Liberal Arts Major
http://vlex.com/vid/30095402
Roughly, some young girl is accused of hosting a party involving alcohol and bringing knives or somesuch to school inside a planner - not to mention some ibuprofen. The girl is searched by the nurse and a witness more or less decently, and then implicates another girl (this one 13), who is basically stripped naked in an eventually fruitless quest for over-the-counter painkillers. The majority decided this scenario was A-OK and couldn't see a reason why it shouldn't be repeated in the future.
The reasoning for this can be boiled down to "security", or in the majority's words, "...[the] Defendants had a strong interest both in safeguarding students entrusted to their care from the harm posed by the misuse of prescription drugs and in enforcing the school's official policy, which prohibited the use, possession, and distribution of such drugs without permission."
One might object to the idea that stripping a 13 year-old girl in front of officials in order to search for ibuprofen is in fact a perfectly permissible function of any institution, public or private, but the majority opinion has an answer for that, too: "...[the] Defendants administered the search in a reasonable manner. The search of Redding's person was conducted by two employees who were of the same gender as Redding, and the search took place in the privacy of the school nurse's office with the door securely locked... Redding was not physically touched in any way during the search, and she was not asked to remove her bra or underwear. Furthermore, Defendants returned Redding's clothing and permitted her to get dressed as soon as the search was over."
So this situation is to be found acceptable because of the time-honored principle that girls can see girls. This is not the only atrocity against common sense and decency committed here. Others include the insinuation that not being forced to completely remove an item of clothing somehow negates the fact that you were forced to reveal what the item was supposed to hide in the first place, the idea that the fact that the nurse didn't undress the girl herself somehow means the school can't be blamed for her any sexual or personal humiliation she felt from her coerced state of nakedness, and of course the proposition that it somehow counts in the school's favor that the nurse didn't confiscate the girl's clothing and leave her sitting around naked in public.
It's hard to think anyone would have to explain in-depth why those judges who partook in the majority opinion should be fired and their license to practice law revoked, but the dissenting opinion does just that. The minority summarizes the case quite simply: "Thirteen-year-old Savana Redding, an honor roll student with no prior disciplinary problems, was required to strip, exposing her breasts and pubic area, in a fruitless search for -- at worst -- prescription strength ibuprofen."
The ibuprofen in question was, according to the school, a big problem. The dissension notes that "the school makes much of the fact that the ibuprofen tablets were 'prescription strength.' However... she [was not] alleged to have any connection to illegal drug distribution. Rather, school officials based their actions entirely on uncorroborated statement by a student that Savana had given her a few ibuprofen tablets. The school officials did not suspect that the pills were something other than ibuprofen."
Clearly the possibility that the mother of all drugs, ibuprofen, might possibly be in someone's possession was a pressing and immediate threat to the health of the other students requiring prompt and ruthless action. Nobody had the time stop and consider that a single tip from some other students was not a reliable source of information. "[S]ister circuits" have apparently managed to make this distinction in the past: "However, our sister circuits have concluded... that student tips alone are insufficient to support a constitutionally permissible strip search." The school's justification, which was apparently enough to convince the majority, consists of: "(1) Jordan falsely reported that Savana, several months prior, had a party at her home at which alcohol was served; (2) Savana admitted to owning a planner -- later discovered to contain cigarettes, lighters, and a knife -- that she had given to her friend Marissa." No further analysis on the issue is given; the fact that there was no evidence to justify looking through anything more than a backpack is skimmed over completely. Nevertheless, the school and the majority both seem to believe this builds such a strong case against the girl that it's good enough to circumvent the fact that "the Second Circuit recently held that" even a "violation of a school's tobacco policy cannot be the basis of a strip search for another drug." The dissent points out that "it is difficult to see how any student who was identified by [the first girl] would be safe from a strip search by school officials."
The dissent also correctly points out that yes, it is just as bad to force an early-adolescent girl to expose her breasts and so on as it is to make her take off her underwear completely. Perhaps the most frightening part of this whole affair is that this is considered routine: "... school officials seem to believe that strip searching of students should be considered a routine matter. Marissa was strip searched for ibuprofen (and nothing was found) prior to the strip search of Savana. When Savana's mother complained about the search the next day, she was told by the principal that there was no problem 'because we didn't find anything.'"
