it correctly, for the right reasons, and without chance of abuse.

Oh noes! They're smuggling Tic-Tacs. :rolleyes:

:tongue:

comparing authority to a police state in the 1930's is a bit much isn't it?

also just how fucked up is the US school system these days...I don't think I remember seeing even pot back in 2006 :confused:

Actually I put SS in the title for Strip Search since I wasn't sure if it would be to long of a title if I spelled it out, and the analogy/allusion wasn't intentional...

Clearly she had something to hide, and so humiliating her was totally ok! But the school didnt really humiliate her, it was the darn courts and media!:rolleyes:

I say that humiliating one person is ok when it involves the safety and security of the other students in that school. I only say the media and courts did it because they are the ones who dragged this whole thing into the publics eye infact it wasn't the courts. It was the media looking for some story just so they could sell papers/get viewers. The school system "may" have violated her rights and humiliated her but the media is the one responcible for telling everyone about it.

word.

it is REALLY not the schools place and since school teachers/administrators dont have legal training its not appropriate for them to conduct that kind of a search. its too much to expect that they will always do it correctly, for the right reasons, and without chance of abuse.

Thats why there are school resource officers and most schools.

The school system "may" have violated her rights and humiliated her but the media is the one responcible for telling everyone about it.

Umm thats sort of their job, to tell people about news worthy stories and this is a news worthy story...

I say that humiliating one person is ok when it involves the safety and security of the other students in that school.
Even if their method of search was not only unreasonable and thus a poor judgement and disproportional to the threat they faced?
I only say the media and courts did it because they are the ones who dragged this whole thing into the publics eye infact it wasn't the courts. It was the media looking for some story just so they could sell papers/get viewers. The school system "may" have violated her rights and humiliated her but the media is the one responcible for telling everyone about it.
You know the family is willingly talking to the media, right?

Seriously man, the only people who humiliated the girl was the school. Your arguements are getting more erratic.

Thats why there are school resource officers and most schools.
if they are trained police officers, have probable cause, have brought in the student's parents, then they should be able to strip search the student.

So, for the employees its a term of their employment. Show me that it applies to the average person.

EDIT: Also notice it says "purses, briefcases, etc" but nothing about a 'person' and nothing about strip searches. So it allows for reasonable searches for people who work there.


Try again.

You clothes are defined as any other container. Or they were by my boss.
And it applies to anyone who is in the employee area of the post office regardless of their employment.

As for searching a customer in the foyer I suppose they could, but he would have the option of leaving and no incentive to stay as they would not have their job threatened by leaving.

Also the only reason they have to search someone is if they are suspected of stealing the mail and that normally means they were in the employee's area.

You clothes are defined as any other container. Or they were by my boss.
Good for your boss. Thats not evidence.
And it applies to anyone who is in the employee area of the post office regardless of their employment.
Debatable. But irrelevent, because it says on that sign 'Employees Only' and that you have to present an ID badge to get in. So still not convinced.

As for searching a customer in the foyer I suppose they could,
Oh, well you suppose. Thats good enough for me.

Or not.
but he would have the option of leaving and no incentive to stay as they would not have their job threatened by leaving.
And thats an option this little girl lacked. So they arent the same. So your comparison that the airport is the same is also bogus.

Umm thats sort of their job, to tell people about news worthy stories and this is a news worthy story...

Ok fine the school humiliated the girld. But the media and her parents magnified the story for what ever reason at the cost of her dignity.

As for the school having poor judgement, we can only say that now that we see the results but if you put your self in the administrators place (they had a drug problem that resulted in people being sent to the hospital) they have no idea what this person is carrying. Their job is to make sure that the rest of the student population at this school is safe if they hear anything about drugs and don't investigate then they would be not be doing their jobs correctly.

if they are trained police officers, have probable cause, have brought in the student's parents, then they should be able to strip search the student.

An SRO is someone from the local police/sherriff's office that works at a school.

Ok fine the school humiliated the girld. But the media and her parents magnified the story for what ever reason at the cost of her dignity.
Oh for fucks sake.

The girl is willingly talking to the media. Stop trying to shift the blame.
As for the school having poor judgement, we can only say that now that we see the results but if you put your self in the administrators place (they had a drug problem that resulted in people being sent to the hospital) they have no idea what this person is carrying. Their job is to make sure that the rest of the student population at this school is safe if they hear anything about drugs and don't investigate then they would be not be doing their jobs correctly.
Like I said, compared to the threat they faced and considering their reasons for believing she had drugs (some highschooler told them), it was poor judgement that is unexcusable and as such they should be punished.

