The dissent noted that some search was reasonable (such as of Redding's backpack and jacket), but not a strip search. Still, the first dissent noted the judges "can understand how school officials, even though they made an erroneous decision, should have some insulation from liability before our declaration of how these principles applied to this case."
http://www.thisistrue.com/blog-zt_v_savana_redding_a_court_decision.html
In the second dissent, the remaining three judges said that they wouldn't call what happened to Redding a "strip search", in that she was "only" stripped to her underwear -- and school officials only looked inside in her bra and panties, rather than order them removed. The majority actually addressed that point specifically. Reciting both case law and statutes which say stripping someone to their underwear in a search is a "strip search". The three judges then went on to say that essentially, the school's search did meet the requirements of the Supreme Court's rules, so on this point the court was divided 8-3, rather than 6-5.
http://www.thisistrue.com/blog-zt_v_savana_redding_a_court_decision.html
The bottom line is that such questions are hard to decide, even if you spend your day second-guessing the actions of others and have access to law clerks to do research for you, but I agree with the majority of the court: the actions of the school officials (government employees) were outrageous.
This case will almost certainly have a very positive impact in the fight against zero tolerance. The court not only paved the way for the school to be sued, but also the vice principal (who ordered the strip search) but not his assistant and the school nurse (who performed the strip search at his direction). That sends an intense no-nonsense message to school officials: chill out now -- or else you will be personally responsible for what happens, even if you order someone else to do the dirty work. No hiding behind governmental immunity. That will cause such officials to do what they're supposed to do: think about what they're doing. That is, indeed, what we're paying them to do.
Its lawyers said the ruling, if allowed to stand, would "create enormous confusion for school officials in trying to determine when and how searches may now properly be conducted." They also said that because judges do not understand the "shifting trends in drug abuse.” http://articles.latimes.com/2009/jan/17/nation/na-scotus-strip-search17
Thursday, June 18, 2009
RULE OF LAW
The backdrop for the case is a 1985 Supreme Court decision that said school officials need to have only reasonable suspicions, rather than probable cause, to search individual students. That case involved the search of a student's purse, but the justices cautioned against a search "excessively intrusive in light of the age and sex of the student and the nature of the infraction."
http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/01/16/teen.strip.search/
Safford officials say in court briefs that they were on high alert in October 2003 because the year before, a student nearly died after taking prescription medication brought to school by a friend. And they said they had good reason to be suspicious of Savana Redding, despite her honor-roll grades and spotless disciplinary record. http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/01/16/teen.strip.search/
The Bill Of Rights, in the Fourth Amendment specifies (emphasis added),
Amendment 4 - Search and Seizure. Ratified 12/15/1791. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized
http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/01/16/teen.strip.search/
Safford officials say in court briefs that they were on high alert in October 2003 because the year before, a student nearly died after taking prescription medication brought to school by a friend. And they said they had good reason to be suspicious of Savana Redding, despite her honor-roll grades and spotless disciplinary record. http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/01/16/teen.strip.search/
The Bill Of Rights, in the Fourth Amendment specifies (emphasis added),
Amendment 4 - Search and Seizure. Ratified 12/15/1791. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized
MY ARGUMENT
I really think that the courts took way to long with their decision and reasoning but these things always do. I mean come on now what is wrong here let’s see a 13 year old girl was strip searched at a school by the administration, without the consent or knowledge of her parents. I mean is the vice principle stupid or just ignorant. But that is really what is going on the administration thinks that they can do whatever they want if they feel it will protect their students even if that is destroying an honor roll 13 year old girls reputation and all self confidence she may of had which is not much in high school. A self-described nerd, Redding says she wasn't worried.
"I've never been in trouble, so I didn't think there was anything I could possibly have done to be in trouble," Redding says. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=103215199
Listen to what Redding's lawyer, Adam Wolf, counters, that a strip search is entirely different from a search of a purse or a backpack.
"Children call their private parts their private parts for a reason. They not subject to exposure, to observation by school officials. When children are strip-searched, they experience trauma that's similar in kind and degree to sexual abuse," says Wolf.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=103215199
The parents have every reason to sue.
Equally stupid is that the school district has pressed this court case all the way up to the Supreme Court. I mean come on do they really think they have a case. They could be losing millions of dollars. Let not mentioin the cost of the lawyers and time it took to get everything ready, all that money could of gone to buying new books or somthing I know there schools are not in working conditioin and they are making cut backs but they will pay for a lawyer to for a case that they where sure to lose. Shall I say on of my favorate word they are just IDIOTS.
