A victory for US children's dignity and civil rights.

[journeymom]

I'm so, so pleased to hear that the Supreme Court voted that this strip search of a 13 y.o. was illegal.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/SCOTU...7782080&page=1

I was outraged and disgusted that these people thought it was OK to do this to that girl.

[Storm Bride]

I'm glad they found it illegal. I am concerned that protection from individual liability exists for something like this. My first thought when I heard this story was that the principal was a pervert, and the fact that they can do this, without even notifying a parent, and not be held liable, bothers me. This wasn't a committee decision or a policy thing - this was two adults, deciding of their own volition to violate a girl's privacy and physical boundaries.

[Mama2Bug]

The thing that gets me, most of all, is that this child was not accused of having some street drug or even pot. She was being searched for a common, over-the-counter headache medicine! Ibuprofen! Apparently, this was such a dangerous possibility that it warranted a strip-search. ??!!??

I'd like to see some serious charges brought against those who ordered and performed the search. Frankly, I think the principal was just waiting for a reason.

[lotusdebi]

ITA with Storm Bride.
There should be no protection from personal liability for this. At least SOCAS found it unConstitutional. I was really worried about this case...

[Pavlovs]

Why am I not surprised that Clarence Thomas was the only dissenting vote?

I'm glad the Supreme Court decided this well - I just cannot imagine an adult thinking for one second they were justified in asking a child to strip down and shake out their underwear for an advil. A gun, that would put everyone in immediate danger, sure. But any drugs, once you have the person contained, do no pose an immediate threat. There is no reason a parent shouldn't be notified and/or school police who at least know how to conduct a proper search. That principal should be suffering greatly for what was done.

[SashaBreeze]

My dh and I have been really concerned about this as well. I had difficulty understanding something though. Was nothing done as punishment to the system that did this? I mean it's great they ruled it unconstitutional, but if no punishment was dealt out, then what was the point of the ruling?

[Dr.Worm]

Originally Posted by SashaBreeze

My dh and I have been really concerned about this as well. I had difficulty understanding something though. Was nothing done as punishment to the system that did this? I mean it's great they ruled it unconstitutional, but if no punishment was dealt out, then what was the point of the ruling?

Yeah..I'm really glad the Supreme Court did this but that school should be punished!!!

[ChinaDoll]

Originally Posted by Dr.Worm

Yeah..I'm really glad the Supreme Court did this but that school should be punished!!!

Adding my loudest ME TOO! I would have been livid were I the poor girl's parents, or even a parent of other children at the school ... it just canNOT be right that the school gets off scot-free on this one! ::

[Ruthla]

I'm shocked that the individual school officials were protected from "personal liability." I could see protecting the school nurse if she was acting under the principal's orders and was in fear of losing her job, but why on earth is the principal protected?

The very wording of the Supreme Court's verdict is scary to me. The article stated "Here, the content of the suspicion failed to match the degree of intrusion." Does this mean that a strip-search would have been A-OK if she'd been suspected of carrying marijuana?

[JavaJunkie]

Originally Posted by Ruthla

I'm shocked that the individual school officials were protected from "personal liability." I could see protecting the school nurse if she was acting under the principal's orders and was in fear of losing her job, but why on earth is the principal protected?

The very wording of the Supreme Court's verdict is scary to me. The article stated "Here, the content of the suspicion failed to match the degree of intrusion." Does this mean that a strip-search would have been A-OK if she'd been suspected of carrying marijuana?

My thoughts exactly. No child should be strip-searched by school officials. I don't care if that student has been caught with heroin in the past. If a school official thinks that a student is hiding drugs in their underwear, then call the police.

[holyhelianthus]

I was going to : individual posts but pretty much : to everyone! It breaks my heart that this was even a question!

[VisionaryMom]

Unfortunately this isn't the first case of a teacher or principal doing a strip search - just the first girl whose parents pushed it this far. It's sad that I feel if my children go to school, I have to tell them to refuse a strip search even if they're threatened with getting in trouble.

[holyhelianthus]

The decision could redefine student privacy rights and outline important guidelines for school officials as they seek out dangerous contraband, like drugs, weapons or alcohol.

Here's hoping! :

[phathui5]

but why on earth is the principal protected?

He should, at the very least, find himself unemployed.

[Storm Bride]

Originally Posted by Ruthla

IThe very wording of the Supreme Court's verdict is scary to me. The article stated "Here, the content of the suspicion failed to match the degree of intrusion." Does this mean that a strip-search would have been A-OK if she'd been suspected of carrying marijuana?

Almost definitely. I have no doubt it would have been okay if she'd been suspected of anything heavier.

Originally Posted by JavaJunkie

My thoughts exactly. No child should be strip-searched by school officials. I don't care if that student has been caught with heroin in the past. If a school official thinks that a student is hiding drugs in their underwear, then call the police.

I agree. Even if they have real cause to believe the student is hiding a weapon, a strip search isn't necessary. Do a pat down, check pockets, call police. If it's something else, like a dangerous drug, then there's no urgency about it. If the student is contained in a room, under observation, they're not going to be passing heroin to anybody, yk?

This whole case is just vile. I am glad the search was found unconstitutional, but the more I think about the wording, the more it bugs me...