You have yet to convince me otherwise with your 'arguements'.

Wait, what? Isn't it also logical for poor people to steal, and therefore any house inhabited by poor people should be searchable at will?

You just gave them ideas...

Oh for fucks sake.

The girl is willingly talking to the media. Stop trying to shift the blame.

Like I said, compared to the threat they faced and considering their reasons for believing she had drugs (some highschooler told them), it was poor judgement that is unexcusable and as such they should be punished.

You have yet to convince me otherwise with your 'arguements'.

How is someone humiliated by something that happens in private?

If you were a school principle and one student said that he saw someone with white pills what would you do?

How is someone humiliated by something that happens in private?

Because its a god damned strip search. A 13 year old girl got into her underwear in front of two adults. If you dont understand why thats humiliating, especially for a 13 year old, I cant help you.

Once again, the girl said she felt humiliated. You said she didnt. Guess who I believe?
If you were a school principle and one student said that he saw someone with white pills what would you do?
Talk to the accused student. Not strip search them. Its not 'reasonable'.

I say that humiliating one person is ok when it involves the safety and security of the other students in that school

Right. Fine and probably fair too this is why jails exist, that being said.
1) "a thirteen year old told me so" is not probable cause.
2)If these were LEOs a parent would have to present for the search, the same should be true of the school.
3)She isn't humiliated because people know she was strip searched. She was humiliated because SHE WAS STRIP SEARCHED.
4)How, exatly, is her being strip searched gonna help protect the other students?
5)did you miss the part about him thinking body cavity searches we're legal without a warrent? There are reasons that LEOs can't go and do whatever they want this should be even MORE true for school authorities who lack both the experience and the training to be competent to deal with that type of situation.
6)The thirteen year old was wrong . . . which leads to the question. Is it ok for a school to randomly strip people on the basis that once in a while they may or may not find their students in possesion of very low doses of painkillers? I mean COME ON.
7) A student wants Meth? I guarantee you they can find it within about 5 city blocks of their school ditto coke, weed, someone to buy em alcohol, cigaretts ETC. A student in possesion of a single white pill? prolly not a dealer and probably not (it if was in plain view) drugs.

I don't know if your being serious or not but that is actually the idea.

the problem is in what context are they thinking about the children?

An SRO is someone from the local police/sherriff's office that works at a school.
and did an SRO do the search? did he have probable cause of a CRIME? did he call her parents first?

Because its a god damned strip search. A 13 year old girl got into her underwear in front of two adults. If you dont understand why thats humiliating, especially for a 13 year old, I cant help you.
Once again, the girl said she felt humiliated. You said she didnt. Guess who I believe?

Talk to the accused student. Not strip search them. Its not 'reasonable'.

Ok you've convinced me here. But if she is so humiliated by it then why would she talk to the press? It would seem that one would want to keep
humiliating things quiet.

If someone suspected of possesing drugs says they didn't do it is that ample reason to just let them go?

and did an SRO do the search? did he have probable cause of a CRIME? did he call her parents first?

I've no idea of the rules in that school system regarding such things.

Ok you've convinced me here. But if she is so humiliated by it then why would she talk to the press? It would seem that one would want to keep
humiliating things quiet.

Because they don't want it to happen to others/again maybe? Because they wish to change policy? Because they wish to bring it to light that this kind of stuff happens in schools and it shouldn't?

Ok you've convinced me here. But if she is so humiliated by it then why would she talk to the press? It would seem that one would want to keep
humiliating things quiet.

If someone suspected of possesing drugs says they didn't do it is that ample reason to just let them go?

Because you want to turn public opinion against the school?

I've no idea of the rules in that school system regarding such things.
i reread the OP and it sure doesnt look like it to me.

there is far too much chance of abuse---the same chance of abuse that denies corporal punishment in most schools--to allow anyone but a trained officers acting in compliance with the law and under the watchful eye of the students parents.

Good for your boss. Thats not evidence.

Debatable. But irrelevent, because it says on that sign 'Employees Only' and that you have to present an ID badge to get in. So still not convinced.

employees only meaning the arera is generally for employees only, not that the sign only applies to employees. There are times when non employees of the postal system are there. City officials conducting tours and the like come to mind. We had a barbecue in the parking lot with family and friends too.

Oh, well you suppose. Thats good enough for me.

