quote:

That is precisley what they did...the only thing you didn't cover is the SCOTUS precedent regarding enhanced protections in schools, but the school here failed under that standard, too...

This was a fascinating case. I had some personal involvement with the case through an amicus brief I helped write along with a professor and students at my law school. The brief was sent to the Supreme Court in April after 2 long months of research and writing. So, on a personal level, I'm glad to see the case came out with the same position we advocated.

I had anticipated a closer vote. But, at the same time, the facts here were so egregious that it would have been hard not to find for the girl.

too bad MJ is not here for this

We've all gotten "licks" from coaches and some teachers and we turned out ok. However, for a search of one's body, they should call the parents or legal guardian to be present during the search. And, at the parents/guardian request, not allow the search and take the student out of school until things have settled.

there are other ways to get a 13yr old kid to confess instead of strip searching them this is not law and order

quote:

The SCOTUS today said the school exceeded it's authoirty and found for the student.

Wait till the civil suit starts.

quote:

Care to give some detail on your brief?

Well, it was largely a historical analysis of searches/discipline in schools and the validity thereof. We analyzed the case through two lenses: the common law and "modern" Fourth Amendment jurisprudence. Our brief did not touch upon the qualified immunity issue. In short, the conclusion was the search was invalid under either analysis (a point Justice Thomas disagrees with in his dissent).

I had hoped to see our brief cited or, at the very least, some of the cases we cited mentioned in the opinion. Nonetheless, I'm glad the conclusion we reached was ultimately the same as the Court's.

If you'd like to read it, the brief is available at this location.

PS: I feel very lucky not to be in summer classes. Instead, I'm working at the local DA's office on an internship. I'm having a ton of fun with it.

Having just retired after 35 years in law enforcment I can say that our use of strip searches was very restricted.

I had to seek permission from a supervisor, articulate my reasonable suspicion and perform it in his supervision.

Years ago we lost a case where the Sgt saw a furtive movement and reached into the suspects pants and underware and grabbed a .357 revolver. the judge said it was a strip search and for the Sgt to grab it (and be admitted in court) he would have needed to have permission from our Lieutenant. We lost the firearms charge but still had the conviction on narcotics. Anyway the judge said reachng into the underware next to the skin constituted a strip search and we did not follow the proper procedure.

quote:

Originally posted by kmd00:
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?

my sentiments exactly

quote:

Anyway the judge said reachng into the underware next to the skin constituted a strip search and we did not follow the proper procedure.

Wow, that's insane! Would the judge have prefered that you let the idiot pull out the .357 and then have to shoot him and risk getting shot yourself? Sometimes the law, or rather the interpretation of the law, makes no sense.

I agree, anyway we did not have to give the .357 back. the judge said it was the spirit of the law not the actual circumstances that matered. the judge said the Sgt could have told me to grab the gun and it would have been a legal search.

It is off the immediate thread but I can see strip searches taking on a whole new life if we ever are feced with suidice bombers here in the US.