Supreme Court Rules Strip-Search of 13-Year-Old Girl Was Unconstitutional (http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2009/06/25/us/AP-US-SupremeCourt-Stri.html)
QuoteJune 25, 2009
Supreme Court Says Strip Search of Child Illegal
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Filed at 10:46 a.m. ET
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that a school's strip search of an Arizona teenage girl accused of having prescription-strength ibuprofen was illegal.
The court ruled 8-1 on Thursday that school officials violated the law with their search of Savana Redding in the rural eastern Arizona town of Safford.
Redding, who now attends college, was 13 when officials at Safford Middle School ordered her to remove her clothes and shake out her underwear because they were looking for pills -- the equivalent of two Advils. The district bans prescription and over-the-counter drugs and the school was acting on a tip from another student.
"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," Justice David Souter wrote in the majority opinion. "We think that the combination of these deficiencies was fatal to finding the search reasonable."
But the court ruled the officials cannot be held liable in a lawsuit for the search. Different judges around the nation have come to different conclusions about immunity for school officials in strip searches, which leads the Supreme Court to "counsel doubt that we were sufficiently clear in the prior statement of law," Souter said.
"We think these differences of opinion from our own are substantial enough to require immunity for the school officials in this case," Souter said.
The justices also said the lower courts would have to determine whether the Safford United School District No. 1 could be held liable.
A schoolmate had accused Redding, then an eighth-grade student, of giving her pills.
The school's vice principal, Kerry Wilson, took Redding to his office to search her backpack. When nothing was found, Redding was taken to a nurse's office where she says she was ordered to take off her shirt and pants. Redding said they then told her to move her bra to the side and to stretch her underwear waistband, exposing her breasts and pelvic area. No pills were found.
A federal magistrate dismissed a suit by Redding and her mother, April. An appeals panel agreed that the search didn't violate her rights. But last July, a full panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals found the search was "an invasion of constitutional rights" and that Wilson could be found personally liable.
Justices John Paul Stevens and Ruth Bader Ginsburg dissented from the portion of the ruling saying that Wilson could not be held financially liable.
"Wilson's treatment of Redding was abusive and it was not reasonable for him to believe that the law permitted it," Ginsburg said.
The case is Safford Unified School District v. April Redding, 08-479.
I like how the minority judgment added the "... but its okay if you put it on youtube" comment. :D
Good decision.
Here's another interesting decision, one I also approve of.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31545628/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/
QuoteCourt: Defendants may question forensic staff
Man accused in cocaine bust had filed suit to cross-examine lab analyst
Most viewed on msnbc.com
updated 1 hour, 15 minutes ago
WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that criminal defendants have a constitutional right to cross-examine the forensic analysts who prepare laboratory reports on illegal drugs and other evidence used at trial.
The court ruled 5-4 for a defendant who was convicted of cocaine trafficking, partly because of crime lab analysis.
Luis Melendez-Diaz challenged lab analysis that confirmed cocaine was in plastic bags found in the car he was riding in. Rather than accept the report, Melendez-Diaz said he should be allowed to question the lab analyst about testing methods, how the evidence was preserved and other issues.
Massachusetts courts rejected his arguments.
Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the high court, said Melendez-Diaz has a constitutional right to confront the lab analyst.
Tim I am proud of your strong stand for smuggling drugs into schools and cocaine trafficking. You, sir, are a great American.
Quote from: Valmy on June 25, 2009, 12:21:52 PM
Tim I am proud of your strong stand for smuggling drugs into schools and cocaine trafficking. You, sir, are a great American.
:lol: Dick
Quote from: Valmy on June 25, 2009, 12:21:52 PM
Tim I am proud of your strong stand for smuggling drugs into schools and cocaine trafficking. You, sir, are a great American.
Someone has to stand up for the American dream. :)
Quote from: Neil on June 25, 2009, 12:51:18 PM
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on June 25, 2009, 11:50:18 AM
Quote from: Neil on June 25, 2009, 11:48:12 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 25, 2009, 11:31:04 AM
Good decision.
Not at all.
Incorrect.
The word 'incorrect' can never be applied to Me. My positions are correct, by the virtue that they are My own.
As you know everything you already know that you are wrong, which is impossible. I predict this logical impasse will destroy you. :(
Thomas dissented on account that he thought it was hot.
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on June 25, 2009, 01:51:05 PM
Quote from: Neil on June 25, 2009, 12:51:18 PM
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on June 25, 2009, 11:50:18 AM
Quote from: Neil on June 25, 2009, 11:48:12 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 25, 2009, 11:31:04 AM
Good decision.
Not at all.
Incorrect.
The word 'incorrect' can never be applied to Me. My positions are correct, by the virtue that they are My own.
As you know everything you already know that you are wrong, which is impossible. I predict this logical impasse will destroy you. :(
Poor Neil. :(