And thats an option this little girl lacked. So they arent the same. So your comparison that the airport is the same is also bogus.

http://www.schoolwalkouts.info/

Seems here that she does have the right to walk out. It at most would be an absence or a suspension. And I doubt even that once the parents got involved.

Ok fine the school humiliated the girld. But the media and her parents magnified the story for what ever reason at the cost of her dignity.

the school stripped her QED regardless of what resulted from that in the media the school is at fault even under what seems to pass as logic for you.

More importantly A STUDENT WAS FORCED TO STIP IN FRONT OF TWO TEACHERS . . .how are you not understanding the difference between the utter humilitation and complete loss of dignity involved there and the fact that this is being talked about in the media(either mildly humiliating or not at all).


As for the school having poor judgement, we can only say that now that we see the results but if you put your self in the administrators place (they had a drug problem that resulted in people being sent to the hospital) they have no idea what this person is carrying. Their job is to make sure that the rest of the student population at this school is safe if they hear anything about drugs and don't investigate then they would be not be doing their jobs correctly.

*Facepalm*
How it went (dramatized for effect)
"We think you have drugs on you, do you?"
"No."
"ok we'll need to perform a full search. Strip."

How it should have gone
"We think you have drugs on you, do you?"
"no."
"ok turn out your pockets please"
[nothing there]
"ok we're going to search you locker is that ok with you?"
"um sure?" (there wasn't anything in there)
[nothing there either]
"we're very sorry for the inconvinience please return to class"
or if the principal STILL thinks this student has drugs despite a search of all reasonable locations

1)ok we're gonna call your parents in and perform a strip search under the nurse's and your mother's supervision.
2)Ok we're gonna call in the police drug squad and have them search the building including your locker and yourself.
3)"ok we're going to ask the police to come in on the basis that a thireteen year old told us you had drugs. What they won't come? Can't get a warrent you say? Ahhh very sorry bout that."

Ok you've convinced me here. But if she is so humiliated by it then why would she talk to the press? It would seem that one would want to keep
humiliating things quiet.

And any rape victim who reports being raped Clearly hasn't been raped because he/she would want to keep that quiet right?Or maybe rape isn't humilitating to you?

the school stripped her QED regardless of what resulted from that in the media the school is at fault even under what seems to pass as logic for you.

More importantly A STUDENT WAS FORCED TO STIP IN FRONT OF TWO TEACHERS . . .how are you not understanding the difference between the utter humilitation and complete loss of dignity involved there and the fact that this is being talked about in the media(either mildly humiliating or not at all).



*Facepalm*
How it went (dramatized for effect)
"We think you have drugs on you, do you?"
"No."
"ok we'll need to perform a full search. Strip."

How it should have gone
"We think you have drugs on you, do you?"
"no."
"ok turn out your pockets please"
[nothing there]
"ok we're going to search you locker is that ok with you?"
"um sure?" (there wasn't anything in there)
[nothing there either]
"we're very sorry for the inconvinience please return to class"
or if the principal STILL thinks this student has drugs despite a search of all reasonable locations

1)ok we're gonna call your parents in and perform a strip search under the nurse's and your mother's supervision.
2)Ok we're gonna call in the police drug squad and have them search the building including your locker and yourself.
3)"ok we're going to ask the police to come in on the basis that a thireteen year old told us you had drugs. What they won't come? Can't get a warrent you say? Ahhh very sorry bout that."

If that is how the search truly went then I apologize for not getting my information correct and in this case a strip search is not justified. But schools should still retain the right to search students without a warrent.

the school stripped her QED regardless of what resulted from that in the media the school is at fault even under what seems to pass as logic for you.

More importantly A STUDENT WAS FORCED TO STIP IN FRONT OF TWO TEACHERS . . .how are you not understanding the difference between the utter humilitation and complete loss of dignity involved there and the fact that this is being talked about in the media(either mildly humiliating or not at all).



*Facepalm*
How it went (dramatized for effect)
"We think you have drugs on you, do you?"
"No."
"ok we'll need to perform a full search. Strip."

How it should have gone
"We think you have drugs on you, do you?"
"no."
"ok turn out your pockets please"
[nothing there]
"ok we're going to search you locker is that ok with you?"
"um sure?" (there wasn't anything in there)
[nothing there either]
"we're very sorry for the inconvinience please return to class"
or if the principal STILL thinks this student has drugs despite a search of all reasonable locations

1)ok we're gonna call your parents in and perform a strip search under the nurse's and your mother's supervision.
2)Ok we're gonna call in the police drug squad and have them search the building including your locker and yourself.
3)"ok we're going to ask the police to come in on the basis that a thireteen year old told us you had drugs. What they won't come? Can't get a warrent you say? Ahhh very sorry bout that."
aye.

if they were so worried that little susie had some dangerous drug on her person all they had to do was detain her until her parents showed up. there was no need to make her take her clothes off right then and there.

