If you have a problem with school officials strip searching 13-year-olds for Advil – or if you care about the government’s standards for informant use and invasive searches – you can take relief in yesterday’s ruling by a full panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, which ruled 6-5 that students cannot be strip-searched based on the uncorroborated word of another student who is facing disciplinary punishment.

“A reasonable school official, seeking to protect the students in his charge, does not subject a thirteen-year-old girl to a traumatic search to ‘protect’ her from the danger of Advil,” the federal appellate court wrote in today’s opinion. “We reject Safford’s effort to lump together these run-of-the-mill anti-inflammatory pills with the evocative term ‘prescription drugs,’ in a knowing effort to shield an imprudent strip search of a young girl behind a larger war against drugs.”

“It does not take a constitutional scholar to conclude that a nude search of a 13-year-old girl is an invasion of constitutional rights. More than that: it is a violation of any known principle of human dignity,” the court continued.


In addition to finding the strip search unconstitutional, the court held that the school official who ordered the strip search, Vice Principal Kerry Wilson, is financially liable in the case and cannot claim qualified immunity.


The ACLU co-represented the student, Savana Redding, before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, which decided to reconsider the case after a three-judge panel ruled 2-1 that the strip-search was legal.

For a case like this, it’s hard to understand how the unconstitutionality of strip searching Redding could even be up for debate. Consider how flimsy the government’s case was:

• No physical evidence suggested that Redding – an honor roll student with no history of substance use or abuse – might be in possession of ibuprofen pills or that she was concealing them in her undergarments.
• The strip search was undertaken based solely on the uncorroborated claims of a classmate facing punishment, who was caught with prescription strength ibuprofen – the equivalent of two over-the-counter pills of Advil. (And why on earth might a teenaged girl have ibuprofen?)
• No attempt was made to corroborate the classmate’s accusations among other students or teachers.
• The classmate had not claimed that Redding currently possessed any pills, nor had the classmate given any indication as to where they might be concealed.
• No attempt was made to contact Redding’s parents prior to conducting the strip search.

If you want to get some background information on the abundance of scientific literature describing the serious psychological repercussions of being strip-searched at age 13, you should check out the briefs of support that were also filed by the National Association of Social Workers and the Rutherford Institute.

“The strip search was the most humiliating experience I have ever had,” said Redding in a sworn affidavit following the incident. “I held my head down so that they could not see that I was about to cry.”

ACLU Blog: Because Freedom Can’t Blog Itself: Official Blog of the American Civil Liberties Union » Strip Search of 13-Year-Old for Ibuprofen Ruled Unconstitutional

Strip searching a 13-year old on suspicion of ibuprofen...

How the hell does a vice-principal think they have ANY authority to do that???

And yet, if the child were to actually have a headache, they will not give her an aspirin, the parent would be called to the school to take the child home and medicate. This is outrageous! I would likely spend some time in jail for assault if this were my child,

I find the strength of the language in the ruling interesting. It almost gives the tone that they believed this was bordering on criminal. I think there could be a criminal case made against the vice-principal who defaulted to strip searching a 13 year old girl over advil. That wasn't just an unreasonable search; that was an assault.

From your keyboard to the D.A.'s ears, I'll keep my fingers crossed.

That's pretty much it...

It's an abuse of authority; plain and simple...

__________________
"You get the respect that you give" - cnredd

I think it was a little more than just abuse of authority. It would be a different story if this were an adult. Being a minor, at a bare minimum this person needed some kind of authorization or the presence of a parent or legal guardian. It is disturbing that a child could be subjected to the same kind of treatment afforded to arrested criminals or suspected drug dealers. I would not expect jail time, but some kind of admonition, beyond losing her job which is a given I assume, should be afforded.

__________________
"Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty, as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers." - John Jay, First Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, February 28, 1797

Morons are not only in public schools. Want to start talking about catholic schools abusive antics.

I had to do some digging mainly because several of you asked intriguing questions !

To get some answers (since it seems the media is once again too damn lazy to dig a little deeper) I finally found this blog site. Here's a bit more of an understanding about why some dissented and such:

I agree that a strip search was unreasonable. I wouldn't go so far as to call this assault. What this ruling does is allow for a civil lawsuit in which seemingly the school district and the vice principal can be pursued for monetary liability.

Obviously the school district had a zero-tolerance policy, and seemingly it was not clearly defined to what extent officials should go to enforce it.

The vice principal ordered the girl to be searched, and it was conducted by a female nurse and another female witness. I can't be sure if the vice principal knew or ordered the extent of the search. Seemingly the girl caught with pills earlier had been searched as well, even asked to lift her shirt, but not required to strip to underwear or expose herself. Why the discrepancy and who made the decision to 'dig a little deeper', if you will? If the Vice Principal wasn't present, could he really be the person who ordered the two varying degrees of search?

Don't get me wrong, I don't condone what happened and indeed it should be stopped. I'm not sure the vice principal should be monetarily liable, and indeed he should find work elsewhere. The school district, perhaps to some extent, but not exhorbitantly so may well be liable for damages. However it serves no good to award some multi-million dollar settlement. That would only punish the local taxpayers -- and that really isn't the point, is it?

__________________

I am so with you on that sentiment!
Been saying that for years, Baron, and all I get is that I'm a right winger. I'm an Independent with mixed views on political issues. But I am also a mother who has had children in both public and private schools. As well, I have been in Catholic and public schools myself when growing up.
Yes, but you can take your child to another school and private schools compete for your dollars. Kids are pretty much stuck in a public school district. You don't know how really bad it is till you spend the day with a student and observe what they go through.
I'm for filing criminal charges. And the rules -if there are any need to be changed. Remember what these officials were looking for in the first place was freaking Motrin!
If a school official suspects a child has real street drugs, they should call the police.

__________________


________________________________________
Salty

THANKSGIVING MENUS AND TIPS

A GREAT PLACE TO SHOP