Supreme Court rules that strip searching a 13-year-old girl was unconstitutional
By John Amato Thursday Jun 25, 2009 3:52pm
In a surprise verdict for the Roberts court:
The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that the strip search of a 13-year-old schoolgirl violated the constitutional protection against unreasonable search and seizure.
In a closely watched case filled with poignant facts, the court ruled 8-1 that Arizona school officials violated student Savana Redding's Fourth Amendment rights when they searched her down to her bra and underpants. Officials were looking for pain relievers, which they didn't find.
"The content of the suspicion failed to match the degree of intrusion," Justice David Souter wrote for the majority.
The ruling involving Redding, who's now a college student, has been anticipated by schools nationwide, which must balance concerns about student privacy with adult fears of drug abuse and school violence.
And guess who the lone hold out was on the court? Clarence Thomas.
Justice Clarence Thomas was the only member of the court to decide that the search of Redding was reasonable.
The court divided more closely, though, on whether the individual school officials who oversaw the search should be liable for damages. While seven members agreed that the officials were immune from lawsuits, Justices John Paul Stevens and Ruth Bader Ginsburg contended that the school's assistant principal, Kerry Wilson, should be held liable.
"Wilson's treatment of Redding was abusive and it was not reasonable for him to believe that the law permitted it," said Ginsburg, the court's only female member.
Scott Lemieux has a great post up about the Roberts courts and how he never sides with individual rights:
In light of two controversial 5-4 Supreme Court decisions this week, Matt is reminded of Jeffrey Toobin's point that "In every major case since he became the nation’s seventeenth Chief Justice, Roberts has sided with the prosecution over the defendant, the state over the condemned, the executive branch over the legislative, and the corporate defendant over the individual plaintiff."...read on
Maybe they read his post...
Login or Register to post comments.
They had to do something to prove their moral superiority. And it was a "two-fer." Robert's perfect score goes down.
Yeah, but Obama is responsible for Sanford. Just ask Rush.
But fun...
From Clarence Thomas's dissent "You should have seen what she was wearing..."
Fucking Clarence Thomas. Has that guy EVER ruled on the side of the Constitution or the people? EVER? What a waste of a lifetime appointment.
Thomas is mentally sick.
Judge Thomas was mislead by erroneous information that the 13-yr. old was hiding a Coke bottle with a pubic hair on it in her panties. Reportedly, Thomas asked only one question during the hearing, "What would Anita Hill Do?"
private collection in his dissent, saying that in the fictional version of the story, titled "Hot Teen Co-Ed High School 16", the victim seemed to really enjoy the strip search... .
Seriously, how low can Thomas possibly go?
...doesn't preclude strip searching 12-year olds.
All power to the wise and benevolent Justice Thomas. Surely, in time his wisdom will come to dominate the thinking of all humans and strip searching 13-year olds will once again be legal. Only through the wisdom of Justice Thomas will we return to the Dark Ages when fear and superstition reigned supreme.
That's racist!!!
;)
They were looking for Advil!!! I am not joking here. Ad fucking vil. They were lucky she didn't pull a butter knife on them.
.
old girl may have been carrying Advil, has never been a 13 year old girl.
Bottom line is, strip-searching a minor over Advil is very much out of line, and so is denying a 13 year girl (who probably has a menstrual cycle at this point and thus has cramps and probably won't easily be excused to go to the nurses' office) the right to carry Advil.
to see the insanity and injustice of the case. Maybe if in the US teachers were accorded more pay and respect than menial servants, the schools wouldn't be full of such subpar "educators."
Advil? Seriously. Hell, If I was Advil (or whatever brand of ibuprofen it was) I'd make a commercial out of this. I can only imagine hahaha...
...It's SCOTUS approved"
...88.88888% Constitutional!"
haha nice.
this is hardly a victory, it is easily a loss for individual rights, from the decision;
a reasonable search that extensive calls for suspicion that it will suc-ceed
yup, that is part of the ruling, they have made it clear, if something was found then the search WAS legal
I’m sorry, that doesn’t fly, this means if the CAN perform the search they simply have to find something, then if they don’t, in order to avoid repercussions they will have to plant something
this is not cool at all
and it gets worse, FAR worse;
the official who ordered the unconstitutional search is entitled to qualified immunity from liability.