How is someone humiliated by something that happens in private?
. . .rape . . .
. . .abuse . . .
. . .bullying . . .
most happen in private yet are humiliating AND degrading

And any rape victim who reports being raped Clearly hasn't been raped because he/she would want to keep that quiet right?Or maybe rape isn't humilitating to you?

If a rape victem really was humiliated by something would they talk to the press about it? If this girl is really as humiliated as she claims to be why would her and her family allow this kind of exposure to the press?

I found a link to the ruling from the 9th united states court of appeals, link here (http://altlaw.org/v1/cases/190760). I'll post it in the op in a couple seconds...

Also (http://www.kansascity.com/444/story/1154688.html)
yuck
"students will often secrete" contraband in underwear.

Seems that the snitch was just trying to get the student in trouble by the way...


The case, Safford Unified School District v. Redding, arose in October 2003 at remote Safford Middle School, two hours northeast of Tucson, Ariz. Redding, an honor student with no prior disciplinary record, was ordered to the vice principal's office. School officials had found five pills - four ibuprofen tablets and another type of anti-inflammatory medication - that another student falsely claimed belonged to Redding.
A school nurse and administrative assistant, both female, took Redding into a back room.

"With both officials staring at Savana, she took off her pants and her shirt," Redding's legal brief recounted. "The officials did not notice any pills hidden in Savana's clothing, on her body, or under her panties or bra. Still, they told Savana to pull out her panties and bra and to move them to the side."

The strip search exposed Redding's "genital area and breasts" to the school officials and was "the most humiliating experience" in the girl's life, according to a legal brief. It didn't detect any pills or contraband, and Redding said it harmed her.

Have to say I kind expected more from Obama, wheres the change and all that pasa!
The Obama administration agrees that the strip-search violated the Fourth Amendment but says that the school officials still are immune from lawsuits because the law governing school searches was ambiguous.

If a rape victem really was humiliated by something would they talk to the press about it? If this girl is really as humiliated as she claims to be why would her and her family allow this kind of exposure to the press?

http://www.womensenews.org/article.cfm/dyn/aid/1923/context/archive
http://gothamist.com/2009/04/03/subway_platform_rape_victim_speak_o.php
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R._v._O%27Connor
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Catholic_sex_abuse_cases
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1883598,00.html

you work it out for yourself.

If a rape victem really was humiliated by something would they talk to the press about it? If this girl is really as humiliated as she claims to be why would her and her family allow this kind of exposure to the press?

the idea is you prevent it from happening to others.

I found a link to the ruling from the 9th united states court of appeals, link here (http://altlaw.org/v1/cases/190760). I'll post it in the op in a couple seconds...

Also (http://www.kansascity.com/444/story/1154688.html)
yuck


Seems that the snitch was just trying to get the student in trouble by the way...



Have to say I kind expected more from Obama, wheres the change and all that pasa!
more to the point, what the hell was an admin assistant doing with the nurse?

the idea is you prevent it from happening to others.

thanks greed you put that a alot more gently than I probably would have

If you friend says hey i think you have something I don't want in my house on you consent to a search. You have two options, consent to a search or leave.
You do not have the right to remain in his house against his will.


Students cannot leave school. They do not have the option to leave, or they'll be arrested for truancy, as someone already said. So is it really fair to give them the two options of "Leave or be searched" and then back them into the corner of not being able to leave?

In my opinion, strip searching a student is WAY out of bounds for school officials, in just about every case. Backpack and purse searches? Fine. Asking kids to take off their shoes and turn out their pockets? Okay. But when it gets to the point where school officials feel that asking a student to declothe is the only way to ensure the safety of the student and other people around them, it's time to contact the parents and the police.

Students in our schools have little to no rights already. We're regularly bossed around, heckled over stupid, minor issues (god forbid I want to check my text messages in STUDY HALL), and massively punished for the misstep of one. I understand the need to keep order in those institutions, but honestly, a lot of the stuff they feel the need to keep under control is stuff that a regular citizen wouldn't bat an eyelash at.