Worse still, but during the entire two and a half hours, the girl was not permitted to call her mother, and her mother was not informed. In other words, she had absolutely no recourse. It's apparently necessary to get the parent's permission to administer Tylenol, but an affair as bothersome as calling a parent is too much trouble for something as minor as a strip search.
Summary: Zero-tolerance drug policies can now be safely used to justify anything, and neither schools nor courts are above sexually humiliating adolescent girls in order to enforce them.
___
~ Ogordemir ~
"The sciences have hitherto harmed us little; but some day the piecing together of dissociated knowledge will open up such terrifying vistas of reality that we shall either go mad from the revelation or flee from the light into the peace and safety of a new dark age." ~ H.P Lovecraft, The Call of Cthulhu
Editor
But B) This is not new.
The whole "zero tolerance" drug policies are complete bullshit and have been complete bullshit ever since they were implemented, and this is, sadly, not limited just to them. Zero tolerance policies of any kind seem to only exist to harass students about things that are not at all relevant to the actual spirit of the rule.
The wonderful thing about these policies is that they're so criminally inefficient. They can't make a rule that says "Don't bring a damn knife to school and stab someone with it", oh no. They have to make up things like "Anything that could be a weapon, IS a weapon. Wait, scratch that, anything that we call a weapon, IS a weapon, regardless of whether or not we have any hard evidence that suggests it is or could even be used as one. Toy gun? You bet. Sharpened stick? Definitely. Fish stick? Well, obviously."
Of course the guy who brings an actual firearm isn't caught and ends up killing someone. I'm not afraid of firearms, personally, at least not as much as I am afraid of pretend firearms or say, a swiss army knife, but I fear other students may not share this view.
But I digress. On the subject at hand, anti-over-the-counter-drug policies are hilarious. I know because I've seen them firsthand. During elementary school I used to get severe headaches, the kind that would put me in agony and cause me to leave school. After this had happened a couple times, I asked if I could bring Excedrin to school to keep them under control.
This was completely unacceptable, I was told. However, after it became clear that I was going to miss roughly one day of school per week until I graduated, the policy was changed to "No drugs of any kind without a note from your parents and a note from your doctor".
But again, I digress. I do want to know why the girl in this situation actually complied with the officials. I believe the correct response to "Strip down so we can search you for drugs" is "I'd like to call my parents first, and I'd like to see a search warrant that allows you to do this. I'd also like to see the evidence you have that leads you to believe I'm carrying drugs at all."
Though a response of "Fuck you" probably would've been just as appropriate.
---
"Allow ME to interject: TFN does not die immediately because you get banned. Your banning would unleash a disease that would slowly eat TFN from the inside until your reinstatement or the site's eventual, decidedly painful death." ~Ogor, to me
Liberal Arts Major
Oh, I know. I've harped on pointlessly before about zero-tolerance policies and all the boundless joy harvested time after time from the golden crop of their totalitarian realizations. This is, however, the most inexcusable implementation of zero-tolerance that I have ever come across with an accompanying panel of judges defending it.
But again, I digress. I do want to know why the girl in this situation actually complied with the officials. I believe the correct response to "Strip down so we can search you for drugs" is "I'd like to call my parents first, and I'd like to see a search warrant that allows you to do this. I'd also like to see the evidence you have that leads you to believe I'm carrying drugs at all." Though a response of "Fuck you" probably would've been just as appropriate.
You're right, that would have been the proper course of action, except much of the time the victim doesn't know he or she has the option to say no, and even if he or she does, intimidation and fear can effectively remove that option from the victim's decision-making. One reason this was coercion is that you can't expect a 13 year-old girl, honor roll or not, to be able to think rationally and clearly in her own self-interest when put into such a stressful situation. You can hardly even expect an adult to stand up for their rights, much less a child. And more likely than not, the girl didn't even know she could say no, or feared the repercussions. Generally speaking, a good student isn't going to be too familiar with how to act - or the consequences thereof - when he or she gets referred for violating some rule or policy.
___
~ Ogordemir ~
"The sciences have hitherto harmed us little; but some day the piecing together of dissociated knowledge will open up such terrifying vistas of reality that we shall either go mad from the revelation or flee from the light into the peace and safety of a new dark age." ~ H.P Lovecraft, The Call of Cthulhu
Liberal Arts Major
I skipped most of the text and the article, but I laughed here. Unless I skipped something significant...
l24thAmendment
New Jersery v T.L.O, mother****ers! Do you know it!?