"qualified imunity" means you cannot challenge an official if they were performing their government function
this is NOT a win for individual rights it's a CLEAR LOSS
what they have done is the folowing/
they satisfied their base saying, "see, we found on behalf of a 13 year old who was molested"
then they went and sided with child molester if they are government authorities by saying'
"pssst,,,,not to worry, you can do it and there's nothing anyone can do about it"
now check this out if you want to REALLY get mad;
Wilson learned from Peggy Schwallier, the school nurse,that the pill was Ibuprofen 400 mg, available only by prescription
they are stripping a girl down because of ADVIL!!!
advil?
are they out of their child molesting minds?
with this ruling they have empowered child molestation under cover of "official business" they have NOT restricted the invasion or molestation one iota
for money as an individual. As a private citizen.
...she could have been 31. And it was only Advil, but it could have been heroin. And she was just a little girl, but she could have been a 31-year old heroin using Iranian suicide bomber. Only Justice Thomas has the wisdom to understand the true meaning of this case.
a link? Thanks.
I just started reading it.
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/08pdf/...
The reasonableness of her expectation is indicated by the common reaction of other young people similarly searched, whose adolescent vulnerability intensifies the exposure’s patent intrusiveness. Its indignity does not outlaw the search, but it does implicate the rule that “the search [be]‘reasonably related in scope to the circumstances which justified the interference in the first place. Here, the content of the suspicion failed to match the degree of intrusion. Because Wilson knew that the pills were common pain relievers, he must have known of their nature and limited threat and had no reason to suspect that large amounts were being passed around or that individual students had great quantities. Nor could he have suspected that Savana was hiding common painkillers in her underwear.
When suspected facts must support the categorically extreme intrusiveness of a search down to an adolescent’s body, petitioners’ general belief that students hide contraband in their clothing falls short; a reasonable search that extensive calls for suspicion that it will succeed. Nondangerous school contraband does not conjure up the specter of stashes in intimate places, and there is no evidence of such behavior at the school.
There's nothing in the decision that says it would have been legal if something had been found.
Basically, what they have said is that they AREN'T saying that there could never ever be a situation that would warrant such a search. Since there are few absolutes in life, there might, at some point in the future, be some sort of situation that would make it reasonable to conduct such a search - no one knows. But THIS situation wasn't it.
Not only did Thomas think it was constitutional, he wanted to participate.
Not really succeeding.
Was Thomas drinking Coke?
I'm just kidding, of course. Clearly, Justice Thomas is a far better thinker and humanitarian that he could be if he were drooling coke fiend.
Hearing this case probably gave Clarence Thomas a huge erection.
thought a proper strip search entailed taking all of one's clothing off in front of "officials." This is in his dissenting opinion.
cuz everyone wouldve seen thomas fapping under his robes during oral arguments
Oh, wow that's good, surprised on that 1.
West Shore School district, 6th or 7th grade, they checked my penis for veins. Yes the school nurse had all the boys line up pull their pants down and she squeezed and pulled all our penis's, cool?
9th grade West Shore school District stripped searched me in front of the female principle Mrs. Leshay(incorrect spelling) with the help of the gym teacher at Cedar Cliff Highschool, they were searching for Heroin? I don't know why still, I only can assume was because I had high blood pressure from being nervous in the pool not knowing how to swim with out a spotter. Never did drugs didn't have pills at school, nothing just books, folders, pencils, had great grades upper 90's even. Reminds me the kids liked to jam Pencils in my back and legs and say haha now your lead poisoned.
So many more story's, elementary school I was stuck in a refrigerator box for talking to girls in 3rd grade, me sitting at my desk inside a dark box, I poked a hole threw the front so I could still see the teacher during the 3 hours enclosed in darkness, Mrs. Tanger, Letort Elementary.
More, more, more.....................
That's horrible. By the way, went to Cumberland Valley here.
I'm surprised you didn't turn into a Michael Savage.
I'll tell ya it sure takes allot of inner control, once in a while I'll flip out but never to hurt anyone, might beat on a tree with a bat or something, floor the gas pedal on my car scream around turns.... i really don't remember being out of control in the beginning, I was very shy but i liked girls, as the years progressed with these weird mental and physical violations is when I started acting erratic. You wouldn't believe the ache in my chest i had at 16 years old, I still have it now.
What those school officials did to you is criminal. No wonder there are so many juvenile delinquents running around when teachers and nurses do stuff like that.
btw, you seem to have turned out well!
and your parents never sued?
I can make all kinds of excuses for them, failing me. :(
We were kinda poor, I am a mutant only I and my Grandfather on my mothers side came out intelligent and aware, most in the family are kinda shallow and out of touch. Selfish & greedy. My family is weird, not allot of brain power.