I hope the Supreme Court rules in favor of the student. While acting for our safety, schools do push their powers too far, relatively often. If the Supreme Court rules in favor of the school, that will be a message across the nation that schools are free to push those powers even furthur, more freely, meaning that school will become an even more intrusive force than ever for the students that attend.

thanks greed you put that a alot more gently than I probably would have

I enjoy being others devil advocates.

I enjoy being others devil advocates.

lol as do i

thanks greed you put that a alot more gently than I probably would have


Well I will agree with the future prevention then.

As for the article it stated that the mother of a student said her son had become ill after taking a pill and the student said that it happened after taking a pill another student gave him. After that he implicated this thirteen year old with giving out pill in addition to serving other students alchohol.

If you believe one teenager who says she was humiliated then surely you must believe one teenager backed up by his legal guardian.

I enjoy being others devil advocates.

I do often find myself playing that position. And I must agree it is quite enjoyable.

Searching one's person for illicit substances is a job for police. If their suspicion of a student in such a circumstance was sufficient, why wouldn't the police be called?

That being said, why not have all public schooling in the buff and eliminate a whole lot of hassle?

That being said, why not have all public schooling in the buff and eliminate a whole lot of hassle?

Id get a job as a teacher then.

That being said, why not have all public schooling in the buff and eliminate a whole lot of hassle?

now THIS i can agree with . . .with certain provisions about turning UP the heat in school and *cough* selection of students based on atractiveness */cough*

now THIS i can agree with . . .with certain provisions about turning UP the heat in school and *cough* selection of students based on atractiveness */cough*

I would totally get kicked out of school if we based selection on attractiveness.

So when do we implement this nude student policy for student safety ?

now THIS i can agree with . . .with certain provisions about turning UP the heat in school and *cough* selection of students based on atractiveness */cough*

I would totally get kicked out of school if we based selection on attractiveness.

We could probably have special classes near the boiler room for those that need extra help. ;)

As soon as you can convince parents that the teachers won't try to sexually abuse students.

more to the point, what the hell was an admin assistant doing with the nurse?

Probably one of them was doing the search (the nurse) while the other was there to make sure nothing (else) innappropriate goes on. the same reason why female patents, when examined by a male doctor, will have a nurse in the room with the doctor.

as it reads tho. looks like the student was exposed only to those two.

We could probably have special classes near the boiler room for those that need extra help. ;)

But I hate "how to be beautiful" 101. It is the most boirng class ever thought up.

As soon as you can convince parents that the teachers won't try to sexually abuse students.

Isn't that a small price to pay for a drug and weapon-free educational environment? Not to mention that whole clothing/gang colors/school uniform controversy solved. Besides, the teachers will be naked too so that will eliminate some of the problem. ;)

Isn't that a small price to pay for a drug and weapon-free educational environment? Not to mention that whole clothing/gang colors/school uniform controversy solved. Besides, the teachers will be naked too so that will eliminate some of the problem. ;)

I suppose all the threatened females could just kick the male teachers in the gonads. But what about the possibility of distraction causing lowered grades?

Edit: And how will gang members properly display what gang they are in?

*Kicks ball*
Well I will agree with the future prevention then.
*turns around to find goalposts have sprouted legs and are currently threatening him*


As for the article it stated that the mother of a student said her son had become ill after taking a pill and the student said that it happened after taking a pill another student gave him. After that he implicated this thirteen year old with giving out pill in addition to serving other students alchohol.

If you believe one teenager who says she was humiliated then surely you must believe one teenager backed up by his legal guardian.


Jordan, another student at Safford Middle School, along with his mother, requested a meeting with Principal Robert Beeman and Vice Principal Kerry Wil- son. During the meeting, Jordan's mother explained that a few nights before, Jordan had become violent with her and was sick to his stomach. Jordan claimed that the incident occurred after he had taken some pills a classmate had given him. Jor- dan went on to inform Beeman and Wilson that certain stu- dents were bringing drugs and weapons to school. He then gave the administrators detailed accounts regarding the actions of several students, including Redding. Specifically, Jordan informed Beeman and Wilson that Redding had served alcohol to her classmates at a party she hosted at her home prior to the dance in August.

this has nothing to do with the incident. futher more your asking me to believe a kid telling me that:
"I only took it cause i didn't know what it was. Honest ma I'd NEVER do drugs. Um um um . . .SHE (points to fairly unpopular, new, student) gave them to me . . .right and she served alcohol tooo! she's a baddie! its all her fault!" *innocent eyes*

No, frankly I don't believe him especially after the one who really is to blame (read the report) ISN't the one he pointed too. Do you believe him? And yes, I believe that a new 13 year-old student who was used by her "friend" as a cover for having drugs on her person, then forced to strip infront of two people she didn't know (including exposing sexual areas) would be humiliated by that experience. Don't you?

