<p>Well, it wasn’t a full body cavity search, but if someone has me stripped down to my bra and panties and then looks at my genitalia–well, that’s about as close to strip search as you can come.</p>
<p>Why would any adult who was asked to perform this search not tell the AP to go jump in a lake? Where was the principal in all this?</p>
<p>Probably hard to get rid of the AP–he could be put on a do nothing desk job for the rest of his career. We had a case in our county where a female principal who went on a thong patrol. Desk job…</p>
<p>She should sue him for slander, since she was not, in fact, concealing anything, and he’s baldly stating that she was in this quote. (He uses conditional in the first part of the statement, but not in the second.)</p>
<p>I read somewhere that this girl was on her period during the search, which was why she was suspected of having, oh the horror, Motrin. When I was thirteen, if I had a teacher poking around in my underwear when I had my period I would have died of embarassment.</p>
<p>I’m glad there’s going to be another woman on the Court. Too bad she’s not replacing Thomas.</p>
<p>The Supreme Court says you can strip search a young female student IF what you’re looking for is dangerous enough and IF you have good reason to believe she’s secreted it in her undies. It’s a balancing act–you have to weigh the circumstances carefully before going down the strip search route. The Supreme Court has said that you better think really, really, really hard before you do it to a young teenager.</p>
<p>As for becoming a Supreme Court justice, I’m good to go. I’ve graduated from a good enough law school and I haven’t ever hired a nanny. That’s all that’s required, right?</p>
<p>The next lawsuit we’ll probably see will be from the family of a kid who dies from taking something provided by another student who kept the pills in her panties but who wasn’t strip searched.</p>
<p>In this case, the AP knew that the pills involved were Advil/Aleve. You don’t strip search for Aleve. Another interesting point–the other girl involved was strip searched first.</p>
<p>You have to weigh the gigantic intrusiveness of the search with the results of what you hope to find. </p>
<p>I suspect that the Supreme Court took this case because they wanted to rule on the issue of strip searches in school. This case was perfect for them–known harmless drug, strip search, young girl, parents not called, no evidence that drugs secreted in panties. </p>
<p>Interesting facts in the syllabus of the decision:</p>
<p>“He [the AP] knew that the girls had been identified as part of an unusually rowdy group at a school dance, during which alcohol and cigarettes were found in the girls’ bathroom. He had other reasons to connect them with this contraband, for Jordan had told the principal that before the dance, he had attended a party at Savana’s house where alcohol was served.” </p>
<p>So not quite the “no trouble with the school administration” rep for the young lady. </p>
<p>Not only was the strip search ridiculous, it’s time to start having sensible policies about things like Motrin, too.</p>
<p>Vast numbers of parents allow their kids to carry a drug like Motrin – even though it is a violation of school policy and the kid also has the drug stored in the school nurse’s office – because the kid may not be coming home directly after school and may need a dose of the drug while they are at their extracurricular activity, their job, their friend’s house, the library, or wherever else they’re going. </p>
<p>It’s absurd to create policies that only make sense if every kid goes directly home after school. It’s even more absurd to strip search a student in response to a violation of this type.</p>
<p>Except that the 13 year old didn’t have any pills. If the justification for doing a strip search on a 13 year old girl at school can be another student saying that so-and-so has pills, there are going to be an awful lot of strip searches going on. There would be so many lawsuits over those strip searches that there will be absolutely no room for anything else. :)</p>
<p>I agree - that 13 year old didn’t have pills but the ruling shouldn’t have been any different had she had the pills. If they had been searching for ibuprofen and found Ecstasy, the result should be the same by the Court.</p>
<p>I’ll give the benefit of the doubt and assume industrial-strength prescription-level ibuprofin, not the OTC pills. Again, the only thing the AP had to go on was another student’s say-so. If that’s really going to be the standard where schools feel they have enough of a case to carry out a strip search, then you can surely imagine how the number of strip searches would ratchet up. Is one kid angry at another one? Wants to get back at someone? Easy, just go tell an adult at the school that your enemy of the week is carrying pills. This is why a sensible administrator would have immediately turned the matter over to the school or community police. They, at least, have some knowledge of how you should conduct a search in a constitutionally-complaint manner. Especially if it was something like Ecstasy, where criminal charges could have been filed. </p>
<p>If the only way that a school could guarantee a no-drugs environment is to conduct strip searches, then parents might have to make a choice between having strip searches and no drugs vs. having drugs but no strip searches. The former choice is for extreme environments, like a prison. It’s one thing to make every kid at a school walk through a metal detector. Non-intrusive, equally applied, huge huge safety benefit. It’s another entirely to carry out strip searches (intrusive, unequally applied, doubtful safety benefit), especially on such a flimsy pretext.</p>
<p>Agreed, but the Court left open all kinds of possibilities, as they usually do. Let’s say a school is having problems with Ecstasy being passed around. Suppose a security camera caught a student putting what looks like pills in her bra? What guidance did the Court give schools on that one? They detain the student - now what? They call the parents - the parents are on a cruise in the Bahamas. They call the cops - and the cops arrange a strip search with a female officer - Chiclets are found. Should there have been a strip search?</p>
<p>You bring up one important wrinkle, catera45, in your hypothetical and one that I think school districts should make use of. The search is conducted by the cops. Cops are covered under a different set of rules when it comes to searches. They need probable cause and/or a warrant–a higher standard than the school would need to meet. They are much better versed than school administrations about what constitutes probable cause. And the cops would probably only conduct a strip search if they thought a major threat was involved or as part of an arrest. </p>
<p>Is a security camera of someone sticking something in their bra good enough for the cops to get a search warrant? If the cops had some other reason to believe that what is being stuffed into the bra is drugs–yes, I believe they could obtain a search warrant</p>
<p>In fact, many schools would involve the cops if they thought a strip search was warranted. Take a look at Stillwater, OK and how the schools and police would handle such a situation.</p>