In all actuality I was so embarrassed with the nurse pulling on my pud I never said anything to them about that, nor did I ever mention the pencils jammed in my flesh, then twisted to break the tips off, being hated or abused at that age was very hard for me to tell anyone, I tried to pretend like it just didn't happen. I thought telling my parents would hurt them. I didn't tell about allot, I didn't tell about the refrigerator box either.
The strip search they found out about only because I missed the bus and the school wanted to make my parents aware of my drug abuse that didn't exist. I got transferred to Red Land, for one year, when I returned to Cedar Cliff in 11th I only lasted about 3 weeks and quit. They systematically destroyed me. I was not the only 1, but I seem to be the only one left in town, most moved away from these freaks.
I really do think I should sue somebody somewhere, I want to know who the top dog is, who is the SOB that puts certain family's on the shit list around here. How the hell do they have such control? They run the school system, utility's, judges, police, banks, business owners, absolutely locked down here. It is a nightmare.
This kind of stuff is exactly why kids go on shooting rampages, thank god we didn't have health insurance or I probably would have on an anti-depressant. Also something inside of me that respects life, I just can not help it, I can't hate like they do.
people like you and I can roam free with others of our kind. It's called New York City. It's like the Land of Broken Toys, only for grownups, and there's meetings.
whoa reading your post brings on the floods ,
If i may , I was a little over 4 years old and someone much older 17 - 20 years old ( the cops or my dad never caught him ) came into our yard , picked me up and slamed me into the sidewalk , it shattered my arm in 17 places ( this was in 1952 ) it was racial hatred . That was 58 years ago , would i give to that person what they gave to me , yes , on a mental level i would bring shame upon them . Would i hate them for being a different color than me ? no .
Having read your posting several times , i wamt you to know there are at least two of us in this boat .
BOL
dn
I am sorry. You got me tearing up now. Much love goes out to you. What possesses these SOB's to cause mental and physical harm to others? Then they just keep on going like it's nothing. I will never understand.
I got another 1 just for you, 9th grade something happened everyday no fail, lots of bullys. One guy his name was Delton, 1 ugly sloby jerk, loved to pick on people, loved to beat people up, even threw me down 1 day. Well, he kept picking on this tall skinny quiet guy everyday after school, they must have lived close to each other. That skinny guy flipped ended up sending Delton the big bad bully to the hospital with a broken face, I mean bad edge of death. Delton's eyes were blood red for months after that, he never picked on me or any one after that. I felt that skinny guy was a hero for the rest of us, too bad he went to jail, never saw him again. It was out of control late 80's in Cedar Cliff high school.
When we heard the news, my husband and I both immediately popped out our guess as to the lone dissenter. My husband thought Scalia - I thought Thomas.
Sure enough - it was Thomas. Why? Not only is he the most genuinely ignorant of the justices - but he has consistently and completely been insensitive to women's issues.
*
how many years...and not one question during oral arguments?
he has never written a majority or minority decision
he is a buffoon....plain and simple
Thank God he's never written a decision. Although in a way, it's still a little sad - even his colleagues on the court, the people who supposedly agree with his ideology, apparently think he's an idiot.
Because if he weren't useless, there's no way he could have been on the court this many years without being assigned something to write. It's just the way the court works.
actively despises women--even more than himself--and spends (!) a lot of time thinking about how to make his misogyny into law.
Whats important to remember here, and what makes it a no-brainer for anyone NOT interested in strip searching 13yo girls (I'm looking at you Thomas) is that the search was conducted by school officials. We're not even talking about police! FUCK! How in any context could it be ok for Mr. Weatherbee to be strip searching students!?!?
As an Oregonian, I am absolutely appalled at what the school district did. I am amazed that no one said, "Are you sure about this?" as the girl was searched. But, I am not familiar with the school district. Perhaps it is one that is abusive, and does not regard its students with the dignity they deserve. I've seen that before. It's hard to speak up in such a district (although, I've done it).
What planet is Thomas on? He seems more in tune with a totalitarian regime, rather than one that honors the US Constitution.
I can't believe he's into jailbait!
So Clerance Thomas is even crazier than Scalia and Alito? Interesting. I can't imagine why the resident perv on the Court would side with the psycho's who did this?
I have worked at every level in education over the past 26 years, and the idiots who did this should be fired, sued, and strip searched themselves in the town gazebo on Saturday at high noon.
I remember being a young black man at the time that Justice Thomas was nominated for the Court. All I can remember thinking at the time is "Why this black man?". I felt at the time that he was being put on the Court as a token by a republican president. I think they thought they were making themselves look good in the eyes of blacks. Just the opposite! Everything I hear about him on the Court now just confirms my doubts about him back then. What a shame!
Login or Register to post comments.