We could probably have special classes near the boiler room for those that need extra help. ;)

lmao :D

*Kicks ball*

*falls into a fetal posistion... whimpering, and clutching groin area while tears stream out of eyes.*

I suppose all the threatened females could just kick the male teachers in the gonads. But what about the possibility of distraction causing lowered grades? That will pass in time.

Edit: And how will gang members properly display what gang they are in?

They can do so with a complex series of grunts and whistles. ;)

*Kicks ball*

*turns around to find goalposts have sprouted legs and are currently threatening him*

this has nothing to do with the incident. futher more your asking me to believe a kid telling me that:
"I only took it cause i didn't know what it was. Honest ma I'd NEVER do drugs. Um um um . . .SHE (points to fairly unpopular, new, student) gave them to me . . .right and she served alcohol tooo! she's a baddie! its all her fault!" *innocent eyes*

No, frankly I don't believe him especially after the one who really is to blame (read the report) ISN't the one he pointed too. Do you believe him?


I don't think it is fair to say you believe the girl implecated and then not to believe the person accusing her. And how do you know that she was only being accused because she was the new/unpopular student? Based on what the article says she was apparently very popular at a school dance.

*falls into a fetal posistion... whimpering, and clutching groin area while tears stream out of eyes.*

*points and laughs because it isn't me*

That will pass in time.



They can do so with a complex series of grunts and whistles. ;)

I suppose that is fitting to the stereotypical gang members intelligence level.

If a rape victem really was humiliated by something would they talk to the press about it?

Are you kidding me?

Yes, they often would. Because, see, some people actually care about others and want to help prevent other people from suffering the way they did. Some people, crazily enough, think that refusing to feel ashamed of something like rape and instead trying to get something good out of a horrible experience by educating those around you is a sensible idea.

But hey, thanks ever so much for very strongly implying that any rape victim who talks about her rape to anyone wasn't REALLY humiliated. How charming of you.

*falls into a fetal posistion... whimpering, and clutching groin area while tears stream out of eyes.*

Reminds me of marching band's sac tap tuesday.

Edit: And how will gang members properly display what gang they are in?

Tattoos

*points and laughs because it isn't me*

LG....

if...

*gasp*

it was...

you...

*groan*

the...

Dawooooooh...

would've...

*gasp*

broken...

his foot!

LG....

if...

*gasp*

it was...

you...

*groan*

the...

Dawooooooh...

would've...

*gasp*

broken...

his foot!

Probably. :D

Probably. :D

My youth and inexperince causes me not to understand this but I will interpret it to say that you have balls of steel.

Are you kidding me?

Yes, they often would. Because, see, some people actually care about others and want to help prevent other people from suffering the way they did. Some people, crazily enough, think that refusing to feel ashamed of something like rape and instead trying to get something good out of a horrible experience by educating those around you is a sensible idea.

But hey, thanks ever so much for very strongly implying that any rape victim who talks about her rape to anyone wasn't REALLY humiliated. How charming of you.

Sigh* please no don't say anything I already admitted that I was wrong.

My youth and inexperince causes me not to understand this but I will interpret it to say that you have balls of steel.

I get struck in the groin a lot. I have since high school. Unfortunately, due to my accursed sense of humor, I find it every bit as hilarious as when it is someone else so often the first sound I make upon regaining my composure is laughter. This has led to the conclusion by friends and schoolmates that it's perfectly acceptable to strike me in the groin. It has also led to a reputation of having indestructible testicles. Long-time occupants of NSG have heard many of my misadventures and know of that reputation. Astonishingly, I managed to procreate. ;)

*snip*

huh, learn something new everyday. I love the internet:p

I don't think it is fair to say you believe the girl implecated and then not to believe the person accusing her.

why not?
I believe the girl who was found innocent when she says that She was humilitaed. Why? because she has given me no reason to think otherwise.

