<p>the court decided not to put blame on the AP because according to school policy, he was in the right. his school system backed him up on this. therefore, the institution which allowed this policy ought to be punished, not the person who thought she was not doing anything illegal (unethical is a different story).</p>
<p>As for whether a school administration would be able to conduct a strip search of a student, I think you need to answer the following questions:</p>
<ol>
<li><p>Does esctacy present a danger to the students? [I don’t know–don’t do drugs.]</p></li>
<li><p>Are large amounts being passed?</p></li>
<li><p>Do you have reason to suspect that the individual has large quantities of ecstacy on her person?</p></li>
<li><p>Do you have reason to believe that she was hiding such large quantities in her underwear or bra?</p></li>
</ol>
<p>In your scenario, I think she would need to have dealer amounts and even then, you could only search her bra.</p>
<p>But if you thought she had dealer amounts, you should have already called the cops.</p>
<p>possessing ecstasy also poses a danger to the student. if an administrator suspects a student has ecstasy on her person, it may not be unreasonable to conduct a search which one could otherwise conduct by walking through a locker room after PE.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>Actually, this is not true. The Supreme Court found that that search conducted under the direction of the AP was wrong. He was NOT in the right. </p>
<p>The second part of the Supreme Court decision dealt with the question of whether the AP would be protected from liability by “qualified immunity”–that is, even if he did something wrong, you can’t sue him. Many government officials have immunity for the things they do in office as part of their official duties. The Court found that because the law was fuzzy about whether the strip search violated the 4th amendment, the AP was allowed to be protected by qualified immunity. </p>
<p>The Court remanded the case to the trial court to decide whether the school district would be liable.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Has anyone ever seen any good come out of these “zero tolerance policies”? I mean, back in the day we all had purses full of aspirin, tylenol, midol and other OTC meds and we (at least my friends and I) weren’t “druggies”. These asinine policies have not reduced the incidence of illegal drug use, they have only served to criminalize more students.</p>
<p>A strip search of a 13 year old by a school official because you believe she has a single dose of esctasy on her that she might swallow for her personal use? Sounds like a problem scenario.</p>
<p>While 1 ecstasy pill is unlikely to cause death a pretty small amount can and you have no idea of the strength of any one tab. No problem to search for it with due cause.</p>
<p>[Drug</a> addiction - Death by Ecstasy - Ecstasy Effects](<a href=“http://www.medbook.md/news1037.html]Drug”>http://www.medbook.md/news1037.html)</p>
<p>There seems to be some misconception about what the supremes said.</p>
<p>They didn’t rule that searches are illegal. Ex, if a teacher observes a student stuffing a pill somewhere, the school can still search there. It’s just that they have to have “reasonable suspicion”.</p>
<p>In this case, they did not. Another student said that she provided the ibuprofen, not where it was on her body. Thus there was “sufficient suspicion” to search her backpack and pockets, places where one might expect a student to hide ibuprofen. But they did not find any, and there was no reason to suspect that she hid it in her underwear (a rather unusual place to hide pills)</p>
<p>If the other student claimed it was hidden in her underwear, or if this student had a history of hiding things there, etc, etc, then there would be “reasonable suspicion”. But there was not any.</p>
<p>This is significant because otherwise, school administrators would have carte blanche power to harrass and/or humiliate any student they wish, for any reason they want. And you know that power will be abused.</p>
<p>The problem is the so called “Zero Tolerance” policy. It’s a paradigm that has spread from schools into general society. All in the name of being for The Greater Good. </p>
<p>“Homeland Security” is an institution and a mindset that routinely violates the rights of the very citizens it derives its authority from. It’s an institution that serves itself at the expense of the citizenry it was supposedly created to serve. </p>
<p>And I have no doubt that this statement will be documented by that that very same institution.</p>
<p>Justice Thomas’s dissent is primarily around the “reasonable suspicion” sticker. He says, and quotes from precedent, that “reasonable suspicion” has up to this point been used to refer to PHYSICAL ABILITY to conceal an object. For example, searching for a baseball bat in a shirt pocket would be illegal because there’s no reason to suspect a baseball bat could be hiding there. Pills in underwear? That makes sense and is plausible.</p>
