quote:

Originally posted by lawstudent10:

quote:

Without parental consent?

I'm not sure how exactly to interpret your question.

In Ingraham I don't believe there was consent.

If you are asking whether parental consent should be a prerequisite to the infliction of corporal punishment, I think the law is split.

Yes, that's what I meant. I find it hard to believe that a school could use corporal punishment contrary to the expressed wishes of the parents. I wouldn't accept that situation as a parent.

Schools have been granted a pretty broad ability to act in loco parentis and New Jersey v. T.L.O. (1985) upheld the ability to search lockers and other personal space while on school porperty. So I'd assume we see the court rule with the school on this one.

Personally I'd like to see this fall under right to privacy. There are tests for what counts as a reasonable expectation of privacy, established in Katz v. United States (1967) which is a two pronged test. The key part this fails imo is the expectation of privacy must be reasonable, as recognized by society. I'd say in this day and age we recognize that this is extreme. You could likely justify a kind of limited Terry search, but certainly I think you'd have to leave anything beyond that to law enforcement.

I seem to remember the T.L.O. case said something to reasonable suspicion. This is usually fairly broad, but again, I wonder if the word of another student could be used to merit anything beyond a Terry search.

There's something here this non-attorney can't quite articulate, an idea that this is about more than just privacy. It is about dignity, the sanctity of her body, the idea that even a child is an autonomous being with rights with the right to be secure in her person against unreasonable search and seizure. I dunno, privacy just seems like a small word in this case, but maybe I'm wrong, maybe privacy encompasses all of that.

Unless someone proved my oldest daughter, who turns 13 in August, was an immediate and imminent danger to other students, I would very likely go to jail myself over this. What the hell happened to common sense in this country?

Unfortunately, many teenagers will use their "privacy" as a means to concel. I think it would require more than just a "tip".

The parents should definitely be involved and should actually conduct the search. I don't believe a school should have this ability. If there is enough evidence, arrest the child and conduct at the station. Obviously same gender search.

BigJer, I agree with you in many respects, that this is about something big and the kid SHOULD have some protections here. I'd agree with you as well that a child SHOULD be considered "an autonomous being with rights" including "the right to be secure in his or her person against unreasonable search and seizure"

That said in legal terms this is essentially about privacy and search and seizure law. Moreover re: "even a child is an autonomous being with rights with the right to be secure in her person against unreasonable search and seizure" the law says that simply put, you and I are wrong. Children have deminished rights, and fewer protections as far as these things are concerned (see again T.L.O.).

Jag, I hadn't read the full details, simply skimmed what had been written above, but frankly give the evidence you've presented I'd say this sounds even more like the school is going to win. I'd be interested in hearing what cases you'd use as precedent for your opinion.

In the end, to address LawStudent's question, my answers have all been from a legal perspective (IANAL, just a former pre-law student who has lost his way, and keeps up on his con. law studies). From a personal opinion standpoint, I mostly agree with BigJer.

I don’t advocate school strip searches. Depending on the reason for wanting to do a strip search should influence who needs to be contacted and the appropriate subsequent actions. What would be the reason for the school itself to carry out a strip search?

If there is an issue at school that would cause the teachers/administrators to consider a strip search, then the parents and/or police should be contacted depending on the issue.

Jag, you misunderstand me, my bad for not being clear. I've read T.L.O. back and front. When I said I hadn't read the links it was about the current case. And again, given the facts, I think T.L.O. pretty much gives the school at hand the exact coverage it needs, in that is says "maintaining security and order in the schools requires a certain degree of flexibility in school disciplinary procedures," and "striking the balance between schoolchildren's legitimate expectations of privacy and the school's equally legitimate need to maintain an environment in which learning can take place requires some easing of the restrictions to which searches by public authorities are ordinarily subject. ...school officials need not be held subject to the requirement that searches be based on probable cause to believe that the subject of the search has violated or is violating the law. Rather, the legality of a search of a student should depend simply on the reasonableness, under all the circumstances, of the search. Determining the reasonableness of any search involves a determination of whether the search was justified at its inception and whether, as conducted, it was reasonably related in scope to the circumstances that justified the interference in the first place. Under ordinary circumstances the search of a student by a school official will be justified at its inception where there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that the search will turn up evidence that the student has violated or is violating either the law or the rules of the school. And such a search will be permissible in its scope when the measures adopted are reasonably related to the objectives of the search and not excessively intrusive in light of the student's age and sex and the nature of the infraction. Pp. 337-343."