I do not believe the boy who claimed he took an unknown substance willingly.
Why?
1) He Has been proven to have done something wrong
2)Claiming that it is someone elses fault is his only way to avoide some of the blame
3)his mother was involved (she's the one who brought it to the schools attention) it seems to me like he lied to her in order to avoid punishment for taking drugs knowingly and she took it to the principal at which point he couldn't turn around and say "well actually . . ." wiothouut getting expelled
4)he elaborated unnessecarilly on his story (liar's tell)
5)he deflected towards a new student (liar's tell)


And how do you know that she was only being accused because she was the new/unpopular student? Based on what the article says she was apparently very popular at a school dance.
1)the fact that she's new is verifiable
2) She was hanging out with people who we're getting into trouble (classic, not very popular new girl thing)
3) She got blamed by two seperate people for it yet was found to be innocent (classic targeting)
4)she said so and has given no reason to believe she is not trustworthy.

LG....

if...

*gasp*

it was...

you...

*groan*

the...

Dawooooooh...

would've...

*gasp*

broken...

his foot!

lmfao :D

i so liked my subtle "moving goalpost" thing, but you've upstaged me hilariously lol.

why not?
I believe the girl who was found innocent when she says that She was humilitaed. Why? because she has given me no reason to think otherwise.

I do not believe the boy who claimed he took an unknown substance willingly.
Why?
1) He Has been proven to have done something wrong
2)Claiming that it is someone elses fault is his only way to avoide some of the blame
3)his mother was involved (she's the one who brought it to the schools attention) it seems to me like he lied to her in order to avoid punishment for taking drugs knowingly and she took it to the principal at which point he couldn't turn around and say "well actually . . ." wiothouut getting expelled
4)he elaborated unnessecarilly on his story (liar's tell)
5)he deflected towards a new student (liar's tell)


1)the fact that she's new is verifiable
2) She was hanging out with people who we're getting into trouble (classic, not very popular new girl thing)
3) She got blamed by two seperate people for it yet was found to be innocent (classic targeting)
4)she said so and has given no reason to believe she is not trustworthy.


So the child said and did all these things because that's what normally happens? If that is true then your being as sterotypical as I am.

This argument is fruitless. I will always believe that people are guilty untill proven innocent. So I say we agree that this search (although yet undecided by the highest court) was most likely botched. But schools shout still retain rights to search a person so long as a parent is present and it does not involve the person exposing genetalia.

That would definately set a horrifying precedent.

"Hey little girl, I think you have a pill inside your buttocks so you'll have to take off your clothes or you're going to have to go to jail."

Absolutely scary.

So the child said and did all these things because that's what normally happens? If that is true then your being as sterotypical as I am.
[quote]
*realizes goalposts have moved . . .again*
Please read what I wrote. I am judging each student on their actions. I'm not being sterotypical, I'm not claiming all new students arer one way or another I am judging what happend in this, single case. Please stop trying to get away from my arguments by changing the discussion.

[quote]
This argument is fruitless. I will always believe that people are guilty untill proven innocent. So I say we agree that this search (although yet undecided by the highest court) was most likely botched. But schools shout still retain rights to search a person so long as a parent is present and it does not involve the person exposing genetalia.

This aregument is fruitless, most on NSG are lol but we enjoy them. My closing argument:
There's a reason for innocent until proven guilty and there is also a reason for warrents and reasonable doubt. The schools should be held to as high (if not higher) standards as the police force and, if possible, rely on the police to perform such things as Searches. The School should not be in a position to punish for anything more than relatively minor infractions such as those found normally at a school (bullying, disruption of class, fighting) and should have the police handle larger scale (drug possesion, weapons possesion,serious threats, gang-related violence, searches) issues as THEY are the ones trained to deal with these issues and have a code of rules to keep them in check.

That would definately set a horrifying precedent.

"Hey little girl, I think you have a pill inside your buttocks so you'll have to take off your clothes or you're going to have to go to jail."

Absolutely scary.

what would be scarier? several years from now instead of Doctor, the parents would be afraid their children will be playing teacher!

what would be scarier? several years from now instead of Doctor, the parents would be afraid their children will be playing teacher!

lol it becomes a sign of abuse.

To be competely fair (and this event still angers me regardless) it is pretty much agreed upon by everyone that the girl was never touched by the officials.


But the judge did say that cavity searches are legal. So that will likely involve touching.

Maybe the judge ought to be strip searched, on live TV, in court next time eh?

But the judge did say that cavity searches are legal. So that will likely involve touching.

Maybe the judge ought to be strip searched, on live TV, in court next time eh?

no, the judge didn't say anything. He asked a question.

But the judge did say that cavity searches are legal. So that will likely involve touching.

Maybe the judge ought to be strip searched, on live TV, in court next time eh?

Only if he orders the same to be done to the school children.