<p>He also reinforces the idea that the majority decision is contradictory. How can they uphold the “zero tolerance” policy as reasonable cause to search her backpack and personal belongings, but deny it when the scope of the search includes undergarments simply because it was Ibuprofen? The entire point of “zero tolerance” is to AVOID distinguishing and having to make judgment calls.</p>
<p>This, by the way, says nothing about my own thoughts on the matter. In my opinion, a strip search of a minor at school by non-law-enforcement officials in pursuit of personal-use-quantities of a medication like Ibuprofen alleged by another student caught red-handed is absolutely ludicrous. But the Supreme Court is not about upholding lay opinion, nor do I expect it to be.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>Supremes also focused on the fact that a danger had to be present–not the case with ibuprofen and Aleve.</p>
<p>Call the cops if you think a strip search is warranted. That’s what some states are telling their schools. I agree.</p>
<p>As for the one ecstacy pill, I’d call up the parents and tell them that the security cameras have the daughter putting what looks like drugs into her bra. The parent can come pick up the kid and then do his or her own search at home or the school can call the police to pick up the kid and decide whether a strip search is warranted.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>There may be other cases where “reasonable suspicion” means differently, but the case precedent in this case was “New Jersey v. TLO”, which is remarkably close to this case.</p>
<p>In that case, two girls were caught with smoke in a restroom. When questioned, one admitted to smoking, and the other denied. The principal then searched the purse of the second, finding cigarettes and other drugs.</p>
<p>The ruling was based on the fact that the two were present with cigarette smoke, and the other girl admitted that the two smoked. This provided the “reasonable suspicion” that allowed the principal to search her purse.</p>
<p>In the ibuprofen case, the student was accused of possessing ibuprofen by another student. This invoked the “reasonable suspicion” that she possessed ibuprofen, thus allowing the principal to search her bag and pockets. This was all legal according to the precedent. But once the search concluded, there was no evidence that would suggest to a “reasonable person” that she had hid anything in her underwear. Thus, the search was illegal.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>There is nothing in the case that has to do with zero tolerance. The case was not judging the nature of the school rules. No school will be forced to allow prescription ibuprofen, or soften penalties for possession, or be barred from searching any student who is “reasonably suspected” of possessing it.</p>
<p>It was against school rules to possess ibuprofen, and the question was “to what extent are administrators allowed to search students to enforce that rule?” And the conclusion was, only if there is “reasonable suspicion” of possession.</p>
<p>8 of 9 justices agree. Sudden outbreak of common sense.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If a minor possesses ecstasy, wouldn’t they normally be prosecuted in some way? That would rule out the former option.</p>
<p>The justices may not be ruling on zero tolerance as a school policy, but they are saying that the protections of the Constitution are NOT zero tolerance. If you are doing a strip search, it better be for something more dangerous than personal consumption amounts of ibuprofen and Aleve.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>There is always the issue of prosecutorial discretion–or in this case, principal discretion. I don’t think that every prosecutable offense gets reported to the police. An incident might get put in “the top drawer,” awaiting further developments.</p>
<p>I still think it’s time that we allow students to carry small amounts of Midol, Aleve, etc., or at least have them easily available from a school nurse. It’s freakin’ ridiculous to do that to teenage girls in particular.</p>
<p>“Pills in underwear? That makes sense and is plausible.”</p>
<p>I agree. Obviously the most reasonable response is to have ALL students strip-searched at the beginning of each school day. And since it would be an unreasonable educational intrusion to have students searched individually, it probably makes the most sense to have everyone report to the gym (away from prying eyes) and group strip-searched. Contraband dogs could be brought in to sniff panties, bras, etcetera. If a contraband dog shows any interest, a more thorough search could be performed in the Principal’s office.</p>
<p>Of course the entire process should be videotaped, to document any evidence recovered.</p>
<p>Oh, let’s just ban clothes altogether, except for orange jumpsuits that the school would provide. That would be easier.</p>