The entire school board and all the administrators and employees involved should have been fired. It makes me crazy that the school district has persisted in incurring the kind of expense involved in pursuing this case, even after a federal appeals court deemed the search “excessively intrusive.”
The Bill Of Rights, in the Fourth Amendment specifies (emphasis added),
Amendment 4 - Search and Seizure. Ratified 12/15/1791.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Bottom line "there is no drug exception to the constitution" and this was a blatant violation of that girls civil liberties point, blank, period.
Does the school district really think they have a case YES THEY DO. Do you know why? THEY ARE IDIOTS, just not any old idiot, THEY ARE THE #@%$!$ IDIOTS!!!
But she won the case so that is all that matters.
"I've never been in trouble, so I didn't think there was anything I could possibly have done to be in trouble," Redding says. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=103215199
Listen to what Redding's lawyer, Adam Wolf, counters, that a strip search is entirely different from a search of a purse or a backpack.
"Children call their private parts their private parts for a reason. They not subject to exposure, to observation by school officials. When children are strip-searched, they experience trauma that's similar in kind and degree to sexual abuse," says Wolf.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=103215199
The parents have every reason to sue.
Equally stupid is that the school district has pressed this court case all the way up to the Supreme Court. I mean come on do they really think they have a case. They could be losing millions of dollars. Let not mentioin the cost of the lawyers and time it took to get everything ready, all that money could of gone to buying new books or somthing I know there schools are not in working conditioin and they are making cut backs but they will pay for a lawyer to for a case that they where sure to lose. Shall I say on of my favorate word they are just IDIOTS.
The entire school board and all the administrators and employees involved should have been fired. It makes me crazy that the school district has persisted in incurring the kind of expense involved in pursuing this case, even after a federal appeals court deemed the search “excessively intrusive.”
The Bill Of Rights, in the Fourth Amendment specifies (emphasis added),
Amendment 4 - Search and Seizure. Ratified 12/15/1791.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Bottom line "there is no drug exception to the constitution" and this was a blatant violation of that girls civil liberties point, blank, period.
Does the school district really think they have a case YES THEY DO. Do you know why? THEY ARE IDIOTS, just not any old idiot, THEY ARE THE #@%$!$ IDIOTS!!!
But she won the case so that is all that matters.
REASONING OF THE COURT
The full U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit eventually ruled that the search violated Savana's Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches and that Vice Principal Kerry Wilson could be found personally liable for ordering the search.
"The public school officials who strip searched Savana acted contrary to all reason and common sense," wrote Judge Kim McLane Wardlaw, who reached back to a previous court decision for the quote that has come to define the case: "It does not require a constitutional scholar to conclude that a nude search of a thirteen-year-old child is an invasion of constitutional rights of some magnitude."
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/judicial/2009-04-21-supreme-court-strip-search_N.htm
On the other hand, it apparently stumped other constitutional scholars. The first judge who heard the Reddings' case agreed with the school system that the search was justified because of accusations that school officials had heard about Savana. He threw out the suit.
A divided three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit upheld that decision.
And while eight judges on the circuit eventually ruled that the search was unconstitutional, several of the judges said Wilson could not have been expected to navigate the shifting legal standards for when such searches are allowed.
"Searches are often fruitless, and students' motives are often benign, but teachers, unlike courts, do not act with the benefit of hindsight," wrote Judge Michael Daly Hawkins.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/judicial/2009-04-21-supreme-court-strip-search_N.htm
The end result was the right one Reddin won the case and now she is attending college and it only took 6 or 7 years to figure out that a strip search on a 13 year old girl without the knowledge of her parents was wrong.
"The public school officials who strip searched Savana acted contrary to all reason and common sense," wrote Judge Kim McLane Wardlaw, who reached back to a previous court decision for the quote that has come to define the case: "It does not require a constitutional scholar to conclude that a nude search of a thirteen-year-old child is an invasion of constitutional rights of some magnitude."
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/judicial/2009-04-21-supreme-court-strip-search_N.htm
On the other hand, it apparently stumped other constitutional scholars. The first judge who heard the Reddings' case agreed with the school system that the search was justified because of accusations that school officials had heard about Savana. He threw out the suit.
A divided three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit upheld that decision.
And while eight judges on the circuit eventually ruled that the search was unconstitutional, several of the judges said Wilson could not have been expected to navigate the shifting legal standards for when such searches are allowed.