Schools should be permitted to conduct searches but in agreement with previous posters the police should be the ones to perform this not the teachers. 1)Teachers probably not trained 2)It will lead to less legal problems.

Schools should be permitted to conduct searches but in agreement with previous posters the police should be the ones to perform this not the teachers. 1)Teachers probably not trained 2)It will lead to less legal problems.

I think Police even on school campuses need more cause to search a student.

I think Police even on school campuses need more cause to search a student.

But how much is enough?

But how much is enough?

The same as to search anybody else.

But how much is enough?

I think without a warrant or an arrest they can only do a pat down for weapons.

and did an SRO do the search? did he have probable cause of a CRIME? did he call her parents first?
Just FYI, schools operate under reasonable suspicion, not propable cause. The bar is much lower regarding students and searches.

No were violating the rights of one to protect the rights of many. If we don't do this then people would complain about the drug problem or the number of weapons violations etc. at school.

edit:judging by your signature you and I are at opposite ends of the authoritarian/libertarian scale and are destined to fight.

Ah, the refuge of the ethically lazy.

Ok you've convinced me here. But if she is so humiliated by it then why would she talk to the press? It would seem that one would want to keep
humiliating things quiet.

If someone suspected of possesing drugs says they didn't do it is that ample reason to just let them go?

As said before, she may have come forward despite her humiliation to try and prevent it from happening agian. Also note that this has come forward many years after the fact. This is not a recent event. It's taken her years to come forward with this story.

The Supreme Court is too old and right-wing to stay sitting on the bench if they end up supporting strip-searching in school for "finding drugs." Like those superiority complex wielding thugs need any more protected abilities to abuse their power over the helpless unchecked. Sociopaths have a few favorite jobs - military, police, and school administrators.

The Supreme Court is too old and right-wing to stay sitting on the bench if they end up supporting strip-searching in school for "finding drugs." Like those superiority complex wielding thugs need any more protected abilities to abuse their power over the helpless unchecked. Sociopaths have a few favorite jobs - military, police, and school administrators.

I don't think it is possible to remove a justice for rulings from the bench.

So my friend can strip search me for no reason just because I'm in her house?

Does this make it better?

Does this make it better?

Always.:D

Ah, the refuge of the ethically lazy.



As said before, she may have come forward despite her humiliation to try and prevent it from happening agian. Also note that this has come forward many years after the fact. This is not a recent event. It's taken her years to come forward with this story.

Ethically lazy? Please explain

Yes your right. She might do that except 1)I have already stated that I was wrong on this acount and 2) since when was school searches as big a problem as rape?

no, the judge didn't say anything. He asked a question.

Ah, you're right. It was the lawyer who said it, not the judge. Still a rather detestable argument though.

Ethically lazy? Please explain

Gladly. The Utilitarian concept of the "needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few", may indeed be necessary in certain circumstances. But at what point does it simply become the most expedient solution rather than the only option?

"So-and-so said she had drugs" is a valid argument for strip-searching a student? There's one way to get revenge on bullies.

And then, of course, any teacher who wanted to get someone naked could claim they got an "anonymous tip" a kid had drugs.

I'd kick them in the balls. Or vagina. I'm an equally-opportunity genital kicker.

I say that humiliating one person is ok when it involves the safety and security of the other students in that school.

You know, the one time that Jew ripped me off at his shop, and you know what? Most of the Jews with shops rip people off all the time. I think we should just nip this problem in the bud and imprison them all. You know, for the safety of society and all that.

You need to get real man. This "harming one person for the greater good" bullshit is just that, absolute bullshit.

"So-and-so said she had drugs" is a valid argument for strip-searching a student? There's one way to get revenge on bullies.

And then, of course, any teacher who wanted to get someone naked could claim they got an "anonymous tip" a kid had drugs.

I'd kick them in the balls. Or vagina. I'm an equally-opportunity genital kicker.

You have my endorsement. :)

Ew.
Just ew.

Ew.
Just ew.

Hmm your response seems to suggest you have drugs on you.

no, the judge didn't say anything. He asked a question.

Even Scalia has a soul. It may look like something in a New York hot dog, but it is a soul. Soul-esque at least.

In light of recent events (namely a conversation with my parents who were both law enforcements officers) I have decided to switch my opinion on this matter. I feel that the school can only serch back packs, purses, lockers, and having someone turn out their pockets is the only acceptable form of searching allowed on the person at a school. So I guess it took my parents to bring me to my senses of right and wrong.