Additionally "3. Under the above standard, the search in this case was not unreasonable for Fourth Amendment purposes. First, the initial search for cigarettes was reasonable. The report to the Assistant Vice Principal that respondent had been smoking warranted a reasonable suspicion ... Second, the discovery of the rolling papers then gave rise to a reasonable suspicion that respondent was carrying marihuana as well as cigarettes in her purse, and this suspicion justified the further exploration that turned up more evidence of drug-related activities. Pp. 343-347."

All of the above leads me to believe that the court will rule that under T.L.O. this search was justified.

Bethel was a freedom of speech case, so I don't believe it has any bearing on the current case which the court has granted cert on.

EDIT: TL/DR,

Cliff notes: yeah, know what T.L.O. was and what it did, I'm saying it gives tons of leeway (again, ""maintaining security and order in the schools requires a certain degree of flexibility in school disciplinary procedures,") which finding cigarettes and pills in the purse would give and since the court is loathe to reverse itself it sure isn't about to do it here.

Jag: I think the 9th Cir., en banc, will be overturned. That said, I don't think it will be the right outcome.

Send me an email if you get a chance. My email is in the profile.

This case is going before the Supreme Court this month. Essentially, a 13 year old girl was strip searched based on the "tip" of a girl who actually had pills on her body.

What does everyone think of this? Should the school/school administration have the right/power to strip search a student, or does a student's privacy interest outweigh the school's interest?

Come on strip search a 13 year old.
You have got to be kidding!
I would love to be on that jury in a civil suit.
I would give that kid enough money,
To live very comfortably for the rest of her life!

quote:

Originally posted by BigJer:
There's something here this non-attorney can't quite articulate, an idea that this is about more than just privacy. It is about dignity, the sanctity of her body, the idea that even a child is an autonomous being with rights with the right to be secure in her person against unreasonable search and seizure. I dunno, privacy just seems like a small word in this case, but maybe I'm wrong, maybe privacy encompasses all of that.

Jer - I believe you are articulating a right to privacy. Any drug suspicion, even OTC drugs, should be handled with a question from school officials - and a Terry search, as mentioned, also by a school official. A "Terry" search is an over-the-clothes pat-down based on reasonable suspicion of criminal activity.

A minor should not have strip anything without parental consent.

If the school officials believe criminal activity is afoot, a police intervention should be the procedure.

I am more than moderately suprised by this (as one could have guessed from above). As Dahlia Lithwick said, it's "like watching a whole different court" from what was seen in oral argument.

I'm going to quote more from her, and that article, because the whole Slate series is brilliant esp. if you're a watcher of the court/fan of Slate's style (I count myself in both groups).

"When Souter went on to read an 8-1 decision holding that the search of Savana Redding in this case was not reasonable... it was as if the whole court had entered the 21st century... OK, so what I need to know is what happened between oral argument and today that appeared to change the minds of the seven other male justices?"

Very interesting for a lot of reasons....

quote:

Originally posted by BigJer:
The school has the right to call the student's parents, call the police, suspend or expel them. Not to strip-search them (or administer corporal punishment). IMO.

+1. School, not prison.

Bear

quote:

OK, so what I need to know is what happened between oral argument and today that appeared to change the minds of the seven other male justices?"

Maybe " a switch in time saved nine"?

For the record I am not a lawyer, just a retired state trooper. What I think SCOTUS did was go back to the 4th Amendment. It only protects against "unreasonable" searches. The Court said this was clearly unreasonable. There neeed to be standards and procedures in place to determine is a strip search is reasonable. If it involved a gun (yes I have seen females hide them in their underwear)or serious drugs or an immediate threat to school safety their decision in this case might have been different. I thinl even the school officials had a hard time justifying a strip search for Tylenol.

Some schools have airport type screening to enter. Is this a reasonable search for all schools?

What is very interesting is the vote--8-1. And who is the one dissenting justice? None other than Clarence Thomas. If the court entered the 21st century, Justice Thomas still seems comfortable in the 19th!