Justice Thomas was the lone dissent; he argued that "Judges are not qualified to second-guess the best manner for maintaining quiet and order in the school environment."The court ruled 8-1 that such an intrusive search without the threat of a clear danger to other students violated the Constitution's protections against unreasonable search or seizure.
Justice David H. Souter, writing perhaps his final opinion for the court, said that in the search of Savana Redding, now a 19-year-old college student, school officials overreacted to vague accusations that Redding was violating school policy by possessing the ibuprofen, equivalent to two Advils.
Recall that this case was one that Justice Ginsburg referenced in her condemnation of the current gender imbalance on the Court:
I have to say that I think this is a pretty unsurprising ruling; honestly, can anyone (besides Justice Thomas) say with a straight face that school officials were justified in forcing a 13-year old girl to strip down to her underwear because they heard that she might have been carrying the equivalent of two Motrin? It's absurd. The school officials used absolutely no discretion (or common sense) with this girl, and I'm pleased to see that the high court recognized that the girl's constitutional rights were violated.Her status as the court's lone woman was especially poignant during a recent case involving a 13-year-old girl who had been strip-searched by Arizona school officials looking for drugs. During oral arguments, some other justices minimized the girl's lasting humiliation, but Ginsburg stood out in her concern for the teenager.
"They have never been a 13-year-old girl," she told USA TODAY later when asked about her colleagues' comments during the arguments. "It's a very sensitive age for a girl. I didn't think that my colleagues, some of them, quite understood."
P.S. Thanks to the Trailing Spouse for providing a link to the ruling, which you can read in PDF format here.
5 comments:
Ok...so this decision was good for the girl, but really probably won't break any substantial ground in 4th Amendment search and seizure law. The search of this particular girl was unreasonable given the facts of this case, that it was ibuprofen they were looking for, and there was no reason to think she had secreted the pills into her underwear. The court didn't give much new guidance in this subject. They reaffirmed the idea that school students have less stringent privacy rights than adults, under the notion of parens patrie. However, they made sure to state that the privacy rights in such a case are to be balanced against the need for student safety. So, this all leaves school administrators a lot of room with which to argue that strip searches of kids were done out of concern for student safety. So...kiddies beware. The Roberts Court has made known that if you carry a switchblade next to your manhood...eeehhheeemm...boyhood, hide brass knuckles in your bra, or stash your black tar heroin in your butt crack, and plan to use them, the principal can probably check out your naughty bits. Hooray Bill of Rights. Oh, and I passed the California Bar. Peace out.
WOO HOO! Congrats, Matt!!! We're so proud of you!
AZCAJD,
Congrats on the CA bar. The only bar I have ever passed is the kind that serves cold, frostly drinks.
I am a bit perplexed by your post. You clearly have an Anti-Roberts court tone, yet you also indicate the ruling is largely nothing new. So which is it, has the court largely reaffirmed existing case law or has the Roberts court announced something new?
This case is one of many reasons I never wear underwear in school! Ok, just kidding.
Yes, I hope my Anti-Roberts Court tone was not so subtle as to slip under the radar. I must take shots where and when I can.
As for the decision, it was really two-pronged. The one prong that interested me, the search and seizure prong, really just reaffirmed existing balancing framework. While the pragmatic aspect of the search and seizure prong is quite in line w/ the Roberts court, the wiggle-room it leaves for school administrators to determine what incidents constitute issues of "school safety" could result in more strip searches of kids under the broad refrain "school safety." For example, would a strip search be ok if the girl was alleged to have 30 ibuprofen in her underwear? What about one tablet of Tylenol 3? And this only presents issues of OTC and Rx pharmaceuticals. What about a roll of money stuffed in a bra? This could lead to such an argument such as "she could buy a pound of weed or a gun with all that cash. School safety!" Or more realistically, a joint, or a hit of X hidden in underwear. Does this really constitute an issue of school safety so severe that it would warrant strip searching a minor by any number of various school employees? My concern is spin on the claim of school safety to justify such searches.
I find that the lack of underwear really just keeps me out of lawsuits. Words of advice to live by.
In general I agree with your assessment, Matt. The only thing I would add is that this case now puts administrators on notice. That is, they now know that there is precedent out there for these types of searches and falling on the wrong side of the balancing test may expose them to a loss of qualified immunity. It would make me think twice if I was a principal. Of course, I like to think I wouldn't be so stupid in the first place anyway. Nothing like 400 mg of Motrin to make you act like a total moron.
Post a Comment