"Searches are often fruitless, and students' motives are often benign, but teachers, unlike courts, do not act with the benefit of hindsight," wrote Judge Michael Daly Hawkins.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/judicial/2009-04-21-supreme-court-strip-search_N.htm
The end result was the right one Reddin won the case and now she is attending college and it only took 6 or 7 years to figure out that a strip search on a 13 year old girl without the knowledge of her parents was wrong.
Thursday, June 11, 2009
DECISION OF THE COURT
School officials did not find ibuprofen, which is found in over-the-counter medications like Advil and Motrin. Higher doses require a prescription
The suit was thrown out, but they appealed, and after two rounds got a strongly worded victory from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit -- but with a shockingly thin 6-5 margin.
The appeals court also ruled the assistant principal may be held liable for damages for the search. In its appeal to the Supreme Court, the school argued that the ruling has alarmed administrators and teachers around the country.
The decision "places student safety and school order at risk by impairing the ability of school officials to effectively carry out their custodial responsibility," it said.
Redding's lawyers opposed the appeal.
"A school official simply cannot order a strip search any time a frightened student points an accusatory finger at another student," they said. http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSTRE50F6JA20090116?pageNumber=2&virtualBrandChannel=0&sp=true
The nine justices will hear Safford officials' appeal of a lower court decision that said (The administrators violated Savana's constitutional rights and should be held financially responsible.) http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/judicial/2009-04-15-stripsearch_N.htm
The school has a "zero tolerance" policy against drugs, and extended the principle to all "drugs" -- including over-the-counter pills such as ibuprofen, which teen girls often use to relieve menstrual cramps.
The court ruled that reasoning is outrageous.
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," Judge Kim McLane Wardlaw wrote for the majority of the judges. "More than that: it is a violation of any known principle of human dignity." http://www.thisistrue.com/blog-zt_v_savana_redding_a_court_decision.html
Now, in this case, it was prescription-strength (400 mg) Advil -- one pill is the equivalent of two over-the-counter tablets; two OTC tablets is a typical dose. The court was not swayed by the drug's prescription-only status:
http://www.thisistrue.com/blog-zt_v_savana_redding_a_court_decision.html
The suit was thrown out, but they appealed, and after two rounds got a strongly worded victory from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit -- but with a shockingly thin 6-5 margin.
The appeals court also ruled the assistant principal may be held liable for damages for the search. In its appeal to the Supreme Court, the school argued that the ruling has alarmed administrators and teachers around the country.
The decision "places student safety and school order at risk by impairing the ability of school officials to effectively carry out their custodial responsibility," it said.
Redding's lawyers opposed the appeal.
"A school official simply cannot order a strip search any time a frightened student points an accusatory finger at another student," they said. http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSTRE50F6JA20090116?pageNumber=2&virtualBrandChannel=0&sp=true
The nine justices will hear Safford officials' appeal of a lower court decision that said (The administrators violated Savana's constitutional rights and should be held financially responsible.) http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/judicial/2009-04-15-stripsearch_N.htm
The school has a "zero tolerance" policy against drugs, and extended the principle to all "drugs" -- including over-the-counter pills such as ibuprofen, which teen girls often use to relieve menstrual cramps.
The court ruled that reasoning is outrageous.
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," Judge Kim McLane Wardlaw wrote for the majority of the judges. "More than that: it is a violation of any known principle of human dignity." http://www.thisistrue.com/blog-zt_v_savana_redding_a_court_decision.html
Now, in this case, it was prescription-strength (400 mg) Advil -- one pill is the equivalent of two over-the-counter tablets; two OTC tablets is a typical dose. The court was not swayed by the drug's prescription-only status:
http://www.thisistrue.com/blog-zt_v_savana_redding_a_court_decision.html
Thursday, June 4, 2009
KNOCK OFFS DO AND DONTS
The trade is a good and bad thing. It has it’s pros and cons. I know that it is destroying economy and governments but it is also saving them in different governments so how do we chose what government to save and what economy to preserve.
All around the world there are knock off goods, guns, clothes, jewelry, medicine and even cars, the list just goes on and on and on. So where do we stop. How do we stop, and if we want to stop it how do we start?
I do not really care about the whole illegal goods thing, yeah I know that it does affect me and my country in the long run but I really do not care right now, and beside this is my blog and I can say what I want, where it be good or bad, right or wrong.
The bad thing about the illegal goods when it comes to medicine and such is that it does not always work; you do not get what you are paying for. You pay for Viagra to make your #%@$ stand up but it does not do that it gives your heart burn instead. Well you get the point.
