IMO the entire thing was blown waaaaay over proportion.

 

 

 

Are you kidding? Ibuprofen is a minor painkiller usually used for headaches.

 

 

 

"STRIP THE ADDICT! MAKE AN EXAMPLE OF HER! BWAHAHAHAHA!"

 

 

 

Seems like a proper administrative response, right?

 

 

 

It's sick that people could do this to a kid in the first place, but even worse because it was over something for headaches and body aches.

 

You're over reacting as well. You're acting like the VP ripped off her clothes and felt her up when in reality she wasn't even touched. There's no possible way to be traumatized from this and she's just looking for college money from something that happened 6 years ago..

[hide=]

Uhmmm, not thread advertising but I created a thread about this...

 

 

 

[hide=Dzihouchan says]13 year old girl that got stripsearched

 

 

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

SAFFORD, Ariz. Savana Redding still remembers the clothes she had on black stretch pants with butterfly patches and a pink T-shirt the day school officials here forced her to strip six years ago. She was 13 and in eighth grade.

 

 

 

An assistant principal, enforcing the schools antidrug policies, suspected her of having brought prescription-strength ibuprofen pills to school. One of the pills is as strong as two Advils.

 

 

 

The search by two female school employees was methodical and humiliating, Ms. Redding said. After she had stripped to her underwear, they asked me to pull out my bra and move it from side to side, she said. They made me open my legs and pull out my underwear.

 

 

 

Ms. Redding, an honors student, had no pills. But she had a furious mother and a lawyer, and now her case has reached the Supreme Court, which will hear arguments on April 21.

 

 

 

The case will require the justices to consider the thorny question of just how much leeway school officials should have in policing zero-tolerance policies for drugs and violence, and the court is likely to provide important guidance to schools around the nation.

 

 

 

In Ms. Reddings case, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in San Francisco, ruled that school officials had violated the Fourth Amendments ban on unreasonable searches. Writing for the majority, Judge Kim McLane Wardlaw said, It does not require a constitutional scholar to conclude that a nude search of a 13-year-old child is an invasion of constitutional rights.

 

 

 

More than that, Judge Wardlaw added, it is a violation of any known principle of human dignity.

 

 

 

Judge Michael Daly Hawkins, dissenting, said the case was in some ways a close call, given the humiliation and degradation involved. But, Judge Hawkins concluded, I do not think it was unreasonable for school officials, acting in good faith, to conduct the search in an effort to obviate a potential threat to the health and safety of their students.

 

 

 

Richard Arum, who teaches sociology and education at New York University, said he would have handled the incident differently. But Professor Arum said the Supreme Court should proceed cautiously.

 

 

 

Do we really want to encourage cases, Professor Arum asked, where students and parents are seeking monetary damages against educators in such school-specific matters where reasonable people can disagree about what is appropriate under the circumstances?

 

 

 

The Supreme Courts last major decision on school searches based on individual suspicion as opposed to systematic drug testing programs was in 1985, when it allowed school officials to search a students purse without a warrant or probable cause as long their suspicions were reasonable. It did not address intimate searches.

 

 

 

In a friend-of-the-court brief in Ms. Reddings case, the federal government said the search of her was unreasonable because officials had no reason to believe she was carrying the pills inside her undergarments, attached to her nude body, or anywhere else that a strip search would reveal.

 

 

 

The government added, though, that the scope of the 1985 case was not well established at the time of the 2003 search, so the assistant principal should not be subject to a lawsuit.

 

 

 

Sitting in her aunts house in this bedraggled mining town a two-hour drive northeast of Tucson, Ms. Redding, now 19, described the middle-school cliques and jealousies that she said had led to the search. There are preppy kids, gothic kids, nerdy types, she said. I was in between nerdy and preppy.

 

 

 

One of her friends since early childhood had moved in another direction. She started acting weird and wearing black, Ms. Redding said. She started being embarrassed by me because I was nerdy.

 

 

 

When the friend was found with ibuprofen pills, she blamed Ms. Redding, according to court papers.

 

 

 

Kerry Wilson, the assistant principal, ordered the two school employees to search both students. The searches turned up no more pills.

 

 

 

Mr. Wilson declined a request for an interview and referred a reporter to the superintendent of schools, Mark R. Tregaskes. Mr. Tregaskes did not respond to a message left with his assistant.