Schools do not need a search warrant or even probable cause to conduct a search of a student or their "property". They just need reasonable suspicion, which is a peg down from probable cause.
---
"What is the greatest threat facing us now? People will say its terrorism. But are there any terrorists in the world who can change the American way of life or our political system? No. Can they knock down a building? Yes. Can they kill somebody? Yes. But can they change us? No. Only we can change ourselves. So what is the great threat we are facing? - Colin Powell
Liberal Arts Major
However lol at search warrants in school.
---
"What is the greatest threat facing us now? People will say its terrorism. But are there any terrorists in the world who can change the American way of life or our political system? No. Can they knock down a building? Yes. Can they kill somebody? Yes. But can they change us? No. Only we can change ourselves. So what is the great threat we are facing? - Colin Powell
Liberal Arts Major
Yes; it's cited several times in the decision and the dissent. The dissent also cites a case which sets the precedent that student tips alone are not enough to establish reasonable suspicion.
___
~ Ogordemir ~
"The sciences have hitherto harmed us little; but some day the piecing together of dissociated knowledge will open up such terrifying vistas of reality that we shall either go mad from the revelation or flee from the light into the peace and safety of a new dark age." ~ H.P Lovecraft, The Call of Cthulhu
Message last edited by Ogordemir99 on 9/29/2007 at 10:30:58 PM
Liberal Arts Major
And out of curiosity, which other case is this? Because IIRC, the "reasonable suspicion" in T.L.O. was basically a result of the tip of the other girl - fruit of the poisonous tree and all.
Unless there's a difference between a student implicating another within a confession to just a tip. But that just sounds odd.
---
"What is the greatest threat facing us now? People will say its terrorism. But are there any terrorists in the world who can change the American way of life or our political system? No. Can they knock down a building? Yes. Can they kill somebody? Yes. But can they change us? No. Only we can change ourselves. So what is the great threat we are facing? - Colin Powell
Liberal Arts Major
Phaneuf v. Fraikin, apparently. It's not a Supreme Court case, just a circuit decision. In T.L.O., the girl was actually caught smoking, and a search of her purse brought up the possibility that she was carrying marijuana.
___
~ Ogordemir ~
"The sciences have hitherto harmed us little; but some day the piecing together of dissociated knowledge will open up such terrifying vistas of reality that we shall either go mad from the revelation or flee from the light into the peace and safety of a new dark age." ~ H.P Lovecraft, The Call of Cthulhu
Liberal Arts Major
I thought she denied it, but the other girl went, "lol no, we were" which caused the principal to search her purse which led to etc.
Bah, my memory must be failing me. I'll take your word for it, I'm too lazy to look it up myself. >_>
---
"What is the greatest threat facing us now? People will say its terrorism. But are there any terrorists in the world who can change the American way of life or our political system? No. Can they knock down a building? Yes. Can they kill somebody? Yes. But can they change us? No. Only we can change ourselves. So what is the great threat we are facing? - Colin Powell
Liberal Arts Major
___
~ Ogordemir ~
"The sciences have hitherto harmed us little; but some day the piecing together of dissociated knowledge will open up such terrifying vistas of reality that we shall either go mad from the revelation or flee from the light into the peace and safety of a new dark age." ~ H.P Lovecraft, The Call of Cthulhu
Editor
Oh, I know this all too well, and I'm certainly not blaming the girl. I just think that she should probably develop a survival skill that stops her from stripping whenever someone tells her to.
Schools do not need a search warrant or even probable cause to conduct a search of a student or their "property". They just need reasonable suspicion, which is a peg down from probable cause.
No one, and I mean NO ONE, is going to know or care about this. They'll hear "search warrant" and immediately go "You know what? We trust you, you're a good kid."
If not, the second response - "Fuck you", followed by calling the person a pedophile - is the way to go. <_<
---
"Allow ME to interject: TFN does not die immediately because you get banned. Your banning would unleash a disease that would slowly eat TFN from the inside until your reinstatement or the site's eventual, decidedly painful death." ~Ogor, to me
Liberal Arts Major
To be fair, it wasn't just anyone telling her. >_>
___
~ Ogordemir ~
"The sciences have hitherto harmed us little; but some day the piecing together of dissociated knowledge will open up such terrifying vistas of reality that we shall either go mad from the revelation or flee from the light into the peace and safety of a new dark age." ~ H.P Lovecraft, The Call of Cthulhu