But it also has good things it supports economies and governments. It puts food on the table and just hearing how much you can make hey it sounds pretty good, I think I found a new job. (Jkjk) Well anyways that is what I think on the whole illegal goods things. Ask me again in a few years what I think and I might care a little more hahahahahaha.
All around the world there are knock off goods, guns, clothes, jewelry, medicine and even cars, the list just goes on and on and on. So where do we stop. How do we stop, and if we want to stop it how do we start?
I do not really care about the whole illegal goods thing, yeah I know that it does affect me and my country in the long run but I really do not care right now, and beside this is my blog and I can say what I want, where it be good or bad, right or wrong.
The bad thing about the illegal goods when it comes to medicine and such is that it does not always work; you do not get what you are paying for. You pay for Viagra to make your #%@$ stand up but it does not do that it gives your heart burn instead. Well you get the point.
But it also has good things it supports economies and governments. It puts food on the table and just hearing how much you can make hey it sounds pretty good, I think I found a new job. (Jkjk) Well anyways that is what I think on the whole illegal goods things. Ask me again in a few years what I think and I might care a little more hahahahahaha.
Where I am in my Supreme court case
Where I am on my case is just tugging along. It is not a hard case but I is making me think a lot and if you know me well you know I do not like doing that (just kidding). It is fun learning all the info and learning a new skill. Gathering all the info is not a hard thing it is just time consuming and checking all the resources to make sure they are a legitimate source of information. My next step is decisions of the court and reasoning of the court. I think that these two topics are going to be the biggest next to my own argument. With all 3 of them put together I should be where I need to be in my quest for information and right on track with my project/ case.
This is the work that I love doing and can see myself doing all day. I bet it pays pretty well also. Well this is where I am in my case/ project.
This is the work that I love doing and can see myself doing all day. I bet it pays pretty well also. Well this is where I am in my case/ project.
STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES
Savana Redding, an honor roll student, was stripped searched by school officials at Safford Middle School in Safford, Arizona on October 8, 2003. The reason? A classmate had accused her of possessing and distributing ibuprofen. Just think of what would of happened if they would of found Aspirin and or Tylenol.
Redding was taken out of class by vice-Principal Kerry Wilson and brought to his office where she denied providing the pills to a classmate. Administrative assistant Helen Romero then took her to the school nurse Peggy Schwallier's office where she was strip-searched.
Here's how the appeals court summarized the search:
There, at [vice principal Kerry] Wilson's behest, [Wilson's administrative assistant Helen] Romero and the school nurse, Peggy Schwallier, conducted a strip search of Savana. The officials had Savana peel off each layer of clothing in turn. First, Savana removed her socks, shoes and jacket for inspection for ibuprofen. The officials found nothing. Then, Romero asked Savana to remove her T-shirt and stretch pants. Embarrassed and scared, Savana complied and sat in her bra and underwear while the two adults examined her clothes. Again, the officials found nothing. Still progressing with the search, despite receiving only corroboration of Savana's pleas that she did not have any ibuprofen, Romero instructed Savana to pull her bra out to the side and shake it. Savana followed the instructions, exposing her naked breasts in the process. The shaking failed to dislodge any pills. Romero next requested that Savana pull out her underwear at the crotch and shake it. Hiding her head so that the adults could not see that she was about to cry, Savana complied and pulled out her underwear, revealing her pelvic area. No ibuprofen was found. The school officials finally stopped and told Savana to put her clothes back on and accompany Romero back to Wilson's office. Savana did not freely agree to this search. She was "embarrassed and scared, but felt [she] would be in more trouble if [she] did not do what they asked." In her affidavit, Savana described the experience as "the most humiliating experience" of her short life, and felt "violated by the strip search." (emphasis added)
The school argued that the search was reasonable and justified because pills had been found on campus and a student had linked them to Redding. http://www.svmoms.com/2009/04/hey-supreme-court-keep-your-hands-out-of-my-daughters-underwear.html
The school also insists that it has the right to strip-search honors students even with very little justification so it appeals to Supreme Court. The case will decide whether school officials can strip-search your children at school and get away with it. http://www.svmoms.com/2009/04/hey-supreme-court-keep-your-hands-out-of-my-daughters-underwear.html
Did the District Court err in favoring the school district, while the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals finds Savana Redding’s constitutional rights were violated.
http://www.thisistrue.com/blog-zt_v_savana_redding_a_court_decision.html
http://rongstad.blogspot.com/2009/01/savana-redding-case-goes-to-us-supreme.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)