 

 

 

Lawyers for the school district said in a brief that it was on the front lines of a decades-long struggle against drug abuse among students. Abuse of prescription and over-the-counter medications is on the rise among 12- and 13-year-olds, the brief said, citing data from the Office of National Drug Control Policy.

 

 

 

Given that, the school district said, the search was not excessively intrusive in light of Reddings age and sex and the nature of her suspected infraction.

 

 

 

Adam B. Wolf, a lawyer with the American Civil Liberties Union, which represents Ms. Redding, said her experience was the worst nightmare for any parent.

 

 

 

When you send your child off to school every day, you expect them to be in math class or in the choir, Mr. Wolf said. You never imagine their being forced to strip naked and expose their genitalia and breasts to their school officials.

 

 

 

In a sworn statement submitted in the case, Safford Unified School District v. Redding, No. 08-479, Mr. Wilson said he had good reason to suspect Ms. Redding. She and other students had been unusually rowdy at a school dance a couple of months before, and members of the school staff thought they had smelled alcohol. A student also accused Ms. Redding of having served alcohol at a party before the dance, Mr. Wilson said.

 

 

 

Ms. Redding said she had served only soda at the party, adding that her accuser was not there. At the dance, she said, school administrators had confused adolescent rambunctiousness with inebriation. Were kids, she said. Were goofy.

 

 

 

The search was conducted by Peggy Schwallier, the school nurse, and Helen Romero, a secretary. Ms. Redding never appeared apprehensive or embarrassed, Ms. Schwallier said in a sworn statement. Ms. Redding said she had kept her head down so the women could not see that she was about to cry.

 

 

 

Ms. Redding said she was never asked if she had pills with her before she was searched. Mr. Wolf, her lawyer, said that was unsurprising.

 

 

 

They strip-search first and ask questions later, Mr. Wolf said of school officials here.

 

 

 

Ms. Redding did not return to school for months after the search, studying at home. I never wanted to see the secretary or the nurse ever again, she said.

 

 

 

In the end, she transferred to another school. The experience left her wary, nervous and distrustful, she said, and she developed stomach ulcers. She is now studying psychology at Eastern Arizona College and hopes to become a counselor.

 

 

 

Ms. Redding said school officials should have taken her background into account before searching her.

 

 

 

They didnt even look at my records, she said. They didnt even know I was a good kid.

 

 

 

The school district does not contest that Ms. Redding had no disciplinary record, but says that is irrelevant.

 

 

 

Her assertion should not be misread to infer that she never broke school rules, the district said of Ms. Redding in a brief, only that she was never caught.

 

 

 

Ms. Redding grew emotional as she reflected on what she would have done if she had been told as an adult to strip-search a student. Dabbing her eyes with a tissue, she said she would have refused.

 

 

 

Why would I want to do that to a little girl and ruin her life like that? Ms. Redding asked.[/hide]

 

viewtopic.php?f=10&t=798602

 

 

 

I know it kind of died, but that's thread duping...

[/hide]

 

 

 

Sorry if I offended you, I figured since the old thread was dead and the ruling was such a signifigant development it would be appropriate to start a new thread to discuss the ruling.

 

 

 

edit--

 

 

 

Kinda sad that this happened, but even sadder that she is going to get an extreme amount of money out of it. You shouldn't get your college paid for because someone made a mistake years ago. Money would not solve anything in her case, so any lawsuit would just to try to fetch some needed cash

.

 

 

 

I have mixed feelings about this; I think she is entitled to something, but Im worried this is going to become a ridiculous amount of money. I totally stand by the legal ruling from the court, but if she sues for millions of dollars I will be rather disheartened. Of course, there isnt an arbitrary line, but if she sues for say $250,000(US) then I would consider it a reasonable settlement.

 

 

 

250 grand for less than an hour of humiliation? The average person has to work for YEARS to get that much money. She deserves NO MORE than 50 grand, and even that is way too much. People should be punished(jail time, or in this case, loss of job) but no one should be rewarded for this. Not even the "victim". This is why I hate lawsuits of any kind unless it is for physical pain(and those are also overdone with the cash amounts) or, what lawsuits are for, FINANCIAL ISSUES.

IMO the entire thing was blown waaaaay over proportion.

 

 

 

Are you kidding? Ibuprofen is a minor painkiller usually used for headaches.

 

 

 

"STRIP THE ADDICT! MAKE AN EXAMPLE OF HER! BWAHAHAHAHA!"

 

 

 

Seems like a proper administrative response, right?

