Thursday, June 25, 2009

Supreme Court to school authorities who did strip search: kids get to keep their clothes on

Due to my personal experiences at Chula Vista Elementary School District and what I have learned of other districts, I have long believed that teachers and administrators desperately need to brush up on the American Constitution.

It's a problem when those tasked with teaching American values show so much disrespect toward those values.

Supreme Court rules school's strip search of teen Savana Redding unconstitutional
BY James Gordon Meek
June 25th 2009

Savana Redding leaves the U.S. Supreme Court after her case was heard April 21, 2009. The Supreme Court ruled today that a strip search performed on her in the 8th grade was unconstitutional.

WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that a strip search of a 13-year-old schoolgirl by administrators looking for banned medication was unconstitutional.

The high court held in the 8 to 1 opinion that a male assistant school principal in Arizona and a female nurse violated student Savanna Redding's rights when they ordered her to partially undress in a fruitless search for a tiny amount of Ibuprofen pain relief pills.

Only Justice Clarence Thomas dissented in the "regrettable decision" by the majority, reveling in the details of the teen drama.

The conservative justice even questioned whether Redding was really strip-searched - arguing that the term is reserved for those required "to fully disrobe in view of officials."

"What was missing from the suspected facts that pointed to Savana was any indication of danger to the students from the power of the drugs or their quantity, and any reason to suppose that Savana was carrying pills in her underwear," soon-to-retire moderate Justice David Souter wrote in the majority opinion.

The justices described how the Safford Middle School official, Kerry Wilson, told Redding to "pull her bra out and shake it, and to pull out the elastic on her underpants, thus exposing her breasts and pelvic area."

The search - prompted by schoolmates who ratted Redding out as a pill pusher - came up empty.

But the 'tween girl, who had described standing exposed before the school administrators as "humiliating," felt vindicated.

"I'm pretty excited about it, because that's what I wanted," Redding told the Associated Press. "I wanted to keep it from happening to anybody else."

Liberal-leaning Justice John Paul Stevens said Redding's forced nudity - even if partial - was "outrageous conduct."

"I have long believed that 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 of some magnitude," Stevens wrote.

Read more:

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

Comments on this case from North County Times

Roxy June 26, 2009 8:53AM PST
Well let’s see Savanna was 13-years old when the stripped searched occurred. Savanna is now in college. So this is what I have seen in court rulings. A standard appeal takes about six years. In most cases the Ninth Circuit or the Supreme Court rule that they will not entertain the case because the issue is “MOOT.” The issue is moot due to the fact that the student has graduated from k-12 school. Harper v. PUSD is a perfect example of this issue.

In Savanna’s case the court did not rule the issue is moot.

A big problem with our judicial system is this:

(a) Cases with similar issues get different rulings in the 9th Circuit and Supreme Court. This issue has too many critics who say that the courts are not uniformed. So is justice uniformed? No it is not..

(b) Why do civil cases take 6 to 10 years? Why are civil cases the last to be heard in federal court? Well, here in California just a regular motion can take up to a year to be heard. An appeal to the Ninth Circuit can take up to two years. A motion here and a motion there is certainly about four years and then the appeal another two years. A civil case can site in the back of the court collecting dust for 10 years.

After about four years the civil cases collecting dust are suddenly dismissed and many times without any opinion or legal decision. The Ninth Circuit dismisses about ninety percent of its cases with unpublished memorandums.

This means that a THREE-JUDGE PANEL NEVER hears the cases NINETY PERCENT of the time!!!!! Why not after all an appellant pays the same amount of money for an appeal right? An appeal is supposed to be heard by a Three Judge Panel.

Is this unconstitutional?


Who is going to complain right?

To who?
Report Abuse
Roxy June 26, 2009 9:17AM PST
So frankly why do civil cases take so long to move forward in federal court?

Here is my opinion:

First, in California the courts and jails are crammed with drug trafficking and illegal entry. Criminal cases move speedily and precise and most of our court resources are spent in just that criminal cases; drug trafficking, illegal entry, deportation, etc..

Second, state and federal courts protect public agencies that is a given. What this means is that PUBLIC AGENCIES and those who work for them are given SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY meaning that they can practically get way with murder. The courts are not there to acquire rights or justice. Rather to protect the public agencies clandestine practices and public corruption. The courts whether federal or state court are in essence an extension of the system but not certainly independent.

When it comes to appeals whether Ninth Circuit or Supreme Court cases illegal immigration appeals are given priority. Illegal immigrants have access to both the Ninth Circuit Court and the Supreme Court. American Citizen cases sit on a corner collecting dust waiting to be dismissed with Unpublished Memorandums.