 

 

 

It's sick that people could do this to a kid in the first place, but even worse because it was over something for headaches and body aches.

 

You're over reacting as well. You're acting like the VP ripped off her clothes and felt her up when in reality she wasn't even touched. There's no possible way to be traumatized from this and she's just looking for college money from something that happened 6 years ago..

 

It's not the fact that she wasn't phyiscally abused, but she her humanity was abused. What the administration had was a lead from a trouble-causing student onto a good-behaved one. Who the hell believes that? They had suspicision, fine. But at the same time they can't go far by doing a complete strip search of her for Ibuprofen.

 

 

 

The No-Tolerance Policy is a good system, but reduce the rules of drugs. Marijuana or Meth would be more reasonable to search her, but for some painkillers? Christ, at that rate you might as well search folks for pencils. A well-sharpened pencil thrusted right up somebody's mouth into their throats would surely cause serious damage like a weapon. Painkillers can get you high...but it doesn't mean that is their only perpose and the goal of this girl.

 

 

 

Good for her, she got college money. The school however, got [bleep]ed and I laugh at them.

She doesn't deserve it though. Hell, I'd be voluntarily strip searched for 1 grand, she's going to get [cabbage]loads more than that.

IMO the entire thing was blown waaaaay over proportion.

 

 

 

Are you kidding? Ibuprofen is a minor painkiller usually used for headaches.

 

 

 

"STRIP THE ADDICT! MAKE AN EXAMPLE OF HER! BWAHAHAHAHA!"

 

 

 

Seems like a proper administrative response, right?

 

 

 

It's sick that people could do this to a kid in the first place, but even worse because it was over something for headaches and body aches.

 

You're over reacting as well. You're acting like the VP ripped off her clothes and felt her up when in reality she wasn't even touched. There's no possible way to be traumatized from this and she's just looking for college money from something that happened 6 years ago..

 

It's not the fact that she wasn't phyiscally abused, but she her humanity was abused. What the administration had was a lead from a trouble-causing student onto a good-behaved one. Who the hell believes that? They had suspicision, fine. But at the same time they can't go far by doing a complete strip search of her for Ibuprofen.

 

 

 

The No-Tolerance Policy is a good system, but reduce the rules of drugs. Marijuana or Meth would be more reasonable to search her, but for some painkillers? Christ, at that rate you might as well search folks for pencils. A well-sharpened pencil thrusted right up somebody's mouth into their throats would surely cause serious damage like a weapon. Painkillers can get you high...but it doesn't mean that is their only perpose and the goal of this girl.

 

 

 

Good for her, she got college money. The school however, got [bleep] and I laugh at them.

 

She doesn't deserve anything. The only thing that needs to be done is fire the VP but she gets to cruise through college, claiming to be "traumatized", for something that happened 6 years ago?

 

 

 

You don't see me trying to sue the White Water Bay theme park because I nearly drowned 8 years ago do you?

She doesn't deserve anything. The only thing that needs to be done is fire the VP but she gets to cruise through college, claiming to be "traumatized", for something that happened 6 years ago?

 

 

 

You don't see me trying to sue the White Water Bay theme park because I nearly drowned 8 years ago do you?

 

Unless if a park member pushed you in, then you're on no basis to. The girl didn't choose to be picked on by the other girl.

 

 

 

Sometimes the means justifies the ends, but not this time. This isn't the cops having done a multi-year investigation on a mafia-leader but not having legal clearance to get him. I would shoot the bastard. But this school case, all the school had is a lead from a bad-behaved girl to a good one. That immediately should raise a flag. But what should of stopped this whole thing was that it was after Ibuprofen. Some people don't seem to grasp this. It isn't nuclear weapons, it isn't a weapons cache, it isn't even a knife. But painkillers for Christ sake.

 

 

 

While it is unfair for her to go thru college for free and many others not, that isn't her fault but the anti-socialist feeling of this country. Education should be free.

She doesn't deserve anything. The only thing that needs to be done is fire the VP but she gets to cruise through college, claiming to be "traumatized", for something that happened 6 years ago?

 

 

 

You don't see me trying to sue the White Water Bay theme park because I nearly drowned 8 years ago do you?

 

Unless if a park member pushed you in, then you're on no basis to. The girl didn't choose to be picked on by the other girl.

 

 

 

Sometimes the means justifies the ends, but not this time. This isn't the cops having done a multi-year investigation on a mafia-leader but not having legal clearance to get him. I would shoot the bastard. But this school case, all the school had is a lead from a bad-behaved girl to a good one. That immediately should raise a flag. But what should of stopped this whole thing was that it was after Ibuprofen. Some people don't seem to grasp this. It isn't nuclear weapons, it isn't a weapons cache, it isn't even a knife. But painkillers for Christ sake.

 

 

 

While it is unfair for her to go thru college for free and many others not, that isn't her fault but the anti-socialist feeling of this country. Education should be free.

 

 

 

She actually has Ibuprofen. The school does nothing. She gives it to another kid, they OD and die. The school is even more screwed. All threats/suspicions are to be taken seriously.

She doesn't deserve anything. The only thing that needs to be done is fire the VP but she gets to cruise through college, claiming to be "traumatized", for something that happened 6 years ago?

 

 

 

You don't see me trying to sue the White Water Bay theme park because I nearly drowned 8 years ago do you?

 

Unless if a park member pushed you in, then you're on no basis to. The girl didn't choose to be picked on by the other girl.

 

 

 

Sometimes the means justifies the ends, but not this time. This isn't the cops having done a multi-year investigation on a mafia-leader but not having legal clearance to get him. I would shoot the bastard. But this school case, all the school had is a lead from a bad-behaved girl to a good one. That immediately should raise a flag. But what should of stopped this whole thing was that it was after Ibuprofen. Some people don't seem to grasp this. It isn't nuclear weapons, it isn't a weapons cache, it isn't even a knife. But painkillers for Christ sake.

 

 

 

While it is unfair for her to go thru college for free and many others not, that isn't her fault but the anti-socialist feeling of this country. Education should be free.

 

 

 

She actually has Ibuprofen. The school does nothing. She gives it to another kid, they OD and die. The school is even more screwed. All threats/suspicions are to be taken seriously.

 

 

 

Someone says you are a terrorist; the swat team enters your house on a warrant, while no threat is visible, you are killed by the swat team when it appears you are about to draw a gun. Upon inspection, although you had no weapons in your house you were reading some literature by a group that could be considered terrorists. All threats/suspicions are to be taken seriously.

 

 

 

Ignoring that, all they had to do if they thought the Ibuprofen was a threat is take her to the principal's office and make her wait there until her parents and possibly a child advocate arrived. If the warning was that she had a gun then bring her to the principal's office with multiple officers present and pat her down to check for weapons. If you can't verify the threat at that point call her parents and keep her under close surveillance.

I do agree that the strip search was unnessacary. But completely ignoring it would be even more negligent. Ibruprofen is still not something to just let go.

I do agree that the strip search was unnessacary. But completely ignoring it would be even more negligent. Ibruprofen is still not something to just let go.

 

 

 

Which is exactly what the court said; the school was justified in holding the student and searching her purse and pockets. What the court ruled was that the school violated her rights because they did an intrusive search without justification for such a search.

 

 

 

For instance, if they were told she had a bomb and after searching her purse they heard ticking from her underwear(no jokes im being hypothetical) a strip search would be reasonable.

This was the only outcome I expected to occur, anything less would be pretty sickening and an insult to the victim. Did the victim receive compensation? For such an event to occur at 13, it must have been pretty disturbing.

 

 

 

Although they ruled against the school, has anyone actually been punished for this? Searching a continual well performing student in terms of academics and behavior simply because a mediocre student who was initially caught with the Ibuprofen blamed her IMO is not enough grounds to search someone, their bag or any of their property unless it's a serious accusation against a suspectable student.

This was the only outcome I expected to occur, anything less would be pretty sickening and an insult to the victim. Did the victim receive compensation? For such an event to occur at 13, it must have been pretty disturbing.

 

 

 

Although they ruled against the school, has anyone actually been punished for this? Searching a continual well performing student in terms of academics and behavior simply because a mediocre student who was initially caught with the Ibuprofen blamed her IMO is not enough grounds to search someone, their bag or any of their property unless it's a serious accusation against a suspectable student.

 

 

 

The supreme court has left open the possibility of suing the school district, but not the individual administrators under what is called qualified immunity(this was a more contested point of the decision)

 

 

 

Im not sure if any administrators have been reprimanded or fired.

Good & I hope they get a good law person for the sue too should they choose to go that way. I'd argue in their defense that the school principal claimed they had done it before, therefore it was intentional. I would also argue that a school principal should already be educated on the rights and wrongs of school policy where the law is concerned. And that a reasonable person would know this was wrong or at least look in to the situation before proceeding with the search, ruling out intention.

Good & I hope they get a good law person for the sue too should they choose to go that way. I'd argue in their defense that the school principal claimed they had done it before, therefore it was intentional. I would also argue that a school principal should already be educated on the rights and wrongs of school policy where the law is concerned. And that a reasonable person would know this was wrong or at least look in to the situation before proceeding with the search, ruling out intention.

 

 

 

Im interested in how a potential lawsuit could play out in this scenario. Im nowhere near familiar with law, but the court decision only allows a suit against the school district not the administrators involved. I think what it will come down to is "did the school district set up or allowed policies which enabled this type of situation".

Good & I hope they get a good law person for the sue too should they choose to go that way. I'd argue in their defense that the school principal claimed they had done it before, therefore it was intentional. I would also argue that a school principal should already be educated on the rights and wrongs of school policy where the law is concerned. And that a reasonable person would know this was wrong or at least look in to the situation before proceeding with the search, ruling out intention.

 

 

 

Im interested in how a potential lawsuit could play out in this scenario. Im nowhere near familiar with law, but the court decision only allows a suit against the school district not the administrators involved. I think what it will come down to is "did the school district set up or allowed policies which enabled this type of situation".

 

 

 

You can look at it both ways, they either; authorised the strip searching policy or they were negligent because they were unaware of the policy in that school. I'm with Goddess here though, they deserve it. If they felt that a child has something illegal on them they should have at the very least asked for parental permission to search the child (although I'm pretty much against anyone outside of law enforcement strip searching people (airports not included)).

There's no possible way to be traumatized from this and she's just looking for college money from something that happened 6 years ago..

 

 

 

There are so many things you can become traumatized from. Being forced to strip down to your underwear against your will in front of an official (and for practically no reason at that) is really an exception?

 

 

 

From Wiki: Trauma can be caused by a wide variety of events, but there are a few common aspects. There is frequently a violation of the person's familiar ideas about the world and of their human rights, putting the person in a state of extreme confusion and insecurity.

 

 

 

Sounds exactly like her case.

I've met a person who was traumatized by olives. It reminded her of her grandfather's eyes. Yes it is possible to be traumatized by a strip search. Not everybody has the same level of emotion.

I've met a person who was traumatized by olives. It reminded her of her grandfather's eyes. Yes it is possible to be traumatized by a strip search. Not everybody has the same level of emotion.

 

 

 

Am I allowed to laugh, or would that be considered insensitive ?

I've met a person who was traumatized by olives. It reminded her of her grandfather's eyes. Yes it is possible to be traumatized by a strip search. Not everybody has the same level of emotion.

 

 

 

Am I allowed to laugh, or would that be considered insensitive ?

 

 

 

We don't know the whole situation so it could be.

 

 

 

I could care less about the money and more about winning the case, but that's just me.

I've met a person who was traumatized by olives. It reminded her of her grandfather's eyes. Yes it is possible to be traumatized by a strip search. Not everybody has the same level of emotion.

 

 

 

Am I allowed to laugh, or would that be considered insensitive ?

 

 

 

We don't know the whole situation so it could be.

 

 

 

I could care less about the money and more about winning the case, but that's just me.

 

 

 

So you do care?

So you do care?

 

 

 

About money? Not necessarily. Winning the case even if you only got a penny out of it would mean that, in your eyes, the system is actually working and that a good precedent will be set. Plus the whole eye for an eye thing.

So you do care?

 

 

 

About money? Not necessarily. Winning the case even if you only got a penny out of it would mean that, in your eyes, the system is actually working and that a good precedent will be set. Plus the whole eye for an eye thing.

 

 

 

I was commenting on him using "could care less" instead of "couldn't care less"

Oh I see, sorry about that. :lol:

So you do care?

 

 

 

About money? Not necessarily. Winning the case even if you only got a penny out of it would mean that, in your eyes, the system is actually working and that a good precedent will be set. Plus the whole eye for an eye thing.

 

 

 

I was commenting on him using "could care less" instead of "couldn't care less"

 

 

 

I hate when people do that as well, I was going to mention it but then I saw your comment. It's one of my biggest pet hates.

I thought you rights at a private school are different from a public school? Private schools are generally more strict and probably have something like a contract that allows them to search you at any time, etc.

 

 

 

With a strict policy like that, I'